I understand, I'm also a father although I am lucky in that I work from home so no commute and somewhat flexible work hours. However, I had to make sacrifices for training and make some lifestyle changes. I got to bed around 9pm so I can get out the house at 6am to run for example. I don't take a lunch break but sat at my desk working. To make up for lost hours in the week I work at weekends. And yeah, Sometimes I spend a little less time with my kid, but tbh, I sometimes like quiet time away from the family chaos out on the roads.
Surprisingly quick initial weight loss
- Thread starter Uriel
- Start date
I understand, I'm also a father although I am lucky in that I work from home so no commute and somewhat flexible work hours. However, I had to make sacrifices for training and make some lifestyle changes. I got to bed around 9pm so I can get out the house at 6am to run for example. I don't take a lunch break but sat at my desk working. To make up for lost hours in the week I work at weekends. And yeah, Sometimes I spend a little less time with my kid, but tbh, I sometimes like quiet time away from the family chaos out on the roads.
Man of Honour
Indeed, I'm aware of the differences between cycling, running and the others 
Useful info though.
Useful info though.
Cheers, I assumed the HR given by the cross trainer etc was pretty accurate. I'll look into getting a HRM.
These last couple of posts have made me want to run so I'm going to use the cross trainer for an hour or so tonight
The cross trainer was very handy while I had achilles and back injuries. It meant I could do some fairly intensive cardio training without the impacts (although with my achilles, it's more take-off than landing that was the problem)
For some reason I don't get on with exercise bikes. Really struggle to raise my heart rate on those and the legs tire first.
For some reason I don't get on with exercise bikes. Really struggle to raise my heart rate on those and the legs tire first.
Man of Honour
Cheers, I assumed the HR given by the cross trainer etc was pretty accurate. I'll look into getting a HRM.
These last couple of posts have made me want to run so I'm going to use the cross trainer for an hour or so tonight
The HR reading may be accurate but the kcal estimate probably won't be
A lot of it will be down to conditioning. I cycle a lot (10,000 miles last year, about 8,000 so far this year) so my legs are very much conditioned to be able to cycle for a long time/at a high intensity. If your cardio fitness is far in advance of your cycling ability you'll struggle to push yourself in that way. I have the opposite problem when I try to run - my cardio is pretty good so I can push quite well but my legs just aren't used to that kind of strain and fall apart pretty quickly
edit: Also, regular exercise bikes tend to be pretty rubbish. See if you can get a watt bike or something similar - even then they're often a bit bleh.
Minor moment of disappointment. I've been tracking body composition using my Salter BIA scales for about 2.5 years. Feed the info into an excel spreadsheet and have kept a fairly close eye on the results.
I'd assumed the scales were working well (reasonably, I know BIA ain't the best way to estimate body composition) but noticed that any increases in lean body mass were always very minor, unless accompanied by overall weight gain (and vice versa). This is particularly noticeable when doing regular resistance training when you might expect lean body mass to increase.
Well after some fiddling with the maths, I have come to the conclusion that there is an irritatingly strong correlation between the body fat percentage number that the scales spit out and BMI. I came up with a linear equation to relate the two. Feed in BMI to the equation and I can predict the body fat percentage the scales will spit out to within +/-0.7% (usually within 0.2%). For the statisticians among you this gives an R squared value of 0.9966!
Bioelectrical impedance / resistance does alter the result in a fairly predictable fashion, however. BF% given by the scales is slightly lower (like 0.3%...) than predicted for my most active periods - and slightly higher post Christmas etc. The fact remains though that it's just spitting out a converted BMI reading as BF% with impedance seemingly forming a very minor modifer of the equation.
It's a bit irritating really, as I found working towards BF% targets quite a motivating factor.
Last edited:
Soldato
I really do hate science and maths sometimes. I enjoy understanding what I'm doing, and I know the science for what my goals are. But Jesus, if I'm trying to lose weight I just check the scales; if over the course of a week my weight has gone down, I'm fairly confident my BF% has too. I can always do the old fashioned "mirror check" if all else fails.
Short of calliper readings, nothing is going to be accurate in regards to reading Bf%. Best way to do it? Look in the mirror. If you see more lines and less softness, you're doing good. Stop over complicating what you're doing - IE, losing weight.
Short of calliper readings, nothing is going to be accurate in regards to reading Bf%. Best way to do it? Look in the mirror. If you see more lines and less softness, you're doing good. Stop over complicating what you're doing - IE, losing weight.
