 |
|
Diet & Weight Loss Forums > General Discussions > General Discussions > fine-tuning feedback: goal/approach |
| Moderated by: zenobia | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Nir Senior Administrator 
|
Hi everyone, I'm new to forum. Reading newsletters for a while, recently discovered FAQs and calculators and finally the forum. (It's all good). My story: slightly overweight for years though 'normal' BMI since 2003. Tried Atkins in 2004 though abandoned in favour of healthy eating in 2004/2005 due to love of fruit and veg. Maintaining a healthy weight is something I find challenging as temptations are everywhere. When I'm not "focused" on healthy eating I can stray far away. I know some nutrition but I am weak of will. (btw I tried including as many relevant numbers as I could, in order to paint a meaningful picture) MY STATISTICS: Male, 33yrs, 1.66m, 60.0kg, 15.0% bodyFat (say Tanita scales at the gym), Sedentary job. I could do with specific feedback and comments on both (1) my goal and (2) my approach (1) basically my current goal is to reach BodyFat=10%. Previously I have been aiming for BMI=20.0 but I will now accept a higher BMI if I reach 10% fat (though if I reach BMI 20.0 at a higher fat% I'll probably switch goal to gaining muscle mass). Is it more sensible to aim for a particular BodyFat% or for a particular BMI? Are the numbers that I have picked sensible? (please take it for granted that I'd like to have a numerical goal and that I think it will motivate me more than a fluffy 'whatever feels right' goal) (2) first, flaws with the approach I'm trying to depart from (A) allowed myself too many 'mistakes' and 'exceptions' to healthy eating (B) have over-estimated the weight-control effects of exercise (C) portion control was lacking for 'calorie-denser' healthy foods like protein and fruits The result, over last 4 months, is weight increase of 2kg and fat from 12% to 15%, despite reasonable exercise levels and healthy eating. Disappointing. Revised approach: restrict calories to 85% of RMR (1250cal - right?) with 6 meals: each built around approx 15g of protein and some veg/fruit (I won't actually count every calorie - I'll just get the protein right and avoid overdoing fruits/pulses/grain). Don't treat myself to extra calories if I am exercising. If I'm lucky enough to burn extra calories through exercise they'll just increase the "calorie deficit". Ocassionally I use a cardio machine like a stair-master, which reads my HR. I'm quite fit. Am I right to assume that having my HR at 80% * (220 - 33) = 150 is OK and I won't risk loosing muscle mass, or is workout out at lower intensities advantagous? [my protein consumption is 30% of calories and I'm sure my calorie deficit is never more than 1000 - frequently less] Incidentally, gym personnel have told me that I'm unlikely to build appreciable muscle (the way a body-builder would) whilst simultaneously trying to burn fat by creating a calorie deficit as body builders take on _more_ calories than their body requires. What is your take on that? True? a hint of truth? false? Lots of questions. All feedback is of course welcome; I'm particularly looking forward to hearing from the knowledgable NevD and Peter. Nir |
|||||||
|
Peter Founder, caloriesperhour.com 
|
Well then, I guess I have to say something! Haha. Actually I spend most of my time updating the food lists and just barely skim the forum posts. It's for all of you! First thing I noticed is that you love fruit and veggies. That's helpful! I know, the hard part is resisting all the rest of the stuff. NevD will address this, but I don't think he suggests 85% of RMR... but 85% of your estimated calories burned including exercise. We'll see what he says. Guess I never paid that much attention... though I've tried to talk him into working on a "NevD Calculator" with me! Or last night I was thinking of a forum for him. Anyway, I'm glad you found the rest of the website. Hadn't heard of anyone that started with the newsletter... someone must have forwarded it to you. But a lot of people are starting with the forum which they find via a search engine and they are unaware of the rest of the site... which is why I added all the red text at the top of the page. Best wishes, Peter  |
