Earlier this year I was invited to do a couple of seminars with some dance students at a local college. It was a busy day, but very interesting. One of the questions I asked the students was about their ideas of being fit and being healthy. The point I wanted to make was that the two are not synonymous. Some very fit people are actually quite unhealthy and some healthy people are very unfit.
When you start a fitness programme you need to know what your goals really are going to be. Is it about fitness or is it about health? Are you confusing getting fit with getting healthy? In the world of Personal Training you will sometimes hear a reference to the "mirror muscles". Big guns, six-pack abs, all the things you might see on the front cover of the latest men's fitness magazine.
Inside the magazine there's usually an article detailing an exercise and eating regimen that will transform your body from the flabby dough-like consistency it currently has into the chiselled and sculpted adonis that adorns the cover page. No doubt it will work for some readers, but many more will be left exhausted in a pool of sweat and seeing a rather less than finely tuned athlete staring back at them from the bathroom mirror.
The truth is that some people have a naturally lean and well-defined, muscular appearance. There's a technical term for this type of natural physique but most people just call them something Anglo-Saxon and uncomplimentary! For the rest of us we have to work with what we've got and settle for something less than perfect. You may be able to get leaner, but you won't have all those impressive muscles.
So what are the costs, the pros and cons of getting leaner or fitter or healthier? To reveal that six-pack (oh yes, you have one it's just that it might be hidden by a party-7) might actually require you to measure all your food, every meal of every day and to work out longer than you are able to sustain. In other words, it might just be too costly, both in terms of your ability to commit to the process and possibly even your overall health.
In an interesting article about the costs of different lifestyles, expressed in terms of body fat percentage, Ryan Andrews & Brian St. Pierre set out some interesting information. Personally I believe that body fat percentage is a far better measure that BMI, particularly if you are in any way athletic or playing sports regularly. If you're a 6'3" rugby forward weighing it at around 18.5 stone, then your BMI would say your obese even if your BF% is only 12.
So, as the weeks tick down to the New Year and you're getting ready to set yourself yet another lose weight/get fitter resolution, think about what you are truthfully trying to achieve, whether it's possible and what you will have to do in order to reach and maintain your goal. Me personally, I'd love to be leaner, fitter and faster, but I am also hopefully realistic about what I can commit to achieving. That doesn't mean I won't try and reach some goals that are tough, but I'm enough of a realist to settle for the possible rather than reach for the impossible.
The article mentioned above has a really interesting series of graphics that set out the benefits and trade-offs for a range of BF%'s. It's worth a read.
Showing posts with label weight loss. Show all posts
Showing posts with label weight loss. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Friday, May 10, 2013
Currently Reading
I decided I'd like to read Michael Mosley's book about intermittent fasting. We were away during the Olympics, so we missed the BBC Horizon programme about it, although I did see his "The truth about exercise programme", which I found very interesting.
Anyway I bought myself a copy of The Fast Diet: The secret of intermittent fasting - lose weight, stay healthy, live longer, which he co-wrote with Mimi Spencer, and set about reading it. I'm about a quarter of the way through the book, but reading it on Kindle means I have no idea if I'm near the end of the theory/practice bit before we hit the recipe section, or if there's more scientific revelation to come!
I guess that with our societal issues with obesity and preoccupation with diets as the solution, putting "diet" in the title was a no-brainer from a marketing point of view. But this is not really a diet book, although there are plans (recipes) and patterns to help you get started.
If you already know about things like GI and GL, you'll probably skip over those bits, and to be honest, you can skim through much of the early pages as long as you don't miss some of the really interesting things that are being explored and discovered through current research. The thing is, this is not just about weight control, it goes to the heart of a healthy life. If the book is right, then our bodies need the routine of fasting (more accurately low-calorie days, around 600 for men, 500 for women) to get down to the business of repair. Giving our liver and pancreas a couple of days off might just reduce our risk of a number of diseases like diabetes and dementia.
Ever one to experiment, I think I'll explore the ideas. Being able to combine an age-old spiritual discipline with a 21st century exploration of healthy living sounds like a good plan! After all, I suspect one of the major reasons any of us puts on weight is a lack of discipline in the first place.
Wednesday, January 02, 2013
Dreams of fitness and running
Last summer I read Born to run. I came to the party quite late, given how many people had told me I should read it. I have not become a runner as a result. I have experimented with barefoot shoes and find them quite interesting to wear, especially the Vibram Five Finger variety, but I don't run much anymore. Age, fitness, weight and injury have all taken their toll!
My great sadness about not running is a mixture of time (I can't go as far walking in an hour than I could when I ran-obviously) and the sense of freedom that came with running that you don't quite get walking. I console myself with the fact that over the same distance, whether I run or walk, I use the same amount of energy. It's only the time element that changes. But it's not the same. If you've never been a regular runner I don't suppose you can get this. There's something about the rhythm of running that becomes almost soothing. Weird, I know.
So my question is: Can I get back to running, or is it just too much to ask of my somewhat worn joints? Studying gait and mechanics, posture and massage, has made me understand more deeply the functionality of my joints and muscles. But that can be somewhat depressing! I now, for instance, that I will probably never toe-off correctly anymore no matter how hard I try to fix it. The alignment of my big toe and the muscles of my feet simply won't let it happen. This in tun probably accounts for some of my knee issues, although not all of them. And so the chain of cause and effect work it way up through my body.
But I want to run. Even as I walk my 4-7Km that I do most days, something inside of me cries out to run. And occasionally I do. Well I break into a slow, lumbering jog to tell the truth. I wonder to myself whether I'd still be running had I managed to stay fit through my 20's, 30's and 40's. What if I'd stayed that fit 76Kg (168lb) squash playing, bike riding, lunch-time jogger? Would I still be running now? Maybe. Maybe not.
Given that it's not possible to live in the past, the best approach is surely to learn from the past but not dwell upon it. Not a bad lesson in life, let alone fitness. And I guess it ought to be said that while I was probably the fittest I've ever been during those brief years of my early 20's, I was probably fairly unhealthy. My diet was pretty poor, and eating patterns haphazard to say the least.
So, now I'm 55, what shall I do? The last couple of years has seen me get fitter and healthier, but there are a lot of things I'd like to do. I'd like to be able to run 5K in 30 minutes again, but to do that I think I need to take some pressure off my knees. That means losing some body fat, which naturally means losing some weight.
I think I could probably do with dropping to about 84Kg. That would be about 14% body fat and light enough to make running a more realistic possibility. That's quite a big ask, but not impossible. I know my current BF% is around 24, so there's room!
In case you're wondering how to do the calculation by the way, the most accurate is the get someone to do the skin fold measurements. The easy way is to use some body composition scales, but be aware that the reading will vary with hydration and other factors. Once you have the BF% it's easy maths to calculate what everything but fat weighs and from there to calculate your target weight based on your target BF%. Want to see and example?
If you weigh 90Kg and have a BF% of 25%, then everything else weighs in at 67.5Kg. If you want a BF% of 15, then your 67.5Kg has to be 85% of your body weight. This makes your target weight 79.4Kg. Okay, so most people when they lose weight don't just lose fat, they lose muscle too, but you get the idea. In an ideal world we'd even build some lean muscle along the way because that burns more calories etc etc.
Back to my dream. So, this year my goal is to get down to that 14% mark or as close as I can. It would be interesting to see if I can both do that and whether it makes running a possibility. I don't harbour any desire to do a marathon or even a half-marthon, just to be able to do that 30 minute run we used to do around the park at lunchtime back in the day. Maybe then I won't just feel like running, I'll actually be able to run!
My great sadness about not running is a mixture of time (I can't go as far walking in an hour than I could when I ran-obviously) and the sense of freedom that came with running that you don't quite get walking. I console myself with the fact that over the same distance, whether I run or walk, I use the same amount of energy. It's only the time element that changes. But it's not the same. If you've never been a regular runner I don't suppose you can get this. There's something about the rhythm of running that becomes almost soothing. Weird, I know.
So my question is: Can I get back to running, or is it just too much to ask of my somewhat worn joints? Studying gait and mechanics, posture and massage, has made me understand more deeply the functionality of my joints and muscles. But that can be somewhat depressing! I now, for instance, that I will probably never toe-off correctly anymore no matter how hard I try to fix it. The alignment of my big toe and the muscles of my feet simply won't let it happen. This in tun probably accounts for some of my knee issues, although not all of them. And so the chain of cause and effect work it way up through my body.
But I want to run. Even as I walk my 4-7Km that I do most days, something inside of me cries out to run. And occasionally I do. Well I break into a slow, lumbering jog to tell the truth. I wonder to myself whether I'd still be running had I managed to stay fit through my 20's, 30's and 40's. What if I'd stayed that fit 76Kg (168lb) squash playing, bike riding, lunch-time jogger? Would I still be running now? Maybe. Maybe not.
Given that it's not possible to live in the past, the best approach is surely to learn from the past but not dwell upon it. Not a bad lesson in life, let alone fitness. And I guess it ought to be said that while I was probably the fittest I've ever been during those brief years of my early 20's, I was probably fairly unhealthy. My diet was pretty poor, and eating patterns haphazard to say the least.
So, now I'm 55, what shall I do? The last couple of years has seen me get fitter and healthier, but there are a lot of things I'd like to do. I'd like to be able to run 5K in 30 minutes again, but to do that I think I need to take some pressure off my knees. That means losing some body fat, which naturally means losing some weight.
I think I could probably do with dropping to about 84Kg. That would be about 14% body fat and light enough to make running a more realistic possibility. That's quite a big ask, but not impossible. I know my current BF% is around 24, so there's room!
In case you're wondering how to do the calculation by the way, the most accurate is the get someone to do the skin fold measurements. The easy way is to use some body composition scales, but be aware that the reading will vary with hydration and other factors. Once you have the BF% it's easy maths to calculate what everything but fat weighs and from there to calculate your target weight based on your target BF%. Want to see and example?
If you weigh 90Kg and have a BF% of 25%, then everything else weighs in at 67.5Kg. If you want a BF% of 15, then your 67.5Kg has to be 85% of your body weight. This makes your target weight 79.4Kg. Okay, so most people when they lose weight don't just lose fat, they lose muscle too, but you get the idea. In an ideal world we'd even build some lean muscle along the way because that burns more calories etc etc.
Back to my dream. So, this year my goal is to get down to that 14% mark or as close as I can. It would be interesting to see if I can both do that and whether it makes running a possibility. I don't harbour any desire to do a marathon or even a half-marthon, just to be able to do that 30 minute run we used to do around the park at lunchtime back in the day. Maybe then I won't just feel like running, I'll actually be able to run!
Friday, February 03, 2012
A bit more on BMR
If you're interested in knowing how to calculate your BMR rather than let a web-based calculator do it for you, then this is a good place to start. If you read the article, you will see that BMR can be calculated in a number of ways. The most accurate, it says, is to use lean body mass. That's the weight of your body minus the fat! You need to know your body fat percentage to do this, which makes it a little less accessible for those without access to the technology to do this. However, it's not that difficult to get it measured. Be aware that when you measure it can affect the reading.
The basic calculation is this:
BMR= 370+(21.6 x LBM)
LBM is Lean Body Mass in Kg.
It's not gender specific, so the same equation works for male and female.
The BMR figure I played with yesterday for myself was based on what I think would be an ideal personal weight for me as an active individual. When I used this formula for me at my current weight and BF% the BMR came out very similar (1882 vs 1811). So it's not a big difference, although 70 calories a day over a year would add up!
On the other hand, there's no allowance for exercise or activity in these numbers, so as a general guide I'm not sure either would be a problem.
The basic calculation is this:
BMR= 370+(21.6 x LBM)
LBM is Lean Body Mass in Kg.
It's not gender specific, so the same equation works for male and female.
The BMR figure I played with yesterday for myself was based on what I think would be an ideal personal weight for me as an active individual. When I used this formula for me at my current weight and BF% the BMR came out very similar (1882 vs 1811). So it's not a big difference, although 70 calories a day over a year would add up!
On the other hand, there's no allowance for exercise or activity in these numbers, so as a general guide I'm not sure either would be a problem.
Thursday, February 02, 2012
Calculating BMR
My earlier post got me thinking about BMR a little more and I did a quick bit of maths! I know, 8:00am on a Thursday morning and I'm doing maths, it's not a good sign! Anyway, here's a graph of my BMR profile according to this BMR calculator.
Now I don't know how accurate this calculation is, but as you can see from the simple data set I used, BMR falls in a nice neat straight line with age. I've made no allowances for changes in fitness, I've just let the BMR calculator do the work, so whatever equations it uses, I've used!
I put in my height as it is when I stand up straight and again without allowing for shrinkage over time! I've also used a fixed weight which is probably a bit low for me, but one I'd like to be. No harm in having a dream. Given it's a straight line, changing the weight would simply shift the line up or down.
If you do a bit of simple maths, the calorie count drops by about 7 calories a day each year. Not much is it? It's 49 calories a week or 2555 calories a year. If I remember correctly, 1lb of body fat is something like 3500 calories. Now it starts to add up. If you are eating the same amount of calories now as you were 30 years ago, you're almost certainly taking in more than you're using up. Unless you are dramatically more active, you could easily be 200 calories a day over your BMR, which is 7300 calories a year. Equivalent to 2lbs of body fat!
Now I'm not talking as an expert and there might well be something intrinsically wrong about my maths here, and if not the maths then the science or the logic! For one, I'm not wholly convinced that BMR is a straight line. If it were, my BMR at 20 would have been 2049. Maybe it was and I was just very active. But at this simple level, knowing your BMR would seem like a very useful bit of information!
It's all a bit sobering isn't it.
I put in my height as it is when I stand up straight and again without allowing for shrinkage over time! I've also used a fixed weight which is probably a bit low for me, but one I'd like to be. No harm in having a dream. Given it's a straight line, changing the weight would simply shift the line up or down.
If you do a bit of simple maths, the calorie count drops by about 7 calories a day each year. Not much is it? It's 49 calories a week or 2555 calories a year. If I remember correctly, 1lb of body fat is something like 3500 calories. Now it starts to add up. If you are eating the same amount of calories now as you were 30 years ago, you're almost certainly taking in more than you're using up. Unless you are dramatically more active, you could easily be 200 calories a day over your BMR, which is 7300 calories a year. Equivalent to 2lbs of body fat!
Now I'm not talking as an expert and there might well be something intrinsically wrong about my maths here, and if not the maths then the science or the logic! For one, I'm not wholly convinced that BMR is a straight line. If it were, my BMR at 20 would have been 2049. Maybe it was and I was just very active. But at this simple level, knowing your BMR would seem like a very useful bit of information!
It's all a bit sobering isn't it.
Playing with My Fitness Pal
When you first sign up with the application you can let it do the maths and set your goals for you depending upon your aims (weight loss or weight gain). It works to a standard spread of calories from carbs, proteins and fats, but you can change this in the custom set up section from the website where you can also reset your daily calorie goal. So, if you find that the calorie goal isn't helping you to achieve the progress you're looking for then you can change it. In the end the goal is a guide and the scales are the evidence! Just because it says you will lose 0.5Kg a week by eating 1900 calories doesn't guarantee it!
For example, when I first signed up the system calculated my BMR at around 2400, but using another website calculator I got a figure of around 1900. Those 500 calories equate to about 1lb of weight loss a week. If I put in my goal weight, then my BMR drops to around 1800 calories a day. So, as my weight goes down (and as my age goes up!), so does my BMR and that would suggest to me that if I want to maintain weight loss then I'll need to adjust my calorie target appropriately. The basic rule is experiment. See what works and keep reviewing. The more you learn about what works for you, the more control you will have. and the more control you have, the more freedom I think you will have when it comes to those treats we all like and the less guilt you will feel.
I've changed my goal slightly on the basis of this theory and I'll review the most successful weeks to see what was different about those weeks compared to other weeks. That's a bit of a job, and a way of maybe getting some reports out based on a few user chosen parameters would be helpful. I haven't found anything that will let me do that yet, but then I haven't really explored the reports that much. Maybe the printable version would give me the data I want.
I think the other comment I would make is that you shouldn't assume that when you put in your exercise that the figure calculated for calories used will be wholly accurate. If it says you've burned 1,000 calories just don't assume you can eat those calories back and still reach your goal if it's weight loss. I think you'll be disappointed if you do that too often.
Overall I think this is a great tool for tracking how your diet is working both nutritionally and in terms of weight management. Used well, it can help you plan menus to balance your diet. Simply fill out the daily diary with your expected meals and snacks for the day and then see how that sits alongside your goals and make any necessary adjustments. Yes it would be time consuming to do it that way, but over time you might learn more about your own nutritional requirements than any quick fix diet will give you and it might just help you develop long-term healthier habits. That's my hope for myself anyway!
It will only ever be as accurate as the data you supply and the algorithms it uses. If you cheat it can't tell. So don't cheat! I'm off for some breakfast.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Experimenting with diet and nutrition
As some of you know I'm currently studying a nutrition course. Partly for my own interest and partly as a personal retraining programme in order to be self-supporting in ministry. Anyway, my interest in nutrition foes back a long way and should have been better informed a long time ago. I was only four years old when I declared my dislike of most meat and announced I wasn't going to eat it anymore! My mum thought it was a phase, but in broad terms I've not eaten most red meat since then. I still eat chicken and turkey, and a few other things that I like, so getting all my essential amino acids has never been a problem.
A few years ago I decided to do two things. One, tackle my increasing weight and secondly, take a serious look at the potential risks of diabetes and possible solutions. BOth my mother and my grandfather had type II and my twin now also has been diagnosed type II. I started to look at GI and we adjusted our diet as a family to follow a lower GI/GL regimen.
In the run up to our daughter's wedding, both Anne and I lost a lot of weight following a ver popular eating plan that worked for us, and generally speaking we are being reasonably successful at maintaining our weight. Of course the root problem is that you put on weight because you metabolism doesn't match your calorie intake, and those habits are hard to change but need to change over the long haul if you're going to avoid the modern phenomenon of going form one diet to another.
My current experiment on myself is to use both a calorie counting tool (the My Fitness Pal website I blogged about recently) and an adjusted balance of protein and carbohydrates and fat in my diet. The FSA guideline is roughly 15% calories from protein, 30% from fat, and 55% from carbohydrates. To give you an idea of what that looks like, the average healthy adult male runs on about 2,400 calories a day (it just makes the maths a little easier). 15% of that is 360, 30% is 720, which leaves 1120 for the carbohydrate portion.
The simple calculation is that 1g of protein or carbohydrate is 4 calories and 1g fat is 9 calories. So that would suggest that you would need to eat 90g protein, 80g fat, and 280g carbohydrate. Apparently, most people usually don't eat enough protein, and often too much fat, but that's a discussion for another day.
To lose weight you need to eat a calorie deficit diet (fewer in than burnt). But protein uses more energy to digest and so if you get more of your calories from protein the logically your body will need to work harder to extract the nutrients. This is the basis for diets like the Dukan diet that is very high in protein and low in carbohydrate. So my experiment has been to eat a calorie deficit diet of about 500 calories a day below my needs, and to eat 30% protein rather than 15%. On top of that I am making sure that I drink a lot of water. at least 1.5 litres a day and probably nearer 2.5.
What I've noticed is this:
Firstly, it's quite hard to make sure you're eating that much protein. My daily target is 150g, which turns out to be quite a lot for a non-meat eater! Protein shakes can help, but that's not a cheap option by any means and you do need to be careful about what you're doing.
Secondly, drinking that much water takes discipline, but then so does everything else!
Thirdly, never forget the importance of exercise to maintain lean muscle mass and keep your metabolic engine running!
Fourthly, it seems to work! I've lost about 6lbs (2.2kg) in 3-4 weeks and I still treat myself to the occasional flapjack in the coffee shop once a week.
A few years ago I decided to do two things. One, tackle my increasing weight and secondly, take a serious look at the potential risks of diabetes and possible solutions. BOth my mother and my grandfather had type II and my twin now also has been diagnosed type II. I started to look at GI and we adjusted our diet as a family to follow a lower GI/GL regimen.
In the run up to our daughter's wedding, both Anne and I lost a lot of weight following a ver popular eating plan that worked for us, and generally speaking we are being reasonably successful at maintaining our weight. Of course the root problem is that you put on weight because you metabolism doesn't match your calorie intake, and those habits are hard to change but need to change over the long haul if you're going to avoid the modern phenomenon of going form one diet to another.
My current experiment on myself is to use both a calorie counting tool (the My Fitness Pal website I blogged about recently) and an adjusted balance of protein and carbohydrates and fat in my diet. The FSA guideline is roughly 15% calories from protein, 30% from fat, and 55% from carbohydrates. To give you an idea of what that looks like, the average healthy adult male runs on about 2,400 calories a day (it just makes the maths a little easier). 15% of that is 360, 30% is 720, which leaves 1120 for the carbohydrate portion.
The simple calculation is that 1g of protein or carbohydrate is 4 calories and 1g fat is 9 calories. So that would suggest that you would need to eat 90g protein, 80g fat, and 280g carbohydrate. Apparently, most people usually don't eat enough protein, and often too much fat, but that's a discussion for another day.
To lose weight you need to eat a calorie deficit diet (fewer in than burnt). But protein uses more energy to digest and so if you get more of your calories from protein the logically your body will need to work harder to extract the nutrients. This is the basis for diets like the Dukan diet that is very high in protein and low in carbohydrate. So my experiment has been to eat a calorie deficit diet of about 500 calories a day below my needs, and to eat 30% protein rather than 15%. On top of that I am making sure that I drink a lot of water. at least 1.5 litres a day and probably nearer 2.5.
What I've noticed is this:
Firstly, it's quite hard to make sure you're eating that much protein. My daily target is 150g, which turns out to be quite a lot for a non-meat eater! Protein shakes can help, but that's not a cheap option by any means and you do need to be careful about what you're doing.
Secondly, drinking that much water takes discipline, but then so does everything else!
Thirdly, never forget the importance of exercise to maintain lean muscle mass and keep your metabolic engine running!
Fourthly, it seems to work! I've lost about 6lbs (2.2kg) in 3-4 weeks and I still treat myself to the occasional flapjack in the coffee shop once a week.
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
Coming to terms with not being thin
It's a strange business losing weight. Without appearing to trivialise or lessen the impact of severe eating disorders, I think I've learnt something over the last few months that helps me understand what some people go through. I never quite understood how a painfully thin person could look at themselves in the mirror and see a fat person staring back. I do now. Okay, so nowhere near as severe a distortion, but the truth is that even though I've lost a lot of weight I still see more or less the same person in the mirror. I know I'm thinner. I've gone from a 48in jacket to a 42 and a 40in waist pair of jeans to a 34in waist. When I look down I can see a fairly flat profile.
All very encouraging. I know these things, but what I see in the mirror remains distorted. The disturbing thing is that I actually don't feel any lighter or thinner. Occasionally I catch sight of myself and realise how much I've changed, but most of the time I'm unaware. Body image is such a subtle thing.
So I have to learn to see myself honestly. Perhaps that's part of the reason we put on weight in the first place, we don't pay attention to our increasing weight and we don't pay attention to our changing size and shape. I know someone who maintained for years that the clothes makers were making them smaller as they slowly added more weight.
Lessons too for our spiritual journeys. The keys to succeeding in losing the weight and maintaining a healthy weight will remain discipline, monitoring and honesty (accountability) about what I eat. The same is true for my spiritual development. I have to commit to a disciplined pattern, be accountable and honest with myself and before God. My journal helps me do these things, and as the new year approaches I ought to make a commitment to use my journal more thoughtfully than ever.
Here's to 2011 as a year of celebrating a successful weight loss programme, getting fitter, playing more tennis, and becoming a better follower of Jesus Christ than I've managed this year.
All very encouraging. I know these things, but what I see in the mirror remains distorted. The disturbing thing is that I actually don't feel any lighter or thinner. Occasionally I catch sight of myself and realise how much I've changed, but most of the time I'm unaware. Body image is such a subtle thing.
So I have to learn to see myself honestly. Perhaps that's part of the reason we put on weight in the first place, we don't pay attention to our increasing weight and we don't pay attention to our changing size and shape. I know someone who maintained for years that the clothes makers were making them smaller as they slowly added more weight.
Lessons too for our spiritual journeys. The keys to succeeding in losing the weight and maintaining a healthy weight will remain discipline, monitoring and honesty (accountability) about what I eat. The same is true for my spiritual development. I have to commit to a disciplined pattern, be accountable and honest with myself and before God. My journal helps me do these things, and as the new year approaches I ought to make a commitment to use my journal more thoughtfully than ever.
Here's to 2011 as a year of celebrating a successful weight loss programme, getting fitter, playing more tennis, and becoming a better follower of Jesus Christ than I've managed this year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)