Any nutritionists here? Weight gain!

[jimcav]

You can't have been on a starvation mode scenario: you gained weight.
You simply can't gain weight when calories in are less than calories out. That deficit is a minimum component of "starvation" related metabolic changes.

Most athletic individuals do not get to any "Starvation" point where significant body composition changes occur--because long before that the performance suffers greatly, and they alter nutrition intake. My experience is with data from tactical athletes (buzzward for USA/USN special operations training programs). I found the data similar to that for endurance athletes.

Going too low carb in relation to activity can have risks. I've seen a few individuals get significant metabolic acidosis, although in only one case was a high HR a presenting sign.

Essentially, a typical recreational athlete might theoretically be able to slightly shift (increase) percentage of fat as a portion of total mass, if they did significant, long term carb-deficient diet, but I've not seen it. My experience is with tactical athletes, who require both power and endurance, and the endurance was key due to sustained or continuous ops. I view that as more-similar-than-not in comparison to serious cycling.

You simply can't put on weight if you are running a negative calorie balance.
You will lose weight, and dependent on your intake of healthy nutrients coupled with how you are using/stressing major muscles and allowing recovery, that will drive your results both in performance and body composition.

Depending on quality/quantity of nutrients and balance of training/recovery, you could feel better or not, your could perform better or not, but the one thing you won't do when running a calorie deficit, is gain mass (weight, regardless of composition).

[Tz779]

Originally Posted by echappist

Disregard if you are not doing this, but I hope you are not paying any heed to that "Calories" figure generated by the app. However, if you are basing your total daily caloric needs as a sum of BMR and the "Calories" figure generated by that app, then there's a very good chance that app is leading you astray.

Actually, yes. I am using “MyFitnessPal” and packaging to track my intake of calories and the Wahoo calorie to get an idea of what i am “burning” cycling. I thought Wahoo *must* have done some research into this as a “rule of thumb” for cycling. You disagree i take it. How else does one calculate/estimate how many calories used during a workout?

[Tz779]

Originally Posted by jimcav

You can't have been on a starvation mode scenario: you gained weight.
You simply can't gain weight when calories in are less than calories out. That deficit is a minimum component of "starvation" related metabolic changes.

Now THIS I understand and agree with. Your answers are very helpful, and obviously you know this subject. I will probably lean on you for advice time to time if that is ok.
best,
robin

[echappist]

Originally Posted by Tz779

Actually, yes. I am using “MyFitnessPal” and packaging to track my intake of calories and the Wahoo calorie to get an idea of what i am “burning” cycling. I thought Wahoo *must* have done some research into this as a “rule of thumb” for cycling. You disagree i take it. How else does one calculate/estimate how many calories used during a workout?

Power meter

And there is no rule of thumb, due to the non steady wind resistance one experiences at cycling speeds (anything above 12-13 mph). Wind resistance becomes increasingly negligible at speed less than that, so speed itself has greater correlation to exertion when it comes to running.

I’m sorry to say that unless you rode on a 25 lb MTB and on decently hilly terrain, there is no way you expended ~900 kJ of work, when the average speed is around 16.5 mph. 500 kJ expended (which roughly burns 500 kcal, based on efficiency of 25%) would be a bit more realistic.

Were that calorie number remotely accurate (which it isn’t), based on the duration of your ride, you are looking at 220 avg for the entirety of the ride. That should be good for at least ~20 mph on relatively hilly terrain (net elevation gain of 1%)

In fact, this is another utility of a powermeter, as it gives a very good estimate (to within 5% for most) of how much one actually did burn. Should one have done a metabolic efficiency test, the accuracy becomes accuracy of the powermeter itself.

Also, when i did loop rides in the RTC of NC, 220 W solo would give me a 20 mph avg on the ride, and i think that terrain is hillier than what one finds in Charleston.

[Tz779]

Originally Posted by echappist

Power meter

I’m sorry to say that unless you rode on a 25 lb MTB and on decently hilly terrain, there is no way you expended ~900 kJ of work, when the average speed is around 16.5 mph. 500 kJ expended (which roughly burns 500 kcal, based on efficiency of 25%) would be a bit more realistic.

Were that calorie number remotely accurate (which it isn’t), based on the duration of your ride, you are looking at 220 avg for the entirety of the ride. That should be good for at least ~20 mph on relatively hilly terrain (net elevation gain of 1%)
.

It was 1:20:55 duration avg 15 mph. According to Harvard Med, cycling at 14-15.9 mph for 30 min takes 372 cal for 155# person.
220 cal seems very low for that ride. Maybe 932 *is* a bit high, but 220? I’m from Missouri.....

[echappist]

Originally Posted by Tz779

It was 1:20:55 duration avg 15 mph. According to Harvard Med, cycling at 14-15.9 mph for 30 min takes 372 cal for 155# person.
220 cal seems very low for that ride. Maybe 932 *is* a bit high, but 220? I’m from Missouri.....

Borrow a PM, and you’ll see what i mean.

220 W is avg power, not calorie burned. I estimated your effort to be ~500 kCal

Kcal (measurement of energy) = power * duration

220 W x 70 min gives about 930 kilojoule of work expended. To do that much work, a certain amount of fuel must be burned. That burning has an efficiency of ~21-25%, giving 3.7 to 4.4 MJ of energy burned. 1 calorie = 4.14 joule, so 3.7 to 4.4 MJ gives 890 to 1060 kCal burned. As a quick hand way, kJ expended is thus about the same as kCal burned.

[Tz779]

Originally Posted by echappist

Borrow a PM, and you’ll see what i mean.

220 W is avg power, not calorie burned. I estimated your effort to be ~500 kCal

Kcal (measurement of energy) = power * duration

220 W x 70 min gives about 930 kilojoule of work expended. To do that much work, a certain amount of fuel must be burned. That burning has an efficiency of ~21-25%, giving 3.7 to 4.4 MJ of energy burned. 1 calorie = 4.14 joule, so 3.7 to 4.4 MJ gives 890 to 1060 kCal burned. As a quick hand way, kJ expended is thus about the same as kCal burned.

I see. ok, thank you!

[tkbike]

Originally Posted by jimcav

You can't have been on a starvation mode scenario: you gained weight.
You simply can't gain weight when calories in are less than calories out. That deficit is a minimum component of "starvation" related metabolic changes.

Most athletic individuals do not get to any "Starvation" point where significant body composition changes occur--because long before that the performance suffers greatly, and they alter nutrition intake. My experience is with data from tactical athletes (buzzward for USA/USN special operations training programs). I found the data similar to that for endurance athletes.

Going too low carb in relation to activity can have risks. I've seen a few individuals get significant metabolic acidosis, although in only one case was a high HR a presenting sign.

Essentially, a typical recreational athlete might theoretically be able to slightly shift (increase) percentage of fat as a portion of total mass, if they did significant, long term carb-deficient diet, but I've not seen it. My experience is with tactical athletes, who require both power and endurance, and the endurance was key due to sustained or continuous ops. I view that as more-similar-than-not in comparison to serious cycling.

You simply can't put on weight if you are running a negative calorie balance.
You will lose weight, and dependent on your intake of healthy nutrients coupled with how you are using/stressing major muscles and allowing recovery, that will drive your results both in performance and body composition.

Depending on quality/quantity of nutrients and balance of training/recovery, you could feel better or not, your could perform better or not, but the one thing you won't do when running a calorie deficit, is gain mass (weight, regardless of composition).

What about water weight? Calorie deficits are often offset with extreme hydration! I know when I’m training for an endurance run I always gain weight with reduced caloric intake. It is only temporary but it is real!

[jimcav]

Originally Posted by Tz779

Now THIS I understand and agree with. Your answers are very helpful, and obviously you know this subject. I will probably lean on you for advice time to time if that is ok.
best,
robin

i think once you figure out your caloric expenditures and accurate intake, and then adjust intake to be less than output (I don't recommend dramatic negative energy balance) you will, over time, see the results you want.

[NHAero]

In the past few months there was a good thread here on calories burned while riding. It is surprisingly low vs. numbers the apps show. Echappist's math is probably pretty on target for your 1:20 ride. I have a couple of variations on a 20 mile loop with about 700 ft of elevation, and I average 16-16.5 mph +/-, a bit under 1:15 usually, and figure that's about 500 kcal.

[jimcav]

Originally Posted by tkbike

What about water weight? Calorie deficits are often offset with extreme hydration! I know when I’m training for an endurance run I always gain weight with reduced caloric intake. It is only temporary but it is real!

temporary is the key there. Just as with high-salt meal loads (take out, microwave foods, etc), one can temporarily have positive or negative swings in water. I am not aware of long term water gains during training, the body usually regulates H2O in and out pretty well.

We certainly would do pre-and post weights on the more extreme exertions, or high heat days where training continued, to ensure proper rehydration. I never saw sustained weight gain from water intake. So, i don't understand how you saw significant gain over time when calorie negative.

anyway, not an issue for the OP--posted 1lb water gain, <1% which isn't significant for anyone, especially doing an endurance activity

[skitlets]

Originally Posted by jimcav

i think once you figure out your caloric expenditures and accurate intake, and then adjust intake to be less than output (I don't recommend dramatic negative energy balance) you will, over time, see the results you want.

Caloric expenditure can vary a lot, and that's ignoring calories burned via exercise. The body has a baseline weight that it wants to hold, and the farther you stray from it, the greater the deficit that is needed. The baseline can and should be reset -- it's physically and mentally taxing to be on a long cut.

[jimcav]

Originally Posted by skitlets

The baseline can and should be reset -- it's physically and mentally taxing to be on a long cut.

America has been on a long gain.

The military has decades of data
1990 average height and weight for USAF aircrew male personnel:
mean height 1990 178.9cm (70.4 inches) 2009 178.7cm (70.35 inches)
mean weight 1990 176# 2009 186#
for those in the 95 percentile the ave. height was unchanged at 190cm (74.8 inches), but weight went from 213# to 234#

that is in a "fit" population
Army mean height in 2012 was 175.6cm (69.1 inches) 95% was 187cm (73.6")
mean weight in 2012 was 188.5# was and 95% was 244#

not trying to show USAF is more fit than USA, as that is aircrew mean vs all army mean;, but rather showing that Americans have "set" their body baseline to be overweight, and it is even worse for the average joe than the GI version

[Tz779]

Originally Posted by tkbike

What about water weight? Calorie deficits are often offset with extreme hydration! I know when I’m training for an endurance run I always gain weight with reduced caloric intake. It is only temporary but it is real!

I only had one pound “extracellular water” increase since June visit. She *did* ask me if I had drank a lot of water just before this visit, which i had not.

[skitlets]

Fortunately it's relatively easy to reset the baseline.

By way of example, my last structured cut of 8 weeks, I gradually reduced calories to 1700. After no further weight loss after 2 weeks on 1700 cals a day, I returned to a "maintenance" level of 2200 cals for 4 weeks. No weight loss or gain over that time frame, despite eating 500 calories more per day.