Body fat target.
Discussion
BenM77 said:
Thanks mate. I thought attitude magazine was going to be mma or boxing. A quick
Google tells me you are on the wind up
If you're looking and feeling better then that's great. but having read your posts regarding diet and supplements can you honestly say it is sustainable?
It reads more like a transformation than a life long approach IMO
Can I honestly say it is sustainable?Google tells me you are on the wind up
If you're looking and feeling better then that's great. but having read your posts regarding diet and supplements can you honestly say it is sustainable?
It reads more like a transformation than a life long approach IMO
The answer is that I don't know if it's sustainable because I am not at 11%BF so I don't know what it's going to take to achieve it and stay there (nowadays). When I was at that level or lower in the past I was generally engaging in unhealthy pastimes like skipping meals and smoking. I want to do it now whilst eating regularly and being healthy.
The difficulty as you suggest is reaching and then maintaining a target BF. I am by nature goal orientated and find it hard to stay interested when I have achieved a goal. My lifestyle also makes it very difficult to be "clean" all the time. However, it seems that I can be rather more dirty than I was being and get away with it providing I do things slightly differently.
The process has certainly taught me a lot and reminded me of a few things I'd forgotten. It has also opened my eyes to a couple of other opportunities that I will explore at a later date.
Eleven said:
Halb said:
BenM77 said:
It reads more like a transformation than a life long approach IMO
Transformation into.....MAGNESIUM MAN!!!!
Westy Carl said:
Eleven said:
I think the point you're making is that the numbers don't quite make sense.
Yes, the numbers make no sense at all, however if you're pleased with it then happy days.I am not sure exactly how the algorithm works, but there are 11 sites tested and small changes in two locations (top of knee and calf) can have a disproportionately large effect upon the numbers. A poor night's sleep can immediately show as a gain in BF, for example.
Am I pleased with it? I am neither pleased nor displeased, it's numbers. I AM pleased that I have lost fat visibly however.
Eleven said:
The numbers make no sense to you, they seem to make sense to him.
I am not sure exactly how the algorithm works, but there are 11 sites tested and small changes in two locations (top of knee and calf) can have a disproportionately large effect upon the numbers. A poor night's sleep can immediately show as a gain in BF, for example.
Am I pleased with it? I am neither pleased nor displeased, it's numbers. I AM pleased that I have lost fat visibly however.
Last comment I'll make;I am not sure exactly how the algorithm works, but there are 11 sites tested and small changes in two locations (top of knee and calf) can have a disproportionately large effect upon the numbers. A poor night's sleep can immediately show as a gain in BF, for example.
Am I pleased with it? I am neither pleased nor displeased, it's numbers. I AM pleased that I have lost fat visibly however.
The numbders make no sense becuase you can't loose 1Kg of BF in 2 days, also if a poor night sleep can show an increase in BF then either
the measurement is inaccurate
it's all a load of hocus pocus
A genuine reduction in BF is bascially calorie deficit (take your choice of how to achieve this)
I'd ask some more questions to fully understand what you are getting for your hard earned £££
Westy Carl said:
Eleven said:
The numbers make no sense to you, they seem to make sense to him.
I am not sure exactly how the algorithm works, but there are 11 sites tested and small changes in two locations (top of knee and calf) can have a disproportionately large effect upon the numbers. A poor night's sleep can immediately show as a gain in BF, for example.
Am I pleased with it? I am neither pleased nor displeased, it's numbers. I AM pleased that I have lost fat visibly however.
Last comment I'll make;I am not sure exactly how the algorithm works, but there are 11 sites tested and small changes in two locations (top of knee and calf) can have a disproportionately large effect upon the numbers. A poor night's sleep can immediately show as a gain in BF, for example.
Am I pleased with it? I am neither pleased nor displeased, it's numbers. I AM pleased that I have lost fat visibly however.
The numbders make no sense becuase you can't loose 1Kg of BF in 2 days, also if a poor night sleep can show an increase in BF then either
the measurement is inaccurate
it's all a load of hocus pocus
A genuine reduction in BF is bascially calorie deficit (take your choice of how to achieve this)
I'd ask some more questions to fully understand what you are getting for your hard earned £££
I attribute the discrepancy above to inefficiencies in the measuring process and small changes in statistically significant measuring points, as opposed to hocus pocus, I am of course open to other (educated) explanations.
