[Closed] Body Fat %

But we think the professional full time cyclist (sponsored by protein bar manufacturers) are taking extra and you want what they've got, how much more do you need given your near pro physiology 50%, 100%

I think you'll find they eat according to their team dietician / best available science, as they're in the business of maximising performance. Not that many teams are sponsored by Protein bar manufactures (there isn't enough money in it to be able to afford to sponsor a Pro team).

in a word ... No!
2yrs into keto and strong as an Ox n ripped to the bone

Sample size of 1, too many variables between individuals to draw any conclusion.

And I'm not doing keto. Step too far for mem

shame! because its an easy and Very very tasty step 😀

And I'm not doing keto. Step too far for me.

I don't think anyone suggested you do.

Nowt wrong with supplementing a good diet with protein boosters if you're working hard. As above, they can be a good way of getting the levels where you think you need them without taking on extra fats and carbs.

I think many misunderstand the benefit of extra protein and think it's strictly for muscle types much like the way weightlifting is perceived by those without experience.

shame! because its an easy and Very very tasty step

Aye right.

You don't need more protein, you can digest and absorb more yes but your body can only utilize a small amount of that for muscle growth. The rda is more than enough unless you take anabolics which is the only way you increase the rate you can turn it into muscle.

Diet stuff aside, my take from this is your exercise is wrong for burning fat. Vo2 max sessions and hard club rides are going to do wonders for your cardio fitness, as you're likely working in the upper heart-rate zones. But your body is going to be burning glucose in your bloodstream to fuel those. So it'll be working off your most recent meal, not your fat stores.

To burn fat, you need to slow down. Long rides at max zone 2 heart rate so you body switches into fat burning for fuel.

In my running training I find I always lose weight marathon training as I'm spending long hours at low heart rates. For the summer road race season I always maintain or gain weight as I do a lot of short running at high intensity. My calorie intake is always neutral throughout (I eat what I burn + BMR amount).

In short, I'd keep the mid week high intensity trainer sessions, but I'd switch club groups on a weekend to the old-boys long distance group and spend three hours at a low heart rate.

A very complex topic, lots of theories, lots of science which is why this has stretched to 5 pages. I find it fascinating both from a scientific point of view and in seeing how different people interpret science and media publications.

I was going to comment on this

To burn fat, you need to slow down. Long rides at max zone 2 heart rate so you body switches into fat burning for fuel.

I thought this was a myth (cit. needed 😉 ). My understanding is that your body will always use the most readily available fuel which will be you glycogen stores. This will be replenished either by supplies coming from digestion or from metabolizing your fat reserves. I don't think your body preferentially uses fat reserves under any circumstances. What slow rides allow you to do is to continue to use up energy at a rate where your fat reserves can supply them if the other sources aren't there. So doing a long slow ride will only work if you do it slightly in calorie deficit - if you eat cake all ride this will be the energy stores.

The problem with high intensity exercise is that the fuel source pretty much has to come from glycogen and carbohydrate, fat is not fast enough. As such you can do them calorie deficient* but you will bonk most spectacularly.

*By this I don't mean completely fasted, just don't put in as much as you are planning on using on an overall balance.

[i] jonba - Member

A very complex topic, lots of theories, lots of science which is why this has stretched to 5 pages. I find it fascinating both from a scientific point of view and in seeing how different people interpret science and media publications.

[u]My understanding[/u] is that your body will always use the most readily available fuel which will be you glycogen stores. This will be replenished either by supplies coming from digestion or from metabolizing your fat reserves. I don't think your body preferentially uses fat reserves under any circumstances.[/i]

During exercise, people use a variable ratio of fat to carbohydrate.
Yes, carbohydrate is more readily consumed in the muscles in order to provide energy for movement, which is why we see people use a higher ratio of carbohydrate to fat, [u]to provide the energy to sustain high intensity exercise[/u], until those carbohydrate stores are significantly depleted, etc.

Conversely, this is also why we see people [u]at low intensity exercise[/u]. Sustain their activity using energy, a higher ratio of which comes from fat, while obviously using a lower amount of carbohydrate.

Long and slow in order to try to reduce BF% is for a lot of people, V boring. I'd suggest dealing with boredom is part of the challenge one chooses to face, in order to achieve their goals, but Ho-Hey, each to their own.

Likewise, HIIT is mostly employed to manifest physiological adaptation to improve strength, or whatever the goal is, for bringing about that physiological adaption.

So in simple terms one makes their choice to do one or the other. However, some folk may try a bit of both, simultaneously, which would be very difficult to do, successfully, as pointed out in an earlier post.