|||||||
|
nevd Distinguished Member 
|
Hi Nir - You make a lot of good points in your post, especially your assumptions about past mistakes, so I think you've got the hang of most of this stuff. As to your questions: I'd always go for body fat % as BMI is a bit of a nonsense. Get a cheap skinfold caliper and use it weekly. That's how to monitor fat loss. (Fat scales are notoriously inaccurate. I used one recently that showed 23%, when I'm actually under 10%). Your training HR of 150 looks okay, though I wouldn't have calculated it quite that way. I'd aim for more like 150 grams of protein at your present weight. 6 times 15 would only give you 90 grams. And I'd worry more about the fat content than the carbs. Try to eat less than 45 grams of fat per day. I calculate that you should eat about 1980 calories a day if you're a light exerciser, and up to 2200 if you manage to exercise moderately (3+ times a week). If I were you, I'd concentrate more on weights exercise than cardio, (assuming you don't have time for both). Finally: Incidentally, gym personnel have told me that I'm unlikely to build appreciable muscle (the way a body-builder would) whilst simultaneously trying to burn fat by creating a calorie deficit as body builders take on _more_ calories than their body requires. What is your take on that? True? a hint of truth? false? True, I'm afraid, unless you're genetically gifted. You need a calorie excess to gain appreciable muscle mass, while a deficit is required to shed fat. Isn't life unfair? ;) Best of luck, NevD  |
|||||||
|
Peter Founder, caloriesperhour.com
|
I have gained muscle while losing weight, but you can see a difference. Increasing the weights at the gym doesn't come as easily. Years gone by if I started eating poorly I'd stop going to the gym. All or nothing attitude. Then when I got to the point that I could keep up the gym even if my diet wasn't perfect, I found that workouts were EASY. All the junk food really gave me energy. And muscle. And fat! So I do see the effect of dieting on weight loss, but I am positive that eating a healthy diet with adequate protein I have been able to put on muscle while losing fat. And of course the muscle you have shows all that much more as the fat comes off! Peter |
|||||||
|
Nir Senior Administrator
|
Thanks for your replies! >Hadn't heard of anyone that started with the newsletter... I must have Googled the phrase "calories per hour" for some activity months ago and signed up in passing. My confirmation email is February 18th and the first newsletter dates back to February 24th - almost a year ago. I've been receiving other newsletters (e.g. edietsuk) for even longer. They're good for motivation and staying on course. > Increasing the weights at the gym doesn't come as easily Yes. Though luckily change is in the right direction i.e. eventually can lift more rather than less. > I'd concentrate more on weights exercise than cardio I like and do BOTH. Mostly I do classes and these tend to divide 50% - 50%. Some are weight training / toning classes (with names like 'Body Pump', 'Reebok Deck', 'Legs Bums Tums') and some are cardio ('Body Combat', 'Spin', 'Aerobics'). The weight training tends to be lowish weights but high reps (and failure is generally achieved). I say 'low' weights, it is all relative. For example legs are worked with 5 minutes of squats with a 30kg bar - then half an hour later we have more lunges to look forward too :-) [Regarding cardio machines like the StairMaster I mentioned - as I mostly do classes, these are at present a rare novelty for me.] >Get a cheap skinfold caliper and use it weekly You know what? you're the second person to recommend them in the space of a week! I've just placed my order (£10 from eBay) so I guess I can look forward to playing with my new toy in a couple of weeks :-) >Your training HR of 150 looks okay, though I wouldn't have calculated it quite that way. How would you calculate it? I tried figuring out my maximum heart rate today. Went on that StairMaster and pushed up the levels. The highest HR the machine recorded was 176 at level 17of20 (I didn't try a higher level) wheras my theoretical maximum is 220-33= 187. Am I likely to have a lower maximum rate as a result of reasonable fitness or is there a serious flaw with my measurement approach? >150 grams of protein ... less than 45 grams of fat I can see you've applied the 30% protein / less than 20% fat guidelines to the notional 1980-odd calories you have me eating. I do like the 30%/20%/50% split, but I'm not afraid of some maths/science and I wish to dig deeper with regards to the 1980 and 2200 calorie figures, as follows: I tried using the BMR/RMR calculator myself and got similiar numbers... > BMR & RMR Results: BMR 1,498 RMR 1,478 > Factor=1.3 Category=Sedentary BMR=1,947 RMR=1,921 > Factor=1.4 Category=Active BMR=2,097 RMR=2,069 > Factor=1.5 Category=Very Active BMR=2,247 RMR=2,217 So I'm assuming you've used a similiar though not identical calculator or formula (what is it?). I am also assuming that you've given me the "what I will burn" figures and did not include a "15% discount". So I guess if I consume 1980 or 2200 calories respectively, I won't actually be loosing weight and working towards my goal! If I factor in "15% off" 1980, I get 1680. That's a calorie deficit of 300 so I should loose some weight. If a daily calorie deficit of 500 leads to loss at a rate of about one pound of fat per week, the arising questions are: is it safe to do so (that'll be 1480 calories) and is it more likely to lead to loss of muscle mass. This also brings me back to the StairMaster question, which is: is exercising at a certain heart rate more likely to burn fat (and less likely to waste muscle)? If the answer was a categorical "no", then common sense is to exercise at the highest intensity level I can manage so as to burn calories at a higher rate. What is your theory on this and how do you calculate appropriate figures? Does the length of time that I sustain the activity for also impact the glycogen/fat/muscle proportions 'used'? (and if applicable to your calculations, how do I obtain resting/maximum HR measurements?) Nir |
|||||||
|
Peter Founder, caloriesperhour.com
|
Go to a hospital or university library and study the medical journals. You'll find studies telling you how to burn more calories as relates to time of day; time before/after meals; length and intensity of exercise. And who knows what else. I've never done this, but see the NEWSFLASH reports in magazines all the time. It sells magazines! It is my very strong and entirely uneducated and unscientific opinion that none of these factors are as important as doing what you enjoy... so you keep doing it. And enjoy doing it. Thats my two cents, US. Not sure what's it's worth in the UK. Peter P.S. Of course higher intensity (to a limit) and/or longer is better for both your health and burning calories. Just be sure you're having fun! |
|||||||
|
Nir Senior Administrator
|
More than a Penny, less than 2p :-) Peter, hand on heart you're preaching to the converted - my #1 hobby is partner dancing (salsa, modern jive and ballroom) but exercise comes a close 2nd since I re-discovered it 2 years ago! I love gym classes (I do them without number-crunching) - I only skip Yoga and Pilates (yes, I know they have merit too). This Christmas and New Year my gym cancelled the classes so I had to finally 'discover' the machines. Classes are now back but I still occasionally use a machine. Those machines are like toys: they have lots of numbers - and I like playing with numbers! They are not my main thing - and probably never will be. (Next time I may bring stuff to read while exercising - that's how exciting they are.) But when I _am_ going to be using machines, I would like to be using them in whichever way the health and fitness experts deem most "optimal" for burning fat and minimising muscle loss. I'm just after a 'bite-size' of knowledge. After all, if I told you "knowledge about food and nutrition is a powerful thing", I'll be preaching to the converted :-). |