You do have a tendency, Carl, to rubbish ideas without fully understanding them yourself. I seem to recall you doing the same with ketogenic diets and then you admitted shortly afterwards that you didn't actually understand how they worked! Try to keep an open mind fella!
I went into this process with my eyes open and prepared to be disappointed. I am as cynical as the next man (unless the next man happens to be you of course). At the end I absolutely WILL give an honest opinion regarding how it went. I though people would be interested in my progress or lack thereof, hopefully you are too so please stay tuned Westy Carl.
Eleven said:
You do have a tendency, Carl, to rubbish ideas without fully understanding them yourself. I seem to recall you doing the same with ketogenic diets and then you admitted shortly afterwards that you didn't actually understand how they worked! Try to keep an open mind fella!
I though people would be interested in my progress or lack thereof, hopefully you are too so please stay tuned Westy Carl.
Arghh you made me comment again I though people would be interested in my progress or lack thereof, hopefully you are too so please stay tuned Westy Carl.
Didn't mean to be overly negative, but the figures just don't work (I'm an Engineer by qualification so love figures). I'll also happily admit I'm a bit old fashioned when it comes to exercise and "new ideas", 20yrs of experience have taught me it's still bascially calories in vs calories out.
As I said before, if it's working for you, happys days. (it would be boring if everyone was the same)
Eleven said:
No you cannot lose 1kg body fat in 2 days without surgery, I agree. However it is possible to have a marked statistical change in body composition over a very short period, mostly due to how much and where water is stored.
That is backed by my own data. When I was 'on top of it' last Autumn, I was looking at the stats every few days. Over a lengthy period one could see how hydration would affect my lean muscle mass weight. By considerable amount.MYOB said:
Westy Carl said:
I'm a bit old fashioned when it comes to exercise and "new ideas", 20yrs of experience have taught me it's still bascially calories in vs calories out.
At last, someone speaks sense 
The reason I started this process was because I was in a deficit situation and shedding fat at a glacial pace, whilst feeling like crap. I am losing fat more quickly at the moment and feeling generally fine.
The calories in vs calories out argument is correct up to a point, but there is a tendency for some people to keep chanting it with their fingers in their ears because it's all they understand. It's about as rational as chanting, "want to get muscles go to the gym".
Fair play to you OP. I've read the thread through first to last post, and I'll admit as soon as I saw 'nutritionist' I was thinking of duck noises. I also thought the worst when I saw skin fold measurements for body composition - not the most accurate way, but the more sites used the better, and the person doing it needs to 'calibrate' themselves regularly. FYI, compared to a dunk tank method ( http://sportsmedicine.about.com/od/fitnessevalanda...) I was a good 7% more when measured with skin fold, and that was tested by a university lecturer in the lab.
In any case, back to my point - reading this you've been honest and transparent throughout, so fair one. And it's making a difference (even with a statistical sample size of one, so no guarantees your regime will work for anyone else).
On the cals in, cals out thing, this is basically the case - otherwise the first law of thermodynamics doesn't hold. However, there is a question of efficiency (so how many of the cals end up being actually processed by the body into work done by it, rather than going straight through), and there are nuances - e.g. alcohol contains 7 cals of energy per gram, but your body cannot process it raw into usuable energy, it processes it into fat first, and then it can be used.
Don't know that I'd set a BF target based on skinfold test especially if you're not doing this for anything other than aesthetics. But again, fair play to you, you're putting in the work and making the sacrifices. 2000mg of Magnesium! Not surprised you're off to the traps quick sharp.
My university qualification is in Sports Science, BTW, albeit 20+ years old.
In any case, back to my point - reading this you've been honest and transparent throughout, so fair one. And it's making a difference (even with a statistical sample size of one, so no guarantees your regime will work for anyone else).
On the cals in, cals out thing, this is basically the case - otherwise the first law of thermodynamics doesn't hold. However, there is a question of efficiency (so how many of the cals end up being actually processed by the body into work done by it, rather than going straight through), and there are nuances - e.g. alcohol contains 7 cals of energy per gram, but your body cannot process it raw into usuable energy, it processes it into fat first, and then it can be used.
