[Closed] Body Fat %

always impressed at how well a protein shake can split opinions.

vs milk
lower calorie and lower fat
feels more substantial so works well against food cravings
before or after exercise or as a meal replacement
cheap, quick, easy to consume, easy to clear up, doesnt spoil
many folk like it as part of a considered diet, i dont understand the haters.

im sure some people just reach for them instead of water or expect to be the next mr. universe

[i] ghostlymachine - Member

Maybe you just aren't that fit?
Might explain the struggle to crack 4th cat? [/i]

And, may be that wasn't very polite.

And for those who may have forgotten by page 3, a reminder of the question...

[i] Kryton57 - Member
but why aren't I losing more fat, [/i]

🙂

Solo - Member
ghostlymachine - Member

Maybe you just aren't that fit?
Might explain the struggle to crack 4th cat?

And may be that isn't very polite.

Quite, and if he's tracking my threads that closely he'll know about the Gorrick podium, 24hr top 10's & top ten's in Vets MTB series which might suggest I'm a little bit fit at least.

I am fit, but I'm not a "strong" rider, which is a deficit to my racing, especially crits by thier nature. And I might add, I did OK at Hillingdon - flat so suits me - until I lost my bottle after being surrounded by several crashes.

FWIW I'm pushing 6-8hrs a week if the weather is kind (3+ hrs turbo, 4hrs club ride, 1hr-90mins personal "smash" ride).

I realise I'm not going to be in the top ranks on those numbers but my working and family circumstances support the racing and limit that, not the other way around.

vs milk
lower calorie and lower fat
feels more substantial so works well against food cravings
before or after exercise or as a meal replacement
cheap, quick, easy to consume, easy to clear up, doesnt spoil
many folk like it as part of a considered diet, i dont understand the haters.

A balanced view at last...

A balanced view at last...

Plus milk leaves a rank aftertaste in my mouth

Do you really need a mid-morning snack? I have breakfast at 6:30 and lunch around 13:30, and I don't usually eat anything between those meals. A bit of hunger won't kill you.

I tend to have breakfast at half 7, a snack at 10, lunch at 12.. but then dont eat again till 7.30.

FWIW I'm pushing 6-8hrs a week if the weather is kind (3+ hrs turbo, 4hrs club ride, 1hr-90mins personal "smash" ride).

Similar to me, in all honesty I can't see how I'd fit in more with a full 9-5 and a wife who doesn count me gasping on the turbo at her to open the window as 'spending quality time together.'

protein shake ...after exercise ... cheap, quick,

I refer you to my earlier post, where its a lower cal supplement to recovery rather than a purchase to build muscle as is normally understood. To put the food back would be to eat more for the same protein content.

Is it worth trying reducing the training volume a bit (or mix it up, swap some turbo time for weights or swimming) so that you don't need a recovery drink/meal/whatever? Target the weight loss then crank back on the power & strength when you're at whatever weight you feel comfortable at.

I wonder if you're trying to make your body do two different things.

I know that exercise tones me up a treat (very obvious when I'm running regularly) but I don't really lose much on the scales.

Is it worth trying reducing the training volume a bit

Within 10 posts, I'm not training enough, or I need to reduce my training 😀

Think I'll go for the middle option and stay as I am (I can't swim).

1) It really isn't that much exercise.

2) As it isn't much exercise all nutrition should come from normal food and water, throw away protein shakes, energy drinks etc.

3) Body fat scales are garbage - ignore.

4) You don't need huge amounts of fancy data to tell you when you are getting faster and/or lighter - a stopwatch, scales and mirror tells you 90% of the story.

I hate to say it OP but this is pretty much spot on. At your current W/Kg you've got a big chunk you can achieve on the W side of the equation before getting too hung up on the Kg (assuming you aren't massively overweight and cracking out 400W FTP).