|||||||
|
nevd Distinguished Member
|
> Factor=1.3 Category=Sedentary BMR=1,947 RMR=1,921 I use factors of 1.2, 1.375 and 1.55, since I think there's a bigger difference between sedentary, light active and moderately active. The numbers I gave you included the 15% deduction. They were target values, not starting values. The training HR calc I use includes resting heart rate. Since you are regularly active, I guessed 60 to 64 (could be lower). As to the intensity question, higher intensity burns glycogen and muscle, lower intensity burns fat. That's why sprinting etc produce more lactic acid. And why walking is a splendid way for previously inactive, overweight folk to start losing body fat... NevD |
|||||||
|
Nir Senior Administrator
|
I'm trying my best to 'get' this. Here we go... using the 1.375 figure for light exerciser: 1478 * 1.375 = 2032 0.85 * 2032 = 1727 (both of these numbers are not 1980) Just to be sure, are you saying that the 1.2 / 1.375 / 1.55 factors ALREADY include my 15% discount? |
|||||||
|
Peter Founder, caloriesperhour.com
|
For maybe 12 years country western dancing was my fun in life. I did the two-step, but not like you're probably picturing if you even can picture it from over there. The moves... many of which I invented... were very smooth and graceful. Peter |
|||||||
|
nevd Distinguished Member
|
The moves... many of which I invented... were very smooth and graceful. I'm assuming you danced in front of a panoramic mirror, Peter? Nir - I used the coloriesperhour calculator and got 1698 for your BMR. When I used my own calc, I got 1692. I don't know where your 1478 comes from?  |
|||||||
|
Nir Senior Administrator
|
Peter, I have re-read some of your FAQs today. While stepping on the Stair-Master :) |
|||||||
|
Nir Senior Administrator
|
nevd wrote: I used the coloriesperhour calculator and got 1698 for your BMR. When I used my own calc, I got 1692. I don't know where your 1478 comes from? style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #f8f8f8"A typo maybe? style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #f8f8f8"Go to http://www.caloriesperhour.com/index_burn.html Click "BMR & RMR Calculator" Sex: M Age: 33 Height: 166 (unit: "cm") Weight: 60 (unit: "kg") Click "Calculate" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #f8f8f8"Results: The results of your calculations are: BMR 1,498 RMR 1,478 For an explanation of BMR and RMR and important notes on the accuracy of these calculations, please see our FAQ entitled, What do BMR and RMR stand for? While BMR is much more widely used than RMR, our FAQ explains why RMR is likely to be more appropriate for your needs. As BMR and RMR only represent resting energy expenditure, adjustments must be made to reflect activity level. This can be done by multiplying your BMR and RMR by an activity factor: Factor Category BMR RMR 1.2 Bed Rest 1,798 1,774 1.3 Sedentary 1,947 1,921 1.4 Active 2,097 2,069 1.5 Very Active 2,247 2,217 style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #f8f8f8"Tried using the formula in the FAQ, they give the same answers style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #f8f8f8" >Harris-Benedict equation for BMR (technically RMR): >For men: (13.75 x w) + (5.0 x h) - (6.76 x a) + 66 13.75 * 60 + 5.0 * 166 - 6.76 * 33 + 66 = 825 + 830 - 223 + 66 = 1498 >The Mufflin equation for RMR: >For men: (10 x w) + (6.25 x h) - (5 x a) + 5 10 * 60 + 6.25 * 166 - 5 * 33 + 5 = 600 + 1037.5 - 165 + 5 = 1477.5 |
|||||||
