Originally Posted by
gsteinb
yeah and the really difficult thing, which teton is pointing to, is I have a 6 pack and veins in my abs (or had, before this injury) and can still lose 5 pounds.
the old 'visible abs' thing is a good general rule, but due to the way individuals store fat it may or may not be telling for a given person.
it's a hard pill to swallow for many of us as we've been conditioned to believe inaccurate numbers due to frequent comments and photos that under-report BF%.
last week i had a discussion with a friend of nearly three decades who was recently diagnosed with stomach cancer. by all accounts he is a fat guy (lots of subcutaneous fat), which actually proved good for handling chemo. however, his next step is removal of the stomach AT BEST. yeah, that's the treatment. the thing is, for whatever reason he happens to not store much fat viscerally. if the surgeons see his intestines are fairly clear next week, they may be able to fashion him something that will eventually grow to be a new stomach (or thereabouts); if it turns out they are wrong, well.... that's not good. honestly, i'm pretty rattled by the whole thing.
I find the nature of fat and individualization interesting. the ratio of android to gynoid fat (as can be reveled in a DEXA) is highly correlated to cardiovascular risks, and working to change that can literally save one's life. i think there is way more to this than going up hills fast, though that is important, too.
Originally Posted by
topflightpro
Yes, the DEXA scan numbers made me sad, and the images provided made me feel really gross. I really felt like I was a fat blob, when by most standards, I am a pretty thin guy. I don't quite have a 6 pack, but I do have some definition in my mid section.
I'm probably still close to that 20 percent. I know it's possible to get down to closer to 10, but I'm not sure I want to make that commitment. It would really require me to completely overhaul my diet, and I just kind of like to eat.
yeah, it's a tough thing. getting to sub-10% let alone mid-single digits is really hard work. cycling (training) already requires us to make sacrifices. we all draw a line somewhere. (well, i guess the DOPERS don't!) and in order to maintain those #s, one has to be "that guy" at a party or any occasion where food is served.
as a society we're also conditioned to believe that a much larger body size is 'normal' vs, say, if we lived in india our definition of normal would be different.
not saying this applies to you, but many of us have heard the term 'skinny fat.' one can be skinny with a high BF% (relatively). as an aside, there is a restaurant in Las Vegas called SkinnyFATS which is inexpensive and amazing, esp for people in training who want a healthy meal and must eat out. I eat almost all my meals there when passing through.
it's got to be a lifestyle change rather than something that is a 'diet' or temporary solution. at least IME, those are the people who are long-term successful.
Originally Posted by
wktmeow
I think I must have missed that, any chance you could link or tell me where to look? Relevant to my interests because I can't seem to get to the point where I consistently have some abs showing, which to me says I'm carrying an extra 5 lbs at least
I've posted on the subject many times, but there is no universal prescription. When someone I work with is serious about this, we start by assessing their current diet. If the goal is to increase power AND lean out (in season), I get hyper-focused on macronutrients and timing. It also becomes critical that workouts are properly-fueled.
Losing weight is easy (esp if we are just talking pounds of any sort), just like increasing power is easy until/unless a rider is highly trained. When you talk about sub-10% BF, it becomes more of something that needs to be optimized. It's not so hard just to drop weight by cutting calories, though that can lead to loss in power and loss in lean muscle.
Also, if improperly done it can lead to mood swings, irritability, etc.; that's material if we are talking about cycling as a hobby, where a person might have co-workers, family, etc.
Originally Posted by
furiousferret
I thought 152 was my end point but its probably another 10. I'm at 150 now, so there's still work to do but if I can maintain my FTP that puts me on a level I never thought would be attainable. I've tightened up my diet, and started doing a lot of other exercises off the bike that are critical for me (yoga, nerve flossing, ab work, weights). After 5 years of serious training this is the closest I've gotten to peak but part of me thinks I'm still a year off.
I think if most cyclists hired a coach, and that coach would have them ride 500 miles a week, they'd be fine with it; but if they had them ride less and put them on a diet, gym routine, calisthenics, and yoga they'd be fired in a heartbeat. After doing an honest assessment of where I was at, those things off the bike are just as important. It also make training crazy harder than it was.
well, that depends.
of cyclists who hire a coach, ONE reason is to win races. for those athletes, i find that many of them are not interested in changing diet. either they don't think it matters or they believe they're already as lean as they can be. others don't want to do what it takes. that's fine. for winning races, unless there is an unusual weakness or imbalance (injury or otherwise), there is little benefit to yoga/gym/calisthenics. specificity matters.
now, if we are talking about making a well-rounded human being, that is another story. many people hire a coach (or just self-train "seriously") in order to hang with a group on a group ride, or achieve a 'completion' goal, or "to be more fit". Others want someone to talk with about their riding (in the ski industry we called certain instructors 'rent-a-friends'). none of it is wrong, though it does affect what one might want to do with that person in order to help them achieve THEIR goal. the coach's goal *for people with a cycling hobby, like all of us* is not important; the athlete's goal is the one that matters.
Not to mention that for many riders, depending on where they live and the type of racing they're focused on, there may little or no benefit to getting down to single-digit BF. And trying to get there carries some risk, trying to walk that fine line of carrying enough of a calorie deficit to lose the fat without compromising training or your immune system.
true.
i think the myth about training (and calorie restriction) materially diminishing the immune system has largely been debunked. that said, training hard + restricting calories + other stressors = living on a razor's edge. if one DOES get sick, there are less reserves to handle it and it can linger longer. these are also the people who tend to rest too little and rush back to activity, so that may be mixed in.
it is still possible for a given person's power peak to get them as lean as can be, and even in flat courses there is almost never a DISadvantage to being more lean. however, the effort required to get that small advantage may not be as great as for someone who needs to win TdF mountain stages.
lower mass riders can do better on a track (there's a sweet spot). dr. ferrari -- if you get past his doping stuff -- has many interesting writings on this. he's a pretty brilliant guy when in comes to optimizing everything for cycling. shame he got caught up with the doping, but that, too, for him was about optimization.
interesting discussion. YMMV, IME, IMO, just my $0.02.