Ron Harry

I was reading how latest thinking in nutrition circles is discrediting many of the standard numbers we've been taught that were accurate. A pound as being equal to 3500 calories, for example, is now debunked as myth. Also the linear weight gain/loss calculated purely on caloric deficits [or surpluses] on a daily basis, are also being pronounced as 'inaccurate' [body metabolism simply does work on a linear scale].

Plenty of info on the net on all this of course [and can they make our lives any more difficult]. I mean, it is necessary to quantify measurements in some way that we keep track of our training. It may not always be 100% accurate or even precise, but keeping track by numbers [ie quantifying] helps to keep a rational control on things. If nothing else, we can know the vectors of our training [when we slacking off or over working or something else etc].

The thing I'm posting about now however, is none of this is really new. I mean, I doubt many of took any of the numbers we've taught as gospel; but more as 'rational' attempts at standardization; and close enough to work for an organized plan of control.

I myself have never depending on the 'accuracy' of my measurements [I keep spreadsheets on everything, from daily food charts, caloric intakes, outputs, menu planners...all enterfaced with my cycling workouts and some attempt at measuring the caloric output there. It's not micro accurate, but it is systematic and rational.

But I've known this from the getgo, that such measurements 'outside a laboratory' on an ongoing daily life where practicality must weigh functionality with precision. I realize most of all my tracking is 'ballpark' at best. But it does show the vectors rather accurately.

But, I attack these accuracy failings [some built in by the very standards we use, now questioned in professional levels, ie like the 3500 cal = 1 pound apparent myth...statistically. I keep two logs...one 'calculated', caloric deficits/surpluses over time etc...vs actual measurements [on weight scales etc]...and also performance improvements [say in average MPH on certain TT rides etc]. I then calculate and 'adjustment' factor, based on the slopes of the two observed outcomes.

Actual measurements vs calculated...and then 'adjust' the calculated to better match the actual outcomes. There is no sicence per se behind the 'adjustment numbers I use'...just the difference in slopes each observance [during certain periods...and the curves do change over time too; as my body reacts over time].

Anyway, I thought I'd throw the idea out there...as I was reading all the science and nutrition behind training schemes, and it seemed like a quagmire to me, and very unrealistic to follow any methodology prescribed now without an army of technicians and trainers behind you [as in pro ranks for example]. But like I said, if one attacks the problems as a matter of statistics rather than nutritional science, well, it's helped me, and the vectors of my graphs are quite 'right on' really [with some variances, but not too much]. My progress or lack thereof, is quite measurable and tracks well with my charts etc.

Spreadsheets do most of the stat calcs for you; so easy enough I think. Just one layman's attack on keeping track of their own body; but I though worth a word here. Most people may already be generally incorporating most of this anyway. Thanks.

Carbonfiberboy 

I don't know what you've been reading, but there is well established science. The web is full of professional misleaders who profit from gullibility. So the first thing is to not believe what you read on some website unless there's a reference to a clinical trial in a peer-reviewed journal and you've read the study. Frequently I'll see cites of such studies, however the findings are frequently misrepresented by the misleader's website, sometimes inverted. So #1 , if the person wrote a book about it, just click the close button on the tab.

The principles of thermodynamics have not been overturned. A pound of body fat does contain about 3500 calories. Of course not every pound one puts on or takes off is fat. There's also water, protein, and carbohydrates. Still, it is calories in vs. calories out. It's really very simple. A lot of people make money by making other people think it's more complicated than that.

Be that as it may, nothing beats a scale for figuring out if you're losing or gaining weight. A scale won't tell you for sure how that relates to body composition, though. The fancy electronic body comp scales are not too bad at it, as long as you understand that they're not precise on any given day, and the numbers are for comparison, not absolutes.

Nutrition is fairly simple:
Feel tired when exercising? Eat more carbs.
Muscles sore all the time? Eat more protein.
Hungry all the time? Eat more fat.

And nothing beats a power meter for figuring out if you're getting stronger on the bike. And nothing beats an altimeter and a watch for figuring if you're climbing faster.

So you don't need "accuracy" about any of the things you're worried about. Weigh yourself and use metrics to determine fitness.

Food and training in, results out. Simple.

The only thing that's slightly complicated is determining training load and using such a determination to help plan future training. Luckily very smart people have figured that out too, and have created Performance Manager charts to make those determinations fairly simple and rational. If you become a premium member at trainingpeaks.com, the chart comes with the membership. Costs ~$100/year and is totally worth it.

So then it's all really simple. You need:
Scale
Tape, if you're interested in body composition
Recording heart rate monitor/cycle computer/GPS that will upload to the web, usually Garmin or Polar
Membership at trainingpeaks.
You don't really need a power meter. It's just more accurate. You can upload to Strava and race against yourself to gauge improvement.

chaadster

Ha! All he needs is a powermeter!