|
Nir Senior Administrator
|
nevd wrote: I calculate that you should eat about 1980 calories a day if you're a light exerciser, and up to 2200 if you manage to exercise moderately (3+ times a week). style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #f8f8f8"Working on the assumption that your 1.2/1.375/1.55 factors are 15% discounts from the 1.4/1.6/1.8 multipliers that you must be using (instead of the calorieperhour calculator's 1.3/1.4/1.5), and assuming for the moment that my base RMR is 1478, we have: style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #f8f8f8"sedentary 1.2 x 1478 = 1774 calorie deficit = 313 weekly weight loss = 285g light 1.375 x 1478 = 2032 calorie deficit = 359 weekly weight loss = 326g moderate 1.55 x 1478 = 2290 calorie deficit = 404 weekly weight loss = 367g style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #f8f8f8"Can you now see where I'm coming from? If I stick to the rule that my calorie deficit can be no more than 15% of calories required for my energy needs, this gives weekly weight loss of 285g - 367g depending on my chosen activity level! Now set against the general claim that you can safely loose 1-2 lb (with calorie deficits of between 500 and 1000) it is disappointing. Also disappointing against claim that, if eating to 'ETL' guidelines, it is possible to loose QUICKLY and safely. style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #f8f8f8"Why so slow? Is this all about safeguarding the MUSCLE mass? Are you saying that if I loose any more than 285g-367g a week it will affect muscle and be counter-productive? (yes, I realise this makes me sound impatient...) As ever, eagerly looking for your input  |
|||||||
|
nevd Distinguished Member
|
Sorry, Nir - For some inexplicable reason, I was using 174 pounds as your weight! Have recalced, and results are: light exercise: 1750 moderate: 1976 (BMR 1500) Sorry for the confusion - my old war wound was playing up again! NevD |
|||||||
|
Nir Senior Administrator
|
Oh my, 174lb would give me BMI 28.7. Never been, even at my worst and hopefully never will. Let me see if I get it (light exercise): 1500 * 1.375 = 2062.5; 85% of 2062.5 = 1753.1 (call this 1750). Right? So calorie deficit = 2063 - 1750 = 313 a day, leading to weekly loss of just 285g :( Can you (please) have a go at answering my question about what will happen if I try to open a calorie deficit of 500, or even 1000, in order to get a 1-2lb a week loss? |
|||||||
|
nevd Distinguished Member
|
Nir - Given that bodies aren't machines, and that metabolism is much subtler than the Internal Combustion Engine, I would suggest: Try it! Have a week with a 500 a day deficit, then check the fat calipers (and the scales if you must), then try a week with a 1000 deficit and see. Personally, I wouldn't do 1000 deficit, but that's me. I suppose you could keep alternating 500 and 1000, in the hope that you wouldn't switch to famine mode... There are no hard and fast answers, but - given that you're not very overweight, you could be more radical and try to lose faster, or patient and lose more slowly. Like Peter, I've found the latter course works better in the long term. But it's your body! Best of luck - and keep us apprised? NevD |
|||||||
|
Nir Senior Administrator
|
The saga continues. One of fitness instructors warned me about the danger of becoming hypoglycemic through maintaining a chronically low blood sugar level. That's quite scary for me. Tried to research hypoglycemic and discovered that, once you are affected, your best bet is to cope with it by modifying your diet to... be very much like what I'm already eating. Arghh!! |
|||||||
|
Peter Founder, caloriesperhour.com
|
That's a new one to me. I mean if you're eating healthy foods and enough to only lose weight slowly. I worry more about yellow VWs. Crossing the street in front of Buckingham Place, stepping on the painted signs in the street -- for tourists -- that say "look right," I looked left and almost got killed. Someone grapped me and pulled me back. Wonder if the guy was a fitness instructor? Peter |