If you cut out the bread and crisps then you'd loose far more fat than you're currently doing. Replace these with rice, couscous etc. Also add perhaps one session of weights work into your training every week. That will help you loose just the fat rather than a combination of fat and muscle weight. Simple, worked for me.

To burn fat, you need to slow down. Long rides at max zone 2 heart rate so you body switches into fat burning for fuel.

I thought this was a myth

For anyone not familiar with Trainer Road, it also includes Z2 worksouts. In fact I was up 6am this morning doing exactly that in a fasted state.

to burn fat efficiently you need to be in carb deficit, if you have any glycogen in your system your body will naturally use that first and store the fats until the glycogen is depleted.

I personally function extremely well on animal fat, Moderate protein and under 20gm of low GI carbs per day, im about 8% body fat and can ride all day without 'bonking' so something tells me this is the best way simply because its soooo easy! IF you are battling to get fat off then IMO you are doing something wrong.
Nutritional ketosis is the right way to get the results you are after.

read this. http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Art-Science-Carbohydrate-Performance/dp/0983490716
or Ignore it and carry on with the battle you cannot win 🙂

Not saying you won't lose fat this way, just that HIIT is way more efficient time-wise.

It's not a myth if it works 🙂

I have a feeling that the studies on HIIT don't result in ALL participants losing more weight than ALL the control.

There is no "magic switch" in the body where it flicks from fat to glycogen at a certain intensity level

So what explains the blood lactate/intensity graph? (genuine question)

to burn fat efficiently you need to be in carb deficit, if you have any glycogen in your system your body will naturally use that first and store the fats until the glycogen is depleted.

At low intensities.

im about 8% body fat and can ride all day without 'bonking'

Fine, but what about your sprint? Not everyone wants to ride all day, lots of different kinds of cycling. I suspect that keto is not the best way to train for XC racing for example.

In short, there are lots of things you can do that will result in weight loss. Which one works for you physically and personally depends on your preference, your lifestyle, your goals, your genes and what you want to achieve in terms of riding.

my sprint is fine thanks, for a 50yr old who rides for fun 😆
all I can say is that since I have been in ketosis my body composition is waaay better, my performance is better and more important to me my joint pains are much less than they were 🙂

People seem to make this more complex than it is....

If you want to lose fat go into calorific deficit. don't over do it cause it's not sustainable.

In setting your calorie level include how much you need to achieve your training goals.

Review your progress every four weeks. are you losing fat? Are you achieving your goals? And change your diet accordingly.

Andy Morgan seems to have a no BS approach that's easy to follow.

[url= http://rippedbody.jp/complete-diet-nutrition-set-up-guide/ ]diet set up[/url]

Sure it's aimed at building muscle but it's all just energy.. why make it complex

He also answers the OPs question...

[url= http://rippedbody.jp/diet-progress-tracking/ ]how to track your progress[/url]

People seem to make this more complex than it is....

If you want to lose fat go into calorific deficit. don't over do it cause it's not sustainable.

Right and wrong, if you want to loose fat, muscle and weight just go on a calorie deficient diet.

If you want to loose just the fat and therefore weight (but not muscle), then don't worry too much about calories, just cut down on sugar, processed carbs and eat more natural sources of protein plus plenty of carbs from vegetables.

calorie deficit? Ok then explain this! I regularly have over 4000+ calories per day of animal fats (and stay very lean) but recently did an experiment where I was 'supposed for a week' to eat a normal carb diet of around 3000/3500 calories, BUT at the end of day 3 my weight had gone up by 12'lbs and my waist circumference by 5 inches 😯 so I cut the experiment off right there and then! so Explain the calorie thing to me???

I'm getting confused by this thread, but not the scientific bit, surely the OP has lost fat and probably not much, if any muscle, by dropping 7lb since Christmas. It's the believing of the fat % given by the crappy scales that's misled him into thinking he hasn't. Or have I missed something ?

[i] zilog6128 - Member

To burn fat, you need to slow down. Long rides at max zone 2 heart rate so you body switches into fat burning for fuel.
I thought this was a myth
Yeah this is a myth that belongs back in the 80s along with Jane Fonda workout videos. Not saying you won't lose fat this way, just that HIIT is way more efficient time-wise. There is no "magic switch" in the body where it flicks from fat to glycogen at a certain intensity level. The body is way more complicated than that. [/i]

TrickyDisco posted test results, which IIRC, demonstrated that the ratio/amount of fat used in comparison to exercise intensity, varied inversely.
The higher the intensity, the less fat TD was using and vice-versa.

HIIT uses fat to fuel adaptation. Building muscle, for example, requires energy as well as protein. This is where you see people digressing about post-workout "burning" etc.