Don't know that I'd set a BF target based on skinfold test especially if you're not doing this for anything other than aesthetics. But again, fair play to you, you're putting in the work and making the sacrifices. 2000mg of Magnesium! Not surprised you're off to the traps quick sharp.
My university qualification is in Sports Science, BTW, albeit 20+ years old.
EggsBenedict said:
On the cals in, cals out thing, this is basically the case - otherwise the first law of thermodynamics doesn't hold. However, there is a question of efficiency (so how many of the cals end up being actually processed by the body into work done by it, rather than going straight through), and there are nuances - e.g. alcohol contains 7 cals of energy per gram, but your body cannot process it raw into usuable energy, it processes it into fat first, and then it can be used.
Thanks EggsBenedictI thought I'd pick out this section for two reasons.
Whilst I appreciate that cals in vs cals out is a fundamental there are other factors to be considered (as you say). When I was younger I found that if I reduced calories for long enough I'd get the desired effect and look great. I am mid to late forties now and that strategy just made me feel and look dreadful this time round without achieving my goal. Mixing up a cycling ketogenic diet and sensible carb choices (when I am eating "conventionally") seems to be making a lot of difference in terms of how I look and feel.
Alcohol - this seems to be quite important. It was, I think, the elephant in the room. I didn't drink a lot but I drank regularly, so it was perpetually stalling my fat loss efforts. Your explanation of why alcohol is a problem is the same one the nutritionist gave.
Side note - I am still on the magnesium but the exciting bowel effects have abated largely.
Eleven said:
Whilst I appreciate that cals in vs cals out is a fundamental there are other factors to be considered (as you say). When I was younger I found that if I reduced calories for long enough I'd get the desired effect and look great. I am mid to late forties now and that strategy just made me feel and look dreadful this time round without achieving my goal. Mixing up a cycling ketogenic diet and sensible carb choices (when I am eating "conventionally") seems to be making a lot of difference in terms of how I look and feel.
I don't know masses about this, but the way your metabolism works changes as you age. Kids have a much greater propensity to use fat as an energy source than adults, for example as they primarily use aerobic energy systems. As you get older (in general) your body gets more efficient at retaining fat, until a point in old age where that is no longer true. You can google this for real scientific studies, although you need to be careful that you know how to read one and make an assessment about its validity. This is an illustration http://physrev.physiology.org/content/86/2/651.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X2DFfaTvjI
Interesting vid regarding body fat.
10minsbut worth the data at the end.
What seriously surprised me was how little the skeleton weighed!
Interesting vid regarding body fat.
10minsbut worth the data at the end.
What seriously surprised me was how little the skeleton weighed!
Asterix said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X2DFfaTvjI
Interesting vid regarding body fat.
10minsbut worth the data at the end.
What seriously surprised me was how little the skeleton weighed!
He is quite a small bloke, I was surprised it was so much. I am guessing the density helped.Interesting vid regarding body fat.
10minsbut worth the data at the end.
What seriously surprised me was how little the skeleton weighed!
It was a great vid, I guessed him at 7%.
Halb said:
He is quite a small bloke, I was surprised it was so much. I am guessing the density helped.
It was a great vid, I guessed him at 7%.
It puts into perspective what %BF people claim for themselves, doesn't it. Most people guess on the low side I would wager.It was a great vid, I guessed him at 7%.
When I started this process I was 19.1%, but measured in the least favourable conditions. I am now 15.4% measured in more flattering circumstances. When I was 19.1 I looked, in my opinion, fatter than that. I look lower than 15.4 now. The reason for that is that fat is not evenly distributed. I am 10 in some site measurements but 23 at the umbilical.
Eleven said:
I am 10 in some site measurements but 23 at the umbilical.
Most people vary like that, which is why a chart is used to work out the bf%. All men are more likely to store fat on their lower stomachs and this is configured in the results. Let's face it if we all only worked off the result from our triceps or subscapularis we'd be much happier! Who does the caliper test on you BTW?Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff