#31
|
|||
|
|||
I don't think it is relevant in your case
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). |
#32
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#33
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
best, robin |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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. Last edited by echappist; 10-24-2020 at 08:22 PM. |
#35
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
220 cal seems very low for that ride. Maybe 932 *is* a bit high, but 220? I’m from Missouri..... |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
#37
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
happy to help if I can
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.
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
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.
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
sure
Quote:
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 |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
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.
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
totally agree
Quote:
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 |
#44
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|