[i] molgrips - Member
In short, there are lots of things you can do that will result in weight loss. Which one works for you physically and personally depends on your preference, [b]your lifestyle, your goals,[/b] your genes and what you want to achieve in terms of riding. [/i]

Agreed.
(My emphasis in relation to the OP's comments)

I'm getting confused by this thread, but not the scientific bit, surely the OP has lost fat and probably not much, if any muscle, by dropping 7lb since Christmas. It's the believing of the fat % given by the crappy scales that's misled him into thinking he hasn't. Or have I missed something ?

You are quite right, but the thread has since "evolved" many times in the time old tradition of STW.

There is some useful stuff being added though!

BUT at the end of day 3 my weight had gone up by 12'lbs and my waist circumference by 5 inches so I cut the experiment off right there and then! so Explain the calorie thing to me???

From what I understand, the weight gain would come from water attached to the glycogen. 1 gram of glycogen bonds to 3-4 grams of water.

For the waist size, it's highly unlikely (impossible!) that you put on fat around your middle so quickly so will be stomach bloating from the sudden reintroduction of carbs (I'm guessing bread, pasta etc)

TrickyDisco posted test results, which IIRC, demonstrated that the ratio/amount of fat used in comparison to exercise intensity, varied inversely.

aye.. did a fitness test years ago hooked up to various things and measured certain things

[img] [/img]

at the end of the test I was told I was rubbish at burning fats for fuel

[i] centralscrutinizer - Member
Or have I missed something ? [/i]

I think we all agreed earlier, using your bathroom scales to gain a useful BF% probably wasn't "[i]best practice[/i]".

[i]Trickydisco - Member

at the end of the test I was told I was rubbish at burning fats for fuel [/i]

However, IIRC, you did improve your ability to use more fat, via change in diet and exercise, no?

Your experience also substantiates, if not already obvious, MolGrips point about genetic variation between individuals.

trickydisco, was it you who re-did those test having done a fair bit of training in between?

at the end of the test I was told I was rubbish at burning fats for fuel

HIIT uses fat to fuel adaptation. Building muscle, for example, requires energy as well as protein. This is where you see people digressing about post-workout "burning" etc.

Reckon there must be something in these two things. I don't think I'm particularly good at utilising fat for fuel during exercise (and I tend to put on a bit of weight during winter base work). All comes off pretty quickly and I get much leaner as soon as I start introducing more high intensity work, so using fat to fuel some adaptation rather than the training sounds about right.

Either do what Lawnmanmx says about keto (if you are educated enough to do it) or keep your foods high sugar and very low fat only. For the love of God don't listen to any of these telling you to eat a caloric deficit. Why do you think so many women get fatter once they come off their slimming world ect diets. The caloric deficit is destroying your metabolism. A study put 100 men on 1600 calorie diets and at the end the results were devastating to their bodies. Caloric deficit is starving not dieting.
Also low intensity is better for fat loss simply because you can do it longer. Your body holds I think roughly 700calories worth of glycogen ready to use so once you've burnt that off without eating your into fat stores, that's why it's better to train on an empty stomach first thing in the morning because it's already depleted.

People seem to make this more complex than it is.

It is very complicated. Simply saying it's not doesn't make it so 🙂

However, IIRC, you did improve your ability to use more fat, via change in diet and exercise, no?

yep. I did. I effectively followed idave/4hour body and did lots of 1 hour sessions with my HR at 140

The coach/tester said my zone 2 level (the zone at which i was utilising the most amount of energy from fats) was 125-144bpm. After 6 months this 'zone' was 140-158bpm.

He did talk a lot about trying to make that zone 2 area as big as possible. My v02max wattage was fairly good (okay not cat 1 level) but it was too far apart from my threshold. He was more interested in moving that threshold further up than improving v02max

@TrickyDisco.

Thanks for sharing.
😀

Np.

I'm a world away from that. I was very much into training/diet 4-5 years ago. Doing a few xc races, road races and crits.

Would definitely recommend doing one of these fitness tests as it helped me structure training and drove me to look at my diet.

I know the idave/4 hour body causes a lot of discussion here but it certainly worked for me (dropped 6kg of fat, stopped carb cravings and felt i had more energy) and also 4 other mates who were very sceptical (what do you mean you don't count calories, I can eat what i want 1 day a week?.. that can't be right) and it worked for them

calorie deficit? Ok then explain this! I regularly have over 4000+

Sure. You're hacking the system by keeping insulin levels low... I've done that myself. It's not the only way of doing it and I enjoy eating cake!

Right and wrong, if you want to loose fat, muscle and weight just go on a calorie deficient diet

If you read the links on my post, he gives a way of maintaining/increasing muscle while loosing fat.

I've been loosing 0.5kg a week but lifting heavier weights, for the last 2 months.

Eat less on rest days more on workout days, watch your protein levels and account for how much fuel you need for your workout.

I've been loosing 0.5kg a week but lifting heavier weights, for the last 2 months.

If you're relatively new to weight training (or have returned to it) the gains are mainly from neurological adaption (muscle memory) rather than any hypertrophy, so you could be losing muscle mass and still lifting heavier weights.

Nope. Definitely gained muscle. Been pretty consistent for a year..

It is very complicated. Simply saying it's not doesn't make it so

The way the body processes and uses food/drink for energy and the way the different energy systems interact is very complicated but the 1st law of thermodynamics is simple. Consume more energy than you use and it gets stored, consume less and you lose weight. The method or internal energy source shouldn't affect that.

Just had a skinfold test done, turns out I'm estimated 13% bodyfat (total skin fold 50.1mm, which apparently is a better measure), pretty pleased with that, now I just need to work out how to cycle quickly 😆

I know the idave/4 hour body causes a lot of discussion here but it certainly worked for me

It worked very well for me *at first*. Lost 10kg through it and riding.

However, my 'training' and 'dieting' is characterised by periods on and off the wagon, because every time I get into a groove my work circumstances change which means different places to be, different amounts to do and so on. It takes me a while to suss out the new environment each time before I get back on it.

Interestingly though each time, the iDiet has been less effecive. I road loads last summer, but higher intensity, and whilst I got a lot faster and boosted endurance no end (due to fasted riding) I maintained a pretty high weight (for me).

My response to the diet and exercise has changed as I've trained and dieted over the years.

the 1st law of thermodynamics is simple

It is, but there are many many variables.

So much happens to the food that goes into your mouth before it gets your your fat and muscle cells, and your energy expenditure is so much more complex than simply how long you spend on the bike, that it is pretty distractingly oversimplistic to keep on about the laws of thermodynamics when talking to training cyclists trying to achieve a racing weight.

the 1st law of thermodynamics is simple

Human body isn't though. There are so many feedback loops which can change and alter steady state / response to stimulii behaviour.

I'm sure the interactions are complex but I think people are getting in a tiz shooting for minimal gains when they'd be better off using the 20:80 rule.

The food that you eat isn't simple fuel for a simple machine. It gets broken down into all sorts of chemicals by other chemicals which then are affected by other chemicals that promote the release of other checmicals which affect the body's different types of cells so that they process the chemicals into other chemicals - some of which are yellow and fatty and heavy, and those cells then secrete other chemicals which affect what they and their neighbours do with their chemicals... then other chemicals affect the chemicals that make up brain cell communications which then affect the bits of the brain that choose what to eat, and also the brain secretes other chemicals that affect all these other cells.. and so on and so on.

There's no central control unit separating the calories out of food and sending it one way or the other.

I think people are getting in a tiz shooting for minimal gains when they'd be better off using the 20:80 rule

Aye, you know best eh. Who are you again?

I'm at least 10kg over what I'd be happy with for racing. That's not minimal. It's a very stubborn 10kg though, for some reason.

[i] centralscrutinizer - Member

The way the body processes and uses food/drink for energy and the way the different energy systems interact is very complicated but the 1st law of thermodynamics is simple. Consume more energy than you use and it gets stored, consume less and you lose weight. The method or internal energy source shouldn't affect that. [/i]

Ah, the 1st law gets a mention. Energy is energy, right. Energy is measured, in this context, in calories. But not all calories are processed by the body in the same way.

The method is effected because the body isn't a simple engine. You can't just run the body like an engine for 'X' units of time and expect a particular result in energy expenditure. The complexity of the body means you can only alter things within a certain window of operation. Otherwise OP could just measure total fat content of their body. Do the maths and run about, continously, for a few weeks. But its not that simple. We fatigue, there are backround processes for general maintenance and repair, etc, etc.

[i] molgrips - Member

My response to the diet and exercise has changed as I've trained and dieted over the years. [/i]

Aging will play a part in this. Hormonal response change over time for different reasons including age.

[i]it is pretty distractingly oversimplistic to keep on about the laws of thermodynamics when talking to training cyclists trying to achieve a racing weight.[/i]
Yeap.

[i] footflaps - Member

the 1st law of thermodynamics is simple

Human body isn't though. There are so many feedback loops which can change and alter steady state / response [b]to stimulii behaviour.[/b] [/i]

Also a good point.

Ultimately the 1st law must be obeyed, but it looks to me ^^ as if a few folk know it's just not that simple.

Well thats good news.

My skinfold calipers arrived, and I'm 10.5%, on the border of lean/ideal for my age.

Phew