Guys -
I think its great to have a youtube channel and publish video podcasts. I know a lot of people love those.
Unfortunately, they donāt do my any good. Iām very busy, and can listen to podcasts in the car, while Iām cooking dinner, or other times Iām multi-tasking. Maybe itās generational, but I canāt multitask with video. I have to stop everything Iām doing and focus, and I just donāt have an extra hour or two a week to do that.
Please continue to post this content in audio podcast format.
Iām going to somewhat unhelpful because of your blah blah blah commentsā¦ replaced a Fitbit scale (died after ~10 years) with impedance for a Withings, the cheap one, the Body:
pretty good but after weighing I have to launch the Withings app to get it to sync to Apple Health, which than instantly syncs to TrainingPeaks. And then because of Garminās walled garden, I manually enter weight into Garmin Connect mobile. Whatever.
My wife and I never found the Fitbit impedance features to be of any value. Just want our weight logged and stored in Health (both of us) and in TrainingPeaks (me).
A pound a week sounds pretty solid to me, am I missing something?
I interpret the results rather as - if you eat enough while performing exercise (gym and cardio), you will change body composition positively - loose fat, gain muscle. And thatās within only 10 days while eating enough protein (2.2g / kg FFM or ~ 100g/63kg body weight).
Oh it is. But some people are impatient! And the study suggests that basically you shouldnāt go beyond a pound a week or else you see real harm. That changes how people would (should) recommend how long to lose weight.
Of course, if performance is the focus. If its general fat loss rather than focusing on doing well in the gym, you may need to suggest to someone to start adding activity rather than cutting calories. That is a big change in gen pop recommendations.
Itās just interesting because recommendations about how to approach fat loss are changing significantly in the last few years due to this kind of research. I find it quite exciting tbh!
Iām most interested in the impedance feature. We already have a basic scale and I donāt care about it smart recording weigh-ins to anywhere.
Iāve seen a few studies that say that these body composition monitors track with dexa and bod pod. Iāve also read that they are inaccurate though maybe relatively consistent over time.
Itās not clear to me if one would get better performance out of an expensive version.
I had Fitbit scale body composition metrics for 6-8 years? Not sure, long time. IMHO they were useless. This sounds like āmy legs are my coachā argument, but body comp is pretty easy to see at the pool, in the mirror, and how clothing fits.
I finally figured out why this study was messing with my head. Energy availability is a fundamentally different way of thinking about energy needs for someone. This breaks with traditional energy balance equations. Total Daily Energy Expenditure for example.
Funny enough, TRās forum has a great post that appears to have been lost in the the thick of things. A good read to get up to speed about the approach of this paper and how to think about energy expenditure differently
Also, I periodically take measurements of my calves, thighs, hips, waist, chest, biceps, etc. those trends are far more interesting and useful than what I got from the impedance measurements out of my Fitbit scale. Just some thoughts for your consideration, and why I opted to replace the impedance scale with a dumb version.
Iāve tried to watch the video a few times but the format makes it hard for me to process. Long and slow without acronyms works better for me.
In terms of practical, does this point to a variant on calorie counting? I donāt find calorie counting useful.
Iām with the principle of fuelling training and increased protein, and experienced in that it doesnāt lead to weight gain. But still only seeing seasonal fat loss followed by fat gain, 2023 min 82kg 35% bf, max 87kg 38% bf according to impedance scales. More like 30% on the visual provided by ASJ914.
While Iām overweight, BMI 28-30, Iām in the L3 TR strength category for squats so likely I donāt need to gain muscle as much as I need to maintain while losing fat.
I usually train 8-10hrs per week, swim bike and run and as I look to start MV General Base I donāt do any rides fasted, but Iād add a banana and/or sugary drink to the two 1000kj rides and a protein source afterwards. The three 1hr endurance or sweet spot rides I would fit between breakfast and lunch without adding.
How would the advice from this vid alter that?
More focus on macros? More fuel on rides? Or is it calorie calculations?
I think Iām following what you are saying. In a nutshell, you are saying not all daily calorie deficits are created equal. I would agree! For example, you want to create a daily calorie deficit of 500 calories. Consider these two approaches, with a BMR of 1800 calories:
you eat 1300 calories
you eat 2000 calories but expend 2500 calories through activity
I imagine less bad things happen to your body in #2. Iām not advocating doing either of 1 or 2, but just keeping my examples simple.
I have found this really interesting and Iāve personally struggled trying to shed a couple pounds in the past. My girlfriend h as a theory that working out made it harder to lose weight and so far sheās right as sheās limited intensity and started losing weight. That seems to be where I struggle. Using TDEE puts me in too much of a deficit half the time and I donāt see weight loss. Using some back of the napkin math it looks like this way of calculating would give me more calories on any given day. Thatās,of course, basing off of a guessed bf% which seems to be the hardest to pin down
I just finished a fasted 2+ hour zone 2 ride fueled by black coffee, water and hopefully some of my body fat. It works well with my intermittent fasting. Down 15 pounds so far in about 4 months time.
Been looking into this too. I like the idea this is a little more dynamic, this is for sure a nice method especially for athletes, but this is still somewhat encompassing a few variables I struggle to think we can just override.
The first is the FFM measurements. I donāt buy these scales are surrogates for DEXA so reliably, and then there is the DEXA quality too. I worked with as a physicist in medical imaging and I can tell you those are laden with some errors too.
Next, sex differences. Think thatās obvious.
And then diet composition to then promote good outcomes after deciding on your target. Lump in mindfulness too. This at least for me is the most important when trying to achieve optimal composition.
I understand there is a need for an equation and such to follow, but as already mentioned: calorie counting is not for everyone, and quite frankly I find these methods difficult to read, as this all promotes some pretty unhealthy relationships with food. Itās good to be aware of calories and do some counting but this boils down to another way to bargain with the crap food we are surrounded by.
So in the end I donāt really see this so much different to knowing BMR and eating healthy. Easier said than done of course. Iāve struggled with it and know when training heavy my cravings are all over the place.
And yet, the first response was asking if what I wrote was spamā¦if only I got paid to write (instead of being asked to pay fees to publish).
This is a decent study*, but it sure isnāt the study Iād use to design a āscience-backed nutrition plan.ā A nutrition plan is something you enact over the course of month-to-years and the health/performance changes are evaluated on that same timescaleānot a 10 day intervention. See Box 1 for important definitions.
*My biggest complaint is that they didnāt do anything to assess the menstrual status of the participants other than ask them if they had regular bleeding. Assuring ovulation is a cheap urine test.
I continue to be confused by the general sentiment of cyclists to want to maximize training while doing the bare minimum nutritionally. The discussion in this thread has been about targeting an EA of 30āthatās around the minimum to prevent detrimental effects of nutrition (though this threshold is likely lower in men than women, see my post linked elsewhere). Itās been shown that optimizing health and performance requires an EA of 40-45. If you want to lose weight, well, thatās a different discussion and is not centered on performance.
TDEE calculators are terrible. Energy balance is different from energy availability.
Thereās nothing confusing about the common masterās athlete on this forum that could stand to lose 10, 15, or 25 pounds.
Most people here are talking about losing weight which would require minimal nutrition. And most seem not to be skinny elites that want to lose 3 pounds. Maybe read the room for issuing a general put down?
Even that is fraught with inaccuracies depending on what your efficiency is. TR assumes approx 25% but I understand that is elite level . Mortals can vary from 17-18% upwards.