That's the thing. I wasn't just trying to lose weight as such. I also wanted to maintain lean body mass.
The scales aren't complicated to operate and they weren't expensive. After initially programming them you just press a button, stand on them and they spit out the numbers. Certainly less complicated than learning to use calipers or arranging to have someone else do it.
It just so happens that it's very unlikely that the BIA part of them is a useful tool for measuring body composition. As just scales they seem to be accurate and precise (they compare well with doctors and gym scales that I know have been properly calibrated) - perhaps the best scales I've owned. I will miss believing that they also provided an reasonable estimate of lean body mass changes too.
The scales aren't complicated to operate and they weren't expensive. After initially programming them you just press a button, stand on them and they spit out the numbers. Certainly less complicated than learning to use calipers or arranging to have someone else do it.
It just so happens that it's very unlikely that the BIA part of them is a useful tool for measuring body composition. As just scales they seem to be accurate and precise (they compare well with doctors and gym scales that I know have been properly calibrated) - perhaps the best scales I've owned. I will miss believing that they also provided an reasonable estimate of lean body mass changes too.
Last edited:
Caporegime
When I started losing weight I shed a stone in no time flat, it does slow down though. I'm at 2 stone lost now and it now takes a few days to shed a pound.
Acme - I suspect you were looking at the earlier part of the thread. It's been going on a while! Sorry -I kind of hijacked my own thread.
My progress has certainly slowed but for the first time in my adult life I've been able to lose weight and keep it off. Since cracking on with the latest phase in September 2014 I shifted about 3 stone in the first year (ish) and a very gradual further half stone since then. It's getting hard to keep the weight coming off but at least it's not rebounded (which is what happened a couple of times between 2010 and 2014). I'm still pretty strict regarding diet during the week. Perhaps should be more restrictive with weekend treats I suppose.
My progress has certainly slowed but for the first time in my adult life I've been able to lose weight and keep it off. Since cracking on with the latest phase in September 2014 I shifted about 3 stone in the first year (ish) and a very gradual further half stone since then. It's getting hard to keep the weight coming off but at least it's not rebounded (which is what happened a couple of times between 2010 and 2014). I'm still pretty strict regarding diet during the week. Perhaps should be more restrictive with weekend treats I suppose.
Last edited:
Caporegime
Ahh yes I was, sorry.
Glad its going well!
Glad its going well!
Morbid fascination got the better of me - I'm interested in how bioelectrical impedance devices work and had a chance to pick up a 2nd hand set of Tanita BC-545 scales. While my current Salter set is a bi-polar single frequency £20something from Argos jobbie, the Tanitas are multi-frequency octa-polar - and irrespective of accuracy will at least vary the body composition numbers they spit out considerably based on impedance measurements. They used to retail around £200 - but of course I wouldn't pay that for something I just fancied messing with. Even if I don't take to them I can hopefully get back what I bought them for.
Bit random - but the function of the Tanita scales is pretty well covered in this PhD Thesis: http://eprints.aston.ac.uk/24764/1/Subash_J.2014.pdf.
Just an indication of how heavily the Salter set's algorithm relies on correlation - it has 'normal' mode and 'athlete' mode. Compared the two - normal spits out a BF% of 29% for me (N.B this is a different set of Salter scales from the ones I mentioned back in 2010). Athlete mode spits out 11%. I probably don't look too dissimilar from the 2nd photo I posted earlier in this thread. Clearly nowhere near 11% (which would put my composition something along the lines of Arnie in off season - my generous padding says otherwise - and the lean body mass inferred would probably only be acheivable on the roids - which I'm not). By comparison - you can indicate gender with the Tanitas but there is no option to press a magic athlete button.
Bit random - but the function of the Tanita scales is pretty well covered in this PhD Thesis: http://eprints.aston.ac.uk/24764/1/Subash_J.2014.pdf.
Just an indication of how heavily the Salter set's algorithm relies on correlation - it has 'normal' mode and 'athlete' mode. Compared the two - normal spits out a BF% of 29% for me (N.B this is a different set of Salter scales from the ones I mentioned back in 2010). Athlete mode spits out 11%. I probably don't look too dissimilar from the 2nd photo I posted earlier in this thread. Clearly nowhere near 11% (which would put my composition something along the lines of Arnie in off season - my generous padding says otherwise - and the lean body mass inferred would probably only be acheivable on the roids - which I'm not). By comparison - you can indicate gender with the Tanitas but there is no option to press a magic athlete button.
Last edited: