Improving my Health Stats

[Jaybird180]

I'm trying out a new BioImpedence Analysis (BIA) scale and have collected 5 new datapoints over the last 6 days of ownership.

I've been using an app (MyFitnessPal aka MFP) to help me track what I eat and I've been collecting other data for about a year and a half. I fell off the wagon, but the new scale represents my desire to ride it all the way to Cavalry.

The scale measures Weight, Bodyfat%, Muscle Mass% and Water%. I'm thinking that instead of using weight as a goal, that I should use Bodyfat% loss and Muscle% maintenance as goals. I suppose that I'm having a math problem in deriving a suitable goal weight to tell MFP what my new goal weight should be as it can only consider weight instead of using any of the other BIA metrics. MFP uses current weight and goal weight with a factor of time to calculate calorie consumption goals for the user. The theory is that as long as your consume less than you burn, you should lose weight. The user has no real way to know if the goal weight they've selected is unrealistic for their body composition. That's what started me on this little math problem.

I setup an Excel table to help me find some correlative values to be met with the disappointing notation in the scale's user manual that certain values will not add up to 100%. I did find consistency in the Fat% + Water% + Muscle Mass% = 118.6% - 119.0% and I'm thinking that perhaps that I should "normalize" the data to 100% and then run what-if calculations. Even still, the correlation between the datapoints is not standing out to me. The scale's user manual also clearly states in bold in several places that the percentages are estimates only and that if more accuracy is sought, medical professionals should be consulted. I figure the estimates are accurate enough for my purposes (I hope).

How should I setup my calculations with the available data? The ending objective is to be able to enter a desirable Bodyfat% and assume all the other factors remain constant except weight will change.

 

[PaulS]

I'm trying out a new BioImpedence Analysis (BIA) scale and have collected 5 new datapoints over the last 6 days of ownership.

I've been using an app (MyFitnessPal aka MFP) to help me track what I eat and I've been collecting other data for about a year and a half. I fell off the wagon, but the new scale represents my desire to ride it all the way to Cavalry.

The scale measures Weight, Bodyfat%, Muscle Mass% and Water%. I'm thinking that instead of using weight as a goal, that I should use Bodyfat% loss and Muscle% maintenance as goals. I suppose that I'm having a math problem in deriving a suitable goal weight to tell MFP what my new goal weight should be as it can only consider weight instead of using any of the other BIA metrics. MFP uses current weight and goal weight with a factor of time to calculate calorie consumption goals for the user. The theory is that as long as your consume less than you burn, you should lose weight. The user has no real way to know if the goal weight they've selected is unrealistic for their body composition. That's what started me on this little math problem.

I setup an Excel table to help me find some correlative values to be met with the disappointing notation in the scale's user manual that certain values will not add up to 100%. I did find consistency in the Fat% + Water% + Muscle Mass% = 118.6% - 119.0% and I'm thinking that perhaps that I should "normalize" the data to 100% and then run what-if calculations. Even still, the correlation between the datapoints is not standing out to me. The scale's user manual also clearly states in bold in several places that the percentages are estimates only and that if more accuracy is sought, medical professionals should be consulted. I figure the estimates are accurate enough for my purposes (I hope).

How should I setup my calculations with the available data? The ending objective is to be able to enter a desirable Bodyfat% and assume all the other factors remain constant except weight will change.

My best advice to you is keep your pie hole shut.
























In other words, don't eat so much.

 

[Jaybird180]

My best advice to you is keep your pie hole shut.
In other words, don't eat so much.

Ain't so simple, Paul. I don't have far to go to get my bodyfat% into the range I want, which is good. I do need to cut back on the sweets thought, but 2016 I've already predetermined to be a year of competitive athletics, so I will need to keep my energy/ strength up.

 

[PaulS]

Ain't so simple, Paul. I don't have far to go to get my bodyfat% into the range I want, which is good. I do need to cut back on the sweets thought, but 2016 I've already predetermined to be a year of competitive athletics, so I will need to keep my energy/ strength up.

It really is that simple, but I agree, it's not easy. I went on a bike ride just before Christmas with a few guys I usually ride with and kept getting my butt owned on hills that normally I would keep up with, flat and level I was right there with them. I went home, jumped on the scale and found I had added 15 pounds, which I now had to lug up those hills. I decided in January to lose those 15 plus 5 or so more. Ten gone, ten to go. We basically cut out simple carbs and meal time, protein and veggies. Massively upped my fruit intake and drastically cut simple carbs. I've been training on the bike, which helps, I do one to two hours at a time 4 to 5 times a week and figure at least 750 calories per hour burned. It really doesn't take much to keep your energy up and it is very easy to overeat. I'm on a mission this year, half way there on weight I hope I complete it.

I hope you reach your goals.

 

[steingar]

The math is startlingly simple. It goes like this. If calories in equal calories out, you are at steady state. You will neither gain nor loose weight. If calories in is greater than calories out, you gain weight. If calories in is less than calories out, you loose weight.

Calories in is what you eat. Calories out is what you burn.

Good luck.

 

[Everskyward]

The math is startlingly simple. It goes like this. If calories in equal calories out, you are at steady state. You will neither gain nor loose weight. If calories in is greater than calories out, you gain weight. If calories in is less than calories out, you loose weight.

Calories in is what you eat. Calories out is what you burn.

Good luck.

I don't think it's as simple as that. What do you think of this study?

http://www.nature.com/ajgsup/journal/v1/n1/full/ajgsup20125a.html

 

[Jaybird180]

The math is startlingly simple. It goes like this. If calories in equal calories out, you are at steady state. You will neither gain nor loose weight. If calories in is greater than calories out, you gain weight. If calories in is less than calories out, you loose weight.

Calories in is what you eat. Calories out is what you burn.

Good luck.

That's not the math I was looking for. I'm looking for:

Current Weight = X
Current BF% = A
Current Muscle Mass% = B
Current Water %= C
A, B and C are components of X (+/- other factors)

If B and C remain constant but A decreases what will X be?

 

[Jaybird180]

I don't think it's as simple as that. What do you think of this study?

http://www.nature.com/ajgsup/journal/v1/n1/full/ajgsup20125a.html

In the Conflict of Interest section of the study it lists Michael Pimentel as Guarantor. He and Benjamin Pimentel both work from the same office where I got my most recent 3rd class. I don't know if I saw Michael or Benjamin but they are both listed on the FAA AME list for that city. I got my medical and left quickly, LoL as I didn't want to stay any longer than I had to...and I'm normally no stranger to doctors or conversation.

 

[frfly172]

Calories in = calories out with some moderate exercise,should solve the problem without all that math.

 

[PaulS]

That's not the math I was looking for. I'm looking for:

Current Weight = X
Current BF% = A
Current Muscle Mass% = B
Current Water %= C
A, B and C are components of X (+/- other factors)

If B and C remain constant but A decreases what will X be?

I think you are overthinking it. Ideally you want B to increase while decreasing A, the correlation of this to water is unknown to me and is probably more complicated than your formula. Another thing that seems to affect the readings from these scales is your blood fat levels. A rack of ribs will throw the readings off for a time.

Personally I worry about my weight as that is pretty easy to quantify and in theory to control. I did WW about 5 years ago and it worked pretty well. One of the lasting impressions I got from that experience is that starving yourself is actually counter productive as it slows your metabolism and causes binge eating, it can also cause muscle loss, which is not good at any age. Much better to be a grazer, small meals, controlled calorie AND FOODS to a certain quota each day, but never to the point of hunger with steady weight loss.

 

[G-Man]

My doctor recomended against focusing on weight. Instead, she advocates "Measure your circumference at your navel. It should be half your height or less."

That ties-in with a focus on bodyfat percentage, etc. Above 35, it's difficult to add muscle mass. But since muscle is so much denser than fat, just measuring weight won't work if you're building strength.

"Calories In and Calories Out" is not valid. Quality/Type of calories makes a huge difference.

 

[steingar]

I don't think it's as simple as that. What do you think of this study?

http://www.nature.com/ajgsup/journal/v1/n1/full/ajgsup20125a.html

I'm sorry, but it really is that simple. Your gastrointestinal flora will not keep weight on you if you haven't the calories to support it.

How you get there is certainly debatable. I tend to recommend disciplined portion control along with moderate exercise. I don't recommend any sort of diet beyond smaller portions of what you eat normally. If you change what you eat to loose weight you'll simply gain it back when you go back to your normal intake.

If your diet is high in fat you may need smaller portions than a diet higher in protein and fiber. No matter what, if you are looking to loose weight you should minimize ingestion of simple carbohydrate. Most of this is simple common sense. The reason it's so oft repeated is it works.

 

[Everskyward]

I'm sorry, but it really is that simple. Your gastrointestinal flora will not keep weight on you if you haven't the calories to support it.

How you get there is certainly debatable. I tend to recommend disciplined portion control along with moderate exercise. I don't recommend any sort of diet beyond smaller portions of what you eat normally. If you change what you eat to loose weight you'll simply gain it back when you go back to your normal intake.

If your diet is high in fat you may need smaller portions than a diet higher in protein and fiber. No matter what, if you are looking to loose weight you should minimize ingestion of simple carbohydrate. Most of this is simple common sense. The reason it's so oft repeated is it works.

I think what they're saying is that people with differing gastrointestinal flora can eat the same thing but process it in a way that causes the net calories absorbed to be different. Sure, eating less will cause less to be absorbed, but when comparing two people, one can eat more than the other with the same result.

 

[TheGolfPilot]

I used my fitness pal for a while. Now I have a pretty good feel for healthy and not healthy.
My eating habits now are based on a simple binary equation. Pants fit, or pants don't fit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James331]

I've had good luck eating what I like, though I should add I don't like fast food, Mac and cheese, and stuff like that, and exercising.

I drink craft beers, eat a pastry sometimes, red meat, lots of game meat, potatoes, etc and I'm basically the same size as when I was in college (which for me was normal high school age).

 

[Jaybird180]

I used to be able to eat as much as I wanted. Last Monday I ran into a HS Classmate and she commented that I "filled out". I wrestled in my Senior year in 152lb weight class, no problem stepping on the scale by end of season- I'd weigh in still dressed in street clothes. I guess I continued to grow into my early 20's(?), I know my shoe size changed (for the last time) when I was around 24.

 

[Jaybird180]

I think you are overthinking it. Ideally you want B to increase while decreasing A, the correlation of this to water is unknown to me and is probably more complicated than your formula. Another thing that seems to affect the readings from these scales is your blood fat levels. A rack of ribs will throw the readings off for a time.

Personally I worry about my weight as that is pretty easy to quantify and in theory to control. I did WW about 5 years ago and it worked pretty well. One of the lasting impressions I got from that experience is that starving yourself is actually counter productive as it slows your metabolism and causes binge eating, it can also cause muscle loss, which is not good at any age. Much better to be a grazer, small meals, controlled calorie AND FOODS to a certain quota each day, but never to the point of hunger with steady weight loss.

You might be right. But how do I know if losing 15lbs is right for me or overambitious at my age? I want to know that if I lose 15lbs that my BF% will be in a better range than now. Conversely, if I return to weight training, I'll likely never (?) get to that goal weight, I might make 10, 11 or 14.5. Can't answer that question without knowing more about my body composition.

 

[steingar]

I think what they're saying is that people with differing gastrointestinal flora can eat the same thing but process it in a way that causes the net calories absorbed to be different. Sure, eating less will cause less to be absorbed, but when comparing two people, one can eat more than the other with the same result.

Still doesn't matter. If you don't eat enough to support your metabolism at a given activity level you will burn fat and loose weight. That's what the fat is there for.

What level "eating enough" is will vary from person to person depending on metabolism and activity level. It is something to be determined operationally. For me to loose weight I have to decrease my portion stop minuscule levels, but it does work and the weight comes off.

 

[Jaybird180]

I'm interpreting this flora as a parasite. Do you see the same?

 

[steingar]

I'm interpreting this flora as a parasite. Do you see the same?

Negative. Your gastrointestinal microflora is part of you. It helps you digest food and ward off pathogens. There exists a greater number of bacterial cells in your body than human cells.

What species populate your GI tract depends in part on what you eat, in part on where you live. An American who thrives on meat and potatoes probably has very different GI microflora than a vegetarian like me.

And none of it changes how you loose weight. Fewer calories in than out.

 

[Jaybird180]

Negative. Your gastrointestinal microflora is part of you. It helps you digest food and ward off pathogens. There exists a greater number of bacterial cells in your body than human cells.

What species populate your GI tract depends in part on what you eat, in part on where you live. An American who thrives on meat and potatoes probably has very different GI microflora than a vegetarian like me.

And none of it changes how you loose weight. Fewer calories in than out.

How do you support that when of the research outcomes was to determine the metabolic rate of the flora?

Importantly, the differences between the gut microbiota in lean and obese individuals remain incompletely understood, as does the impact of diet on the composition of the gut microbiome. Indeed, the cause-and-effect relationship of the findings described remains to be established as does the clinical relevance to humans. Furthermore, because the “ideal” composition of the gut microbiota, if one exists, remains poorly understood, modification must be pursued with caution.

 

[steingar]

How do you support that when of the research outcomes was to determine the metabolic rate of the flora?

What the quote means is that some people will be able to eat more and still loose weight, because the excess is taken up by GI microflora. I think I know some of these folks, eat anything and not get fat. I hate them.

For most of us my very simple equation works just fine. The balance between calories in and calories out is determined operationally. You decrease portion size until you begin to shed weight. You maintain decreased portion size until you reach your desired weight. You then increase portion size back to steady state and keep it there.

You don't have to exercise, but you will likely need it to attain your goal. Best bet to to do something you like as regularly as possible. I walk 6 miles a day, for example.

Good luck.

 

[lbfjrmd]

 

[denverpilot]

We basically cut out simple carbs and meal time, protein and veggies. Massively upped my fruit intake and drastically cut simple carbs.

This plus the Good Professor's commentary on total calorie intake is the key.

Steingar knows my wife has a particular chromosome disorder that almost always leads to weight gain. Therefore she's been keenly aware of what she eats and her weight her entire life. We're in our 40s now and she didn't like that it was starting to creep up on her even with various diets and exercise regimens she's always switched off these "diet" plans just to keep herself interested.

*Finally* she did what Paul is espousing and cut the carbs. I'd been telling her that was going to be her key for years but, like most of us, she likes pasta and bread and anything made with processed flour and sugar. Our society is enamored with such foods.

She finally decided carbs were out as her A1C went too high for her tastes. Her father struggled with diabetes for decades and that imagery plus his recent death (at a reasonably old age for someone who didn't take good care of himself or always keep his diabetes under control) finally got her to say "no more".

(For the record, she had never hit the "obese" line on the charts for her height, but she bumped the underside of it. As have I from time to time for mine. Squarely in "overweight" for both of us. Meals were sometimes good for us, sometimes horribly sweet or laden with too many carbs and too many calories.)

In a few months of slashing sugar based and flour based type carbs while still having fruit sugars and whatever is in the veggies and non-baked, non-processed foods but watching how much of it... she's dropped 15+ lbs.

She'll still have say, like tonight, a Kung Pow Chicken with veggies and there's some carbs in the sauce, but it's not a pile of spaghetti or macaroni on a big plate.

And y'all know how it goes. If she's on a "diet", well I am too. I can't "cheat" as easily at home as I can if we go out, but generally my diet has changes due to what's in the pantry and fridge, too. By way of proximity more than anything.

A few folks say they think I've lost some weight but I haven't really been tracking.

I just know I'm eating less processed flour and sugar laden junk and more veggies, and therefore also less calories, and I'm happy about it. If I would add a bit more forced exercise or take on a few of the more strenuous household projects (ugh, building a retaining wall...) I'd be running a bit bigger calorie deficit. Spring is coming.

And seriously folks. Look at the labels. Government intrusion in this area and adding the requirement for nutritional labeling -- well, you're paying for it whether you want to or not -- so you might as well look at it.

You'll find there's horrific amounts of things you probably really never intended to eat in an awful lot of foods out there. Many breads are loaded with sugar. Lots of other things that look healthy, just aren't.

Another recommendation. Buy good quality fruits and veggies. Karen found some place that delivers a mix of various veggies and fruits that are raised locally and organic. Not the cheapest little box of goodies but they show up on a schedule and I look forward to seeing what they send. Always stuff in season from somewhere nearby usually. Taste is better than out of season stuff from the regular grocery store and the stuff goes quick around here now.

Eat better. Eat less. Exercise more. It works. Dump the sugar and massive quantities of processed flour products. Save the baked goodies loaded with sugar for a real treat.

I still fall off that wagon with cookies from time to time. I'll eat a good cookie first and leave ice cream sitting in the freezer for months. Love cookies. But I don't NEED cookies, so I try to just make sure they aren't in the house. I did eat some this weekend because I let myself go down that aisle while making a specific grocery run for the dogs. So it happens.

She was mildly impressed that even though she allowed herself 100% cheating if she wanted to with alcohol on our music cruise, the switch to one of the "ultra" low carb beers and then still drinking quite a bit of hard liquor, she still held at steady state for that week and didn't gain any weight by sticking to proteins and veggies for meals. Surprisingly even though it was a cruise and we probably ate more often than we needed to for activity level, there were decent choices for such an eating style.

Not too many of the scary overweight folks were standing in line for the stir fried veggies and curry dishes in the international portion of the cafeteria display areas. We were. It was tasty and had nice spice and good seasonings and we weren't eating pizza, pasta, bread, and tons of other "filler" foods. We thought we ate like Kings really. But you have to train the eyeballs to look for the options. The salad bar was really quite good considering, and the fruits were good also. There were even a number of small and tasty sugar-free dessert options. Heck, it's vacation after all!

Only one downside and I've seen it before when I exercise hard for long periods of time. Your energy level goes up and you don't want to sleep. If I had my way, this wouldn't happen, and I'd get a nice eight hours, but I've been tracking and my typical night is averaging 5.5 right now. I wake feeling rested, the vast majority of days, but every so often I don't. Dad never slept eight hours in his life unless he was sick, so I come by that one naturally. Been interesting to track it lately.

That was a side effect of trying out an alarm clock app that tries to guess when you're not in deep sleep to wake you up, and although I can tell it's being tricked by some of Karen' activity (she leaves before I do every morning) it's been interestingly effective. This coming from a guy who's slept right through an alarm clock called the "Sonic Bomb" before. When I'm out, I'm way out. But apparently this alarm tracking when I'm closer to awake than asleep, works well. You pick a time and a range its allowed to try before that time, and it watches your sleep cycle via either noise or movement (if you put it in the corner of the bed) and alarms
when it calculates you'll be easier to awake. Seems to work, too.

Side effect, like I said, is sleep tracking. It knows when you went to bed and when you got up and includes a heart rate checker for first thing in the morning and also a "mood" button that helps it calibrate a bit. Can also track categories like "stressful day" or "ate before bed" if you like.

The interesting nights in the chart are the 4.5 hour ones where you marked you woke up refreshed and happy and had zero problems during the day (I almost never ever do anyway, once I'm up, I'm up...). Those fascinate me because I think "How in the heck?" The morning heart rate chart is interesting too. Not sure that one is telling me much but it's there.

Got off on tangent there. Eat less. Eat less junk. Exercise more. All good.

 

[Jaybird180]

What's the name of this sleep tracking app?

 

[Everskyward]

What the quote means is that some people will be able to eat more and still loose weight, because the excess is taken up by GI microflora. I think I know some of these folks, eat anything and not get fat. I hate them.

For most of us my very simple equation works just fine. The balance between calories in and calories out is determined operationally. You decrease portion size until you begin to shed weight. You maintain decreased portion size until you reach your desired weight. You then increase portion size back to steady state and keep it there.

I agree that when you are talking about an individual, they either need to decrease the calories in or increase the calories out. But when you are talking about a population, it's not all about calories. The microflora theory explains why the same amount of food and the same amount of exercise seems to affect people differently. I'm one of the people you hate.

 

[Sac Arrow]

Cutting the carbs is key. You can eat a lot more protein and fat calories than carbohydrate calories to maintain the same weight balance. Sugars and simple carbohydrates are almost 100% metabolized in to glucose, and what isn't used for energy is stored as fat. Complex carbohydrates are somewhat less efficiently metabolized, and proteins are much less efficiently utilized since they first broken in to aminos for cell regeneration, and then have to be broken all the way down to glucose before they can be stored as body fat.

Most BMR calculators suggest that I should be eating about 2,600 calories based on a moderate level of exercise. I eat closer to 4,000 on a low carb diet.

 

[JoeSelch]

Hey, Sac - willing to share your definition of "low carb"? (It can be all over the map depending on one's frame of reference.) Thanks!