Do you really need a mid-morning snack? I have breakfast at 6:30 and lunch around 13:30, and I don't usually eat anything between those meals. A bit of hunger won't kill you.

I tend to have breakfast at half 7, a snack at 10, lunch at 12.. but then dont eat again till 7.30.

My plan involved taking something out of my lunch and my evening meal and using the calories as an in between meal snack. Prevented me from being really hungry and eating more than I should at main meals.

Also on the subject of cereal bars, not all are created equal. 9 bars are probably better than rice crispy squares. You will need to read the labels and look at the calories, sugar, fat, protein content and consider it.

Is it worth trying reducing the training volume a bit

Seems quite low as it is (to me).

I did about 16 hours a week when I raced in the NPS....

At your current W/Kg you've got a big chunk you can achieve on the W side of the equation

And you have the magic formulae? Please enlighten me!

I will add thats this is Trainerroad assessment specific to my setup, so not real world, I tend to push out more like 3.8w/kg in competition.

Seems quite low as it is (to me).

Yes and I wish people would stop banging on about it. I have a job which means I travel about the country during the week so am often not in one location, am the sole earner so its important to me and have two young kids. There isn't much more time to give to racing TBH, otherwise I would!

Talk about off topic... 🙄

Blimey 3 pages dissecting diet, lifestyle and training regime. I think the only problem the OP has (at least in relation to this topic 😉 ) is how he's measuring body fat percentage.

Talk about off topic...

You do know how the Internet works right? You don't get to control everything on it....

Talk about off topic

I'd query if body fat % is even a sensible KPI for someone racing 3/4 races? Bunch finesse and a decent sprint will win you lots of points.

if he spent more time training and less time reading this thread.....

I'd query if body fat %

It was an indicative question based on weight loss. When aren't blessed with masses of power and superior climbing ability, the KG part of the W/KG equation can help a little.

I'm not turning myself into Geraint, just helping myself sensibly to a bit more of the W/KG number in balance.

FWIW I can see an Ab now, and even the end of my cock if I look past my double chins at just the right angle.

if he spent more time training and less time reading this thread.....

You dont need that much protein, maybe 50g per day, the people who say other wise curiously also sell protein.

And you have the magic formulae? Please enlighten me!

Well no, as I neither know who you are or what you get up to. But if you already know that by race day you'll be up to 3.8 W/Kg or so, then why worry so much? As obviously one or both sides of the equation are going to start moving the right way.

FFS, he asked why his body fat isn't going down, not if he's training enough.

For the majority of people there's a clear correlation, that's why it's being suggested. Total time training in this case isn't a lot.

For the majority of people there's a clear correlation, that's why it's being suggested.

+1

Not that he has a clue what his BF is if he's using those daft scales.....

Not that he has a clue what his BF is if he's using those daft scales.....

Whilst this has become clear (calipers arrive tomorrow), this

For the majority of people there's a clear correlation, that's why it's being suggested. Total time training in this case isn't a lot.

Is a bit muddied; Lets remember I am losing weight (7lb since 25th December) yes less calories and my training have worked, but my question was based on the scales not showing a [b]body fat % [/b]reduction, not the lack of a weight reduction.

A measure which I now understand thanks to the help of people here, to be invalid with the mechanism I am using.

Please remember I've gone from 77KG to 74KG in 4.5 weeks.

not to get into the whole long steady miles vs hiit stuff
done a fair bit of CPET testing on athletes and myself and other coaches and in z2(h/rate ) the some of the best i have seen
in terms of energy supply is 70%from fats 30% from carbs most being around 60/40 or less .
so if you training a lot in higher zones that is a lot of energy coming from carbs and not fat....
those figures are unique to each individual and a view into how 'efficient' they are
hope that helps

But if you already know that by race day you'll be up to 3.8 W/Kg or so, then why worry so much

Because wouldn't we all like our number to be higher, eh?

Because wouldn't we all like our number to be higher, eh?

Yes of course we would, but if you've maxed out your training time and there's a lower limit to your body fat which is achievable on that time, then there comes a point where you have to accept your level and get on with it.
None of us on here are going to be world champions, are we?

[i] soobalias - Member
if he spent more time training and less time reading this thread..... [/i]

[i] LS - Member
For the majority of people there's a clear correlation, that's why it's being suggested. Total time training in this case isn't a lot. [/i]

No, and, errr, no. As we all know, you can't out-exercise a bad diet.

I'll try again. If someone wants to burn more fat, then it may be worth while getting to understand what drives fat storage. while also considering how and why fat is released for use.

Lean people can be unfit. Fit people can be chubby. Soooo, perhaps we could:

a) not rely on exercise to mitigate poor diet.

b) address the issue of body fat reduction or lack of, and stop sniping at the OP for not exercising enough.

OP has already explained how time crunched they are. So perhaps lets discuss BF reduction, within those constraints.

And as for the anecdotal advise. It may have worked for you, but that doesn't guarantee the OP the same results.

wilburt - Member

You dont need that much protein, maybe 50g per day, the people who say other wise curiously also sell protein

That is the protien intake for anaverage person though. From the wonders of the internet: "A sedentary person needs to eat about 0.8g of protein per kg of body mass each day. Athletes, and people who want to build muscle, need about double this (1.2 – 1.7g of protein/kg of body mass)"
[google lifted from abc.com.au]

So personally, if I was doing minimal amounts I'd need 48g, but as I'm training, taking the middle value I'd need ~87g. Even with a protein bar a day (which i dont eat) that suggests I'd need more protein.

You dont need that much protein, maybe 50g per day, the people who say other wise curiously also sell protein

Good luck training for racing eating that little protein a day, your thighs would just shrink month on month...

I'm not sniping, if anything I'm trying to stop the OP getting too hung up on something that it's quite easy to take too far to the extreme (I've been there).
The performance limit that the OP will hit is likely to come from his training restrictions well before his body fat, and if he's doing intense intervals then trying to do both at the same time can be a knife-edge.

[i] LS - Member

The performance limit that the OP will hit is likely to come from his training restrictions well before his body fat, and if he's doing intense intervals then trying to do both at the same time can be a knife-edge. [/i]

Most probably. But if OP is wondering why they are not experiencing the expected BF loss, then I'd suggest "[i]more exercise[/i]" isn't the correct answer [u][b]without[/b][/u] addressing changes in diet to compliment the OP's regime.

Everyone wants to get best results for least input. If someone is max'd out for time available to exercise. Then that's how it is.

Already been mentioned but nutritional Ketosis & riding in a fasted state for body fat loss.

We have the Withings scales. My stick thin, healthy, fell running, 9 year old measures about 80% fat, she's a human pork scratching.

Judging by the skin over her sixpack, I'd guess she's basically zero fat!

The scales are indeed... bobbins

Everyone wants to get best results for least input. If someone is max'd out for time available to exercise. Then that's how it is.

Already been mentioned but nutritional Ketosis & riding in a fasted state for body fat loss.

This is pretty much the point I'm trying to make - fasted rides and all that work, but if there's limited time available and that time is taken up by interval training, then it'll be very hard to fit in without dropping something that probably gives a higher performance gain.

There are times - and I was already asking in the Trainerroad thread - when I may be able to drop in a fasted Z2 turbo session on "rest" days, something which I'll start to implement - in fact I've got one tomorrow morning at 6am. This was to get more bike time in.

FWIW I'm likely to end up 500cals under target today after a 700 cal turbo session and I feel stuffed after 3 wholemeal pitta's, 1 pot of low fat houmous and a soy protien isolate shake for lunch.

This mornings breakfast was 45g of oats with semi skimmed milk.

[i] LS - Member
This is pretty much the point I'm trying to make

then it'll be very hard to fit in without dropping something that probably gives a higher performance gain. [/i]

Ah, ok, I see where you're coming from now. I was focusing more on the fat loss Q, as opposed to improving performance.
🙂

and I feel stuffed after 3 wholemeal pitta's

The scales are indeed... [s]bobbins[/s]

Already been mentioned but nutritional Ketosis & riding in a fasted state for body fat loss.

Hmm. But then again.. does that result in reduced base metabolic rate over time?

On your daily protein requirements, you need far more than needed by a standard person! At least the amount recommended for athletes, ideally more, as a high protein diet helps reduce muscle loss when you're trying to lose fat.

Also, why soy protein shakes? You're obviously not vegan, so why are you choosing a protein powder that isn't as effective as whey or casein? Ideally, a whey/casein mix is the one.

Agreed on cutting out most of the carbs with very little other nutritional value, eg your bread. Just a waste.

Get your protein, carbs etc. from proper food not manky shakes. Jacket potato and tuna can be done in a microwave minutes.

Ans unless you have specific issues, then bread really isn't the devil some people now make it out to be.

Get your protein, carbs etc. from proper food not manky shakes

I really don't get the aversion to shakes, they're cheap, convenient, and you get the lowest protein to calorie ratio which is ideal if you're worried about BF %.

36p per 500ml, 110cals, cheaper than milk, and certainly the 347cal Frij I was drinking.

So let me get this straight. You're saying that a protein shake over a normal diet will help the regular trainer?

No one's saying that. What's being said is you can get a lower calorie, convenient protein intake from a shake. If neither reduced calories or convenience - or perhaps expense - is important to you, don't bother.

You could cook a chicken breast at about £1 - £1.50 depending on quality, if you have the time & inclination.

Higher protein intake than average is proven to help athlete's who experience muscular stress, yes.

So let me get this straight. You're saying that a protein shake over a normal diet will help the regular trainer?

No, where did I post that?

Also, if you're expecting to compete and win in cycling, you're far from a 'regular' trainer, who would be dropped in just about any race within 200yards of the start line.

Get your protein, carbs etc. from proper food not manky shakes. Jacket potato and tuna can be done in a microwave minutes.

Yeah, I always have a baked potato and tin of tuna in my gym bag...

molgrips - Member

Already been mentioned but nutritional Ketosis & riding in a fasted state for body fat loss.

Hmm. But then again.. does that result in reduced base metabolic rate over time?
.
.
in a word ... No!
2yrs into keto and strong as an Ox n ripped to the bone 🙂

Good luck training for racing eating that little protein a day, your thighs would just shrink month on month...

I've been on less than that for a year or so whilst consistanty improving my strength and results, not bad considering I'm also up against old man time.

@krypton The 0.8g per KG is UK RDA for an average male btw nothing about sedentary life you've just added that bit for fun. Even that figure is arrived at after the meat lobbyists have leant all over the advisory commitee so considered by some to be on the high side.

Body builders perhaps need more but who want to be a bodybuilder and a cyclist?
In context of this, a cycling forum I don't see any evidence( thats actual evidence not a study by proteins shakes r us.) to suggest anything over the RDA is needed.

I've been on less than that for a year or so whilst consistanty improved my strength and results, not bad considering I'm also up against old man time.

Great anecdote.

IIRC Team Sky eat about 25% of their calories from Protein which will be a lot more than 50g a day....

to suggest anything over the RDA is needed.

Pretty much any professional cycling team will be eating well over the RDA..

In context of this, a cycling forum I don't see any evidence( thats actual evidence not a study by proteins shakes r us.) to suggest anything over the RDA is needed.

Maybe you should type "protien for cyclists" into google.

OK so the maximum the UK goverment recommends for any age male adult is 55g...

But we think the professional full time cyclist (sponsored by protein bar manufacturers) are taking extra and you want what they've got, how much more do you need given your near pro physiology 50%, 100% ?

That's still probably less than your getting from an average meat diet( possibly one plate!)

Maybe you should type "protien for cyclists" into google.

Ah yes, that'll give me the facts

Wilburt according to mfp I got 111g today. I must be awzums

OK so the maximum the UK goverment recommends for any age male adult is 55g.

Except it doesn't say maximum, it says "estimated average"

in a word ... No!
2yrs into keto and strong as an Ox n ripped to the bone

Sample size of 1, too many variables between individuals to draw any conclusion.

And I'm not doing keto. Step too far for me.

But we think the professional full time cyclist (sponsored by protein bar manufacturers) are taking extra and you want what they've got, how much more do you need given your near pro physiology 50%, 100%

I think you'll find they eat according to their team dietician / best available science, as they're in the business of maximising performance. Not that many teams are sponsored by Protein bar manufactures (there isn't enough money in it to be able to afford to sponsor a Pro team).

in a word ... No!
2yrs into keto and strong as an Ox n ripped to the bone

Sample size of 1, too many variables between individuals to draw any conclusion.

And I'm not doing keto. Step too far for mem

shame! because its an easy and Very very tasty step 😀

And I'm not doing keto. Step too far for me.

I don't think anyone suggested you do.

Nowt wrong with supplementing a good diet with protein boosters if you're working hard. As above, they can be a good way of getting the levels where you think you need them without taking on extra fats and carbs.

I think many misunderstand the benefit of extra protein and think it's strictly for muscle types much like the way weightlifting is perceived by those without experience.

shame! because its an easy and Very very tasty step

Aye right.

You don't need more protein, you can digest and absorb more yes but your body can only utilize a small amount of that for muscle growth. The rda is more than enough unless you take anabolics which is the only way you increase the rate you can turn it into muscle.

Diet stuff aside, my take from this is your exercise is wrong for burning fat. Vo2 max sessions and hard club rides are going to do wonders for your cardio fitness, as you're likely working in the upper heart-rate zones. But your body is going to be burning glucose in your bloodstream to fuel those. So it'll be working off your most recent meal, not your fat stores.

To burn fat, you need to slow down. Long rides at max zone 2 heart rate so you body switches into fat burning for fuel.

In my running training I find I always lose weight marathon training as I'm spending long hours at low heart rates. For the summer road race season I always maintain or gain weight as I do a lot of short running at high intensity. My calorie intake is always neutral throughout (I eat what I burn + BMR amount).

In short, I'd keep the mid week high intensity trainer sessions, but I'd switch club groups on a weekend to the old-boys long distance group and spend three hours at a low heart rate.

A very complex topic, lots of theories, lots of science which is why this has stretched to 5 pages. I find it fascinating both from a scientific point of view and in seeing how different people interpret science and media publications.

I was going to comment on this

To burn fat, you need to slow down. Long rides at max zone 2 heart rate so you body switches into fat burning for fuel.

I thought this was a myth (cit. needed 😉 ). My understanding is that your body will always use the most readily available fuel which will be you glycogen stores. This will be replenished either by supplies coming from digestion or from metabolizing your fat reserves. I don't think your body preferentially uses fat reserves under any circumstances. What slow rides allow you to do is to continue to use up energy at a rate where your fat reserves can supply them if the other sources aren't there. So doing a long slow ride will only work if you do it slightly in calorie deficit - if you eat cake all ride this will be the energy stores.

The problem with high intensity exercise is that the fuel source pretty much has to come from glycogen and carbohydrate, fat is not fast enough. As such you can do them calorie deficient* but you will bonk most spectacularly.

*By this I don't mean completely fasted, just don't put in as much as you are planning on using on an overall balance.

[i] jonba - Member

A very complex topic, lots of theories, lots of science which is why this has stretched to 5 pages. I find it fascinating both from a scientific point of view and in seeing how different people interpret science and media publications.

[u]My understanding[/u] is that your body will always use the most readily available fuel which will be you glycogen stores. This will be replenished either by supplies coming from digestion or from metabolizing your fat reserves. I don't think your body preferentially uses fat reserves under any circumstances.[/i]

During exercise, people use a variable ratio of fat to carbohydrate.
Yes, carbohydrate is more readily consumed in the muscles in order to provide energy for movement, which is why we see people use a higher ratio of carbohydrate to fat, [u]to provide the energy to sustain high intensity exercise[/u], until those carbohydrate stores are significantly depleted, etc.

Conversely, this is also why we see people [u]at low intensity exercise[/u]. Sustain their activity using energy, a higher ratio of which comes from fat, while obviously using a lower amount of carbohydrate.

Long and slow in order to try to reduce BF% is for a lot of people, V boring. I'd suggest dealing with boredom is part of the challenge one chooses to face, in order to achieve their goals, but Ho-Hey, each to their own.

Likewise, HIIT is mostly employed to manifest physiological adaptation to improve strength, or whatever the goal is, for bringing about that physiological adaption.

So in simple terms one makes their choice to do one or the other. However, some folk may try a bit of both, simultaneously, which would be very difficult to do, successfully, as pointed out in an earlier post.

If you cut out the bread and crisps then you'd loose far more fat than you're currently doing. Replace these with rice, couscous etc. Also add perhaps one session of weights work into your training every week. That will help you loose just the fat rather than a combination of fat and muscle weight. Simple, worked for me.

To burn fat, you need to slow down. Long rides at max zone 2 heart rate so you body switches into fat burning for fuel.

I thought this was a myth

For anyone not familiar with Trainer Road, it also includes Z2 worksouts. In fact I was up 6am this morning doing exactly that in a fasted state.

to burn fat efficiently you need to be in carb deficit, if you have any glycogen in your system your body will naturally use that first and store the fats until the glycogen is depleted.

I personally function extremely well on animal fat, Moderate protein and under 20gm of low GI carbs per day, im about 8% body fat and can ride all day without 'bonking' so something tells me this is the best way simply because its soooo easy! IF you are battling to get fat off then IMO you are doing something wrong.
Nutritional ketosis is the right way to get the results you are after.

read this. http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Art-Science-Carbohydrate-Performance/dp/0983490716
or Ignore it and carry on with the battle you cannot win 🙂

Not saying you won't lose fat this way, just that HIIT is way more efficient time-wise.

It's not a myth if it works 🙂

I have a feeling that the studies on HIIT don't result in ALL participants losing more weight than ALL the control.

There is no "magic switch" in the body where it flicks from fat to glycogen at a certain intensity level

So what explains the blood lactate/intensity graph? (genuine question)

to burn fat efficiently you need to be in carb deficit, if you have any glycogen in your system your body will naturally use that first and store the fats until the glycogen is depleted.

At low intensities.

im about 8% body fat and can ride all day without 'bonking'

Fine, but what about your sprint? Not everyone wants to ride all day, lots of different kinds of cycling. I suspect that keto is not the best way to train for XC racing for example.

In short, there are lots of things you can do that will result in weight loss. Which one works for you physically and personally depends on your preference, your lifestyle, your goals, your genes and what you want to achieve in terms of riding.

my sprint is fine thanks, for a 50yr old who rides for fun 😆
all I can say is that since I have been in ketosis my body composition is waaay better, my performance is better and more important to me my joint pains are much less than they were 🙂

People seem to make this more complex than it is....

If you want to lose fat go into calorific deficit. don't over do it cause it's not sustainable.

In setting your calorie level include how much you need to achieve your training goals.

Review your progress every four weeks. are you losing fat? Are you achieving your goals? And change your diet accordingly.

Andy Morgan seems to have a no BS approach that's easy to follow.

[url= http://rippedbody.jp/complete-diet-nutrition-set-up-guide/ ]diet set up[/url]

Sure it's aimed at building muscle but it's all just energy.. why make it complex

He also answers the OPs question...

[url= http://rippedbody.jp/diet-progress-tracking/ ]how to track your progress[/url]

People seem to make this more complex than it is....

If you want to lose fat go into calorific deficit. don't over do it cause it's not sustainable.

Right and wrong, if you want to loose fat, muscle and weight just go on a calorie deficient diet.

If you want to loose just the fat and therefore weight (but not muscle), then don't worry too much about calories, just cut down on sugar, processed carbs and eat more natural sources of protein plus plenty of carbs from vegetables.

calorie deficit? Ok then explain this! I regularly have over 4000+ calories per day of animal fats (and stay very lean) but recently did an experiment where I was 'supposed for a week' to eat a normal carb diet of around 3000/3500 calories, BUT at the end of day 3 my weight had gone up by 12'lbs and my waist circumference by 5 inches 😯 so I cut the experiment off right there and then! so Explain the calorie thing to me???

I'm getting confused by this thread, but not the scientific bit, surely the OP has lost fat and probably not much, if any muscle, by dropping 7lb since Christmas. It's the believing of the fat % given by the crappy scales that's misled him into thinking he hasn't. Or have I missed something ?

[i] zilog6128 - Member

To burn fat, you need to slow down. Long rides at max zone 2 heart rate so you body switches into fat burning for fuel.
I thought this was a myth
Yeah this is a myth that belongs back in the 80s along with Jane Fonda workout videos. Not saying you won't lose fat this way, just that HIIT is way more efficient time-wise. There is no "magic switch" in the body where it flicks from fat to glycogen at a certain intensity level. The body is way more complicated than that. [/i]

TrickyDisco posted test results, which IIRC, demonstrated that the ratio/amount of fat used in comparison to exercise intensity, varied inversely.
The higher the intensity, the less fat TD was using and vice-versa.

HIIT uses fat to fuel adaptation. Building muscle, for example, requires energy as well as protein. This is where you see people digressing about post-workout "burning" etc.

[i] molgrips - Member
In short, there are lots of things you can do that will result in weight loss. Which one works for you physically and personally depends on your preference, [b]your lifestyle, your goals,[/b] your genes and what you want to achieve in terms of riding. [/i]

Agreed.
(My emphasis in relation to the OP's comments)

I'm getting confused by this thread, but not the scientific bit, surely the OP has lost fat and probably not much, if any muscle, by dropping 7lb since Christmas. It's the believing of the fat % given by the crappy scales that's misled him into thinking he hasn't. Or have I missed something ?

You are quite right, but the thread has since "evolved" many times in the time old tradition of STW.

There is some useful stuff being added though!

BUT at the end of day 3 my weight had gone up by 12'lbs and my waist circumference by 5 inches so I cut the experiment off right there and then! so Explain the calorie thing to me???

From what I understand, the weight gain would come from water attached to the glycogen. 1 gram of glycogen bonds to 3-4 grams of water.

For the waist size, it's highly unlikely (impossible!) that you put on fat around your middle so quickly so will be stomach bloating from the sudden reintroduction of carbs (I'm guessing bread, pasta etc)

TrickyDisco posted test results, which IIRC, demonstrated that the ratio/amount of fat used in comparison to exercise intensity, varied inversely.

aye.. did a fitness test years ago hooked up to various things and measured certain things

[img] [/img]

at the end of the test I was told I was rubbish at burning fats for fuel

[i] centralscrutinizer - Member
Or have I missed something ? [/i]

I think we all agreed earlier, using your bathroom scales to gain a useful BF% probably wasn't "[i]best practice[/i]".

[i]Trickydisco - Member

at the end of the test I was told I was rubbish at burning fats for fuel [/i]

However, IIRC, you did improve your ability to use more fat, via change in diet and exercise, no?

Your experience also substantiates, if not already obvious, MolGrips point about genetic variation between individuals.