|||||||
|
Nir Senior Administrator
|
Oh dear. Incidentally as a tourist attraction, Buckingham Palace is rather inaccessible (well, you can arrive by Taxi, but neither the buses nor the Underground trains stop particularly near. I believe this is intentional. I guess all the tourists get a free workout as result). I was picking the brain of another Personal Trainer (Louise) who, like NevD, is a fan of the 15% discount. She's even more cautious and recommends I do interval training, some at 150bpm but also some at 120bpm. On the plus side, I did find a 'new' cardio exercise that lets me think that I'm burning 750kcal an hour while my heart rate is only 120bpm (65%). A treadmill at speed 6.3 kph at the maximum incline setting of '15'. Of course I am aware that the machine's built-in calorie estimate (750kcal) takes into account my weight, but not my gender, age, height or fitness level, so it probably overestimates how much I've burnt, but it sure feels like a bargain to just be going for a walk and seeing those numbers accumulate ;) [incidentally, this website's Activity Calculator also has similiar figures: Treadmill - 15% incline @ 6.4 km/h 732 calories in 1 hr but this is probably because the figures are derived from a similiar machine] If I compare the Rowing machine, Bicycle and Cross-training machines (A) to the StairMaster and the Treadmill (B), there is a fundamental difference: the second class of machines 'expects' you to continue working out at the same rate (they keep moving at the level you pre-set them at) wheras it is quite easy to get lazy and slow down on class (A) of machines. That will be why I like the StairMaster and the TreadMill. |
|||||||
|
nevd Distinguished Member
|
This may seem a little off-the-wall, but why not have your trainer dress up in black leather and lash you every time you slow down? It just might work... |
|||||||
|
Nir Senior Administrator
|
That could work. I do sometimes do an exercise class just because I  the instructor (well, what's the symbol for 'fancy' anyway).I have a feeling I'm cheating on the treadmill. I'm holding on to the heart rate monitor (so I can get a reading) yet if I let go, I'm having difficulty keeping up that pace, I'm slowly slipping back. Shirley that can't be right! |
|||||||
|
Nir Senior Administrator
|
My calipers arrived yesterday. I'm 15% on those. Meanwhile the Tanita scale now consistently says ~14%. So at the moment the calipers are more "pessimistic" which was a bit unexpected. |
|||||||
|
nevd Distinguished Member
|
Either you have the most accurate fat scales in existence, or it's pure coincidence! (I mentioned in another post that when I last got on a body fat scale, it read 23%, as opposed to 9% with the calipers...  NevD |
|||||||
|
Nir Senior Administrator
|
I've so far been keeping my protein at 30% (if not more). That meant that as I was increasing my intake to 1800 calories I've stepped it up to 120g-135g (8 or 9 x 15g servings: one every 2.5 hours). This is not counting any other protein that may be in my other food. I've decided to change my approach! I'd like to eat a maximum of 1.5g of protein per Kg of body-weight. I'm 60Kg so that's 90g, and at 1800 calories it is 20% of intake. As I generally eat healthy plant-based stuff with the non-protein calories, it is probably safe to assume that other food provides at least 8-10% of its calories from protein. I'm going to still 'supplement' using protein-rich foods (providing 60%-95% of calories from protein) to the value of 60g, but expect the other 30g to be made up by the other stuff I eat. The 60g will initially be 4 x 15g as that's how I'm currently set-up, later on switching to 6 x 10g. I'll have to learn more about pulses and whole grains. It is easy to exceed so I'll start off by counting my consumption of calorie-dense (>50kcal/100g foods) which probably 9should only make 450-600kcal of my intake. I do still think 30% protein is quite appropriate...
|
|||||||
|
nevd Distinguished Member
|
I'll have to learn more about pulses Well, apparently, everyone should have one... Seriously, I can't disagree with anything in your post. Looks like good sense to me, and you are casting about for a long-term mode of eating, since you've not got far to go... And since you've read so much on the subject(s) at hand, you've probably acquired guru status along the way. I can just envision the website now: Nir'sPathToRighteousWeightLoss.com! You heard it here first! NevD Last edited on 29 January 2006 04:00 pm by nevd |
|||||||
|
Nir Senior Administrator
|
nevd wrote: I can just envision the website now: Nir'sPathToRighteousWeightLoss.com! That website (not mine) already exists, kind-of, try newstarget.com :) I never know what's going to happen. I sold 75% of my long-life milk stock back to my mum ( who I originally it bought it from) and haven't bought any more cottage cheese. I may not be able to become a vegetarian and a vegan straight away, but I can at least get used to reducing dependence on dairy products while I'm waiting. My fish stockpile meanwhile is quite formiddable (both oily and non-oily kinds) so I'm less inclined to become vegetarian just yet. To further feel superior, free to have a laugh at my weighing-myself-every-day website, nir.org.uk/ from 2004. |
|||||||
|
Nir Senior Administrator
|
My lovely layout has been lost, but here is an analysis of a few pulse and grain foods I've considered (because, with the exception of chickpeas, I have them in the kitchen). The last two numbers on each line are the size (grams) of a serving of 50 calories, and how much fibre this serving supplies (list is sorted from fibre-rich to fibre-poor). Third number from left is % of calories derived from protein. 100g kcal pro % fibre 50kcal fibre(50) bran 212 14.7 27.7 36.0 23.6g 8.50g * kidney beans(gem) 100 6.9 27.6 8.5 50.0g 4.25g * chickpeas(CPH) 96 4.0 16.7 6.4 52.1g 3.33g * atkins locarb whitebread 220 30.1 54.7 13.3 22.7g 3.02g * ryvita-dark 308 8.5 11.0 18.5 16.2g 3.00g * green lentils(hydrated) 89 7.6 34.2 3.7 56.2g 2.08g popcorn 383 12.5 13.1 15.0 13.1g 1.97g * chickpeas(gem) 115 7.2 25.0 4.1 43.5g 1.78g * nimble wholemeal 209 11.2 21.4 6.6 23.9g 1.58g * wholewheat conchiglie 139.7 6.1 17.3 4.3 35.8g 1.54g * wheatabix(netto) 340 11.2 13.2 7.8 14.7g 1.15g * SwissMuesli(ASDA) 354 10 11.3 8.0 14.1g 1.13g * oats (ASDA) 356 11 12.4 8.0 14.0g 1.12g * potato 72 1.8 10.0 1.2 69.4g 0.83g * breadcrumbs 333 10.5 12.6 4.6 15.0g 0.69g * mash(hydrated x 5.75??) 64 1.3 8.1 0.8 13.6g? 0.63g? spaghetti(white) 138.3 4.8 13.9 1.6 36.2g 0.58g * Last edited on 30 January 2006 01:45 am by Nir |
|||||||
|
nevd Distinguished Member
|
...my weighing-myself-every-day website, nir.org.uk/ from 2004. Your Internet 'footprint' is obviously larger than I had imagined, Nir. BTW, is there a way to reproduce tabled data within forum posts so that it's easily legible, Peter? (should you read this...) |
|||||||
|
Peter Founder, caloriesperhour.com
|
a b c 1 2 3 Don't really know but that's a simple Excel table and it worked. column a col b c 1 2 3 That's left just. column a col b c 1 2 3 That's right. So it would appear that it always left justifies and I suspect that most tables are right justified. Just playing with it but maybe that's part of the problem. Peter |
|||||||
|
Peter Founder, caloriesperhour.com
|
Well, after posting the above it all fell apart so I guess my answer is no! Peter |
|||||||
|
nevd Distinguished Member
|
OK - as long as everything's under control... |
|||||||
|
Peter Founder, caloriesperhour.com
|
BTW, as long as were talking about such issues... wm gave the  a makeover. Looks much better.Peter P.S. Or maybe Nir fattened him up! |
|||||||
|
Nir Senior Administrator
|
Portion control strategy: dividing up 1800 calories while trying to avoid calorie-counting.
|
|||||||
|
nevd Distinguished Member
|
10g of protein, 6 times a day (45-70 calories), up to 420 calories. I make that 60 grams of protein, which would be 240 calories (or are you counting 'extras' with which the protein might be adulterated? Nev |
|||||||
|
Nir Senior Administrator
|
Exactly. I divided my 1800 calories into food servings. This one is best described as "foods providing a majority of calories from protein". At the top end, 88%-of-calories-from-protein gives 45 calories (Soy Protein Isolate), at the bottom end, 57%-of-calories-from-protein gives 70 calories (Dried Soya Mince). Yes, both top and bottom range examples are Soya :) |
|||||||
|
Nir Senior Administrator
|
My new toy, a heart rate monitor with a chest-strap, arrived today. I have yet to figure it all out. I don't know what my Maximum Heart Rate is, so I have to go with the (220 - 33 = 187) approximation. I did a 45-minute cycling class (includes warm-up and warm-down) and burnt 445 calories. Mostly worked out 70-80% and fell down to around 65% in the short recovery periods, in the last track was asked to push myself and reached 172 (=91%). Sometimes it feels like I'm not pushing myself enough in those classes so it is nice to see numbers which suggest that I'm working hard enough. Also, the lowest rate that I registered today was 50 - is that therefore my resting pulse rate? |
|||||||
|
Peter Founder, caloriesperhour.com
|
Wow! 50 is pretty low/healthy. When I was running marathons mine was as low as 37, then even after stopping running it was maybe 48 for years. Peter |
|||||||
|
nevd Distinguished Member
|
Also, the lowest rate that I registered today was 50 - is that therefore my resting pulse rate?Depends, Nir - were you resting? ;) |
|||||||
|
Nir Senior Administrator
|
Very funny. Mind you I've not been this relaxed today, lowest I've seen is low 60s. If 50 is indeed my resting heart rate (and I'm male and 33), is 150 still the heart rate I'm aiming to use for exercise? and are you willing to share the formula you're using? (and how do you estimate my Maximum Heart Rate - and should I try to establish what my actual M.H.R. is?), cheers |
|||||||
|
nevd Distinguished Member
|
No big secret, Nir... { [ (220-age)-resting pulse] x exercise factor (choose between 65 and 75% depending on fitness) } + resting pulse Establishing an absolute heart rate maximum isn't easy. Like I wrote, I ran on a race track, doing half laps at steadily increasing cadence, according to my beeping sports watch. My wife (indulgent soul) wrote down my half lap times, and I did 1 lap at the end when I increased my cadence twice, but my heart rate stayed at 186 - so there it was. When I put it onto an Excel chart, all was revealed. This was probably 12 years ago, though - and I was pretty overweight, but fit! |
|||||||
|
Nir Senior Administrator
|
Oh dear, I'm finding this formula counter-intuitive. Basically, I notice that, with this formula, as I become fitter and my resting pulse decreases, so does the heart rate at which I should be working out. So assuming I want to work out at 75%, a resting pulse of 50 gives me 152.75 and a resting pulse of 40 gives me 150.25 - or is that how it is supposed to work? |
|||||||
|
Nir Senior Administrator
|
Re-reading this topic is an eye-opener. I was on the right track in January and February, aware that I didn't want to count calories, aware that my main problems are "mistakes" that are too frequent and the double-edged sword that are protein-rich foods. But then it all went pear-shaped in March, April, May and early June (with two longish bingeing sessions: end of April and early June). Now I feel as wise as I was in January/February. I'm wondering why I had temporarily forgotten all that I had already known back then! The other "complete circle" is that I was 60kg at the beginning of this item - and having temporarily been (briefly) as low as 52.5kg, I've been back to 60kg (mind you with less fat and a bit more muscle: body fat% of 10-11% rather than 15%) Last edited on 5 July 2006 01:53 am by Nir |
|||||||
|
Nir Senior Administrator
|
Update: My food plan, which I have complied with for over a year, involves keeping a record of everything I consume (except for spices and low-calorie drinks), weighing my portions and eating an exact number of calories (currently 1900 per day). I consider vegetables, beans, fruits, nuts and seeds to be healthy foods and aim to get at least 90% of my calories (currently 1710 calories) from them. All other sources of calories (any processed foods, eggs, dairy, meat, fish, shellfish, grains - whole or refined, oils, sugars and alcohol) can make up no more than 10% (currently 190) of my calories. On ocassion those foods make up more than 10% of my calories - I consider this slippy abstinence rather than a break - so long as my overall calories are on target - but I tend to recoil back to compliance whenever this occurs. I have other guidelines, such as eating a minimum of 900g of vegetables every day. I don't follow a rule about how many meals to have. |
|||||||
Copyright wowwBB 2007-2008
