6:28 2K

[snowleopard]

MPH/Calories Burned Per Mile
10/26
15/31
20/38
25/47
30/59

I'm guessing those figures are based on road miles. ranger's turbo is uncalibrated and his reported speed is unrealistically high owing to low resistance. His calorie consumption is almost certainly lower than the above figures.

[chgoss]

MPH/Calories Burned Per Mile
10/26
15/31
20/38
25/47
30/59

I'm guessing those figures are based on road miles. ranger's turbo is uncalibrated and his reported speed is unrealistically high owing to low resistance. His calorie consumption is almost certainly lower than the above figures.

agreed,
and, he's not averaging 1:50 for 90 minutes either.. but, I'm willing to "round up" in his favor.
His total daily expenditure is more likely to be around 5300-5500 perhaps? but, it's close enough..

[edit-added later]
Also, should be noted that at 20mph & 1:50/500m he would certainly NOT be engaging in "moderate, so-called "fat burning" exercise intensities".

It's an interesting dilema..
when he overstates the intensity of the bike/erg workout to get the calories expended up to the desired 6000 mark, he guarantees he's in carbo burning mode, not fat burning.
If he reduces the reported intensity of the workout to get in the "moderate" range, he reduces the reported calories below the desired 6000 mark.


Guess the answer is that for him, 1:50 for 90min, and 142 minutes at 20mph actually IS moderate.. The only problem with this approach is, I cant find any calorie charts for that reality.. guess I'll keep looking..

[mikvan52]

☢☢☢☢☢☢☢☢☢

Danger!

If anyone is even partially interested in losing a pound a day and maintaining heath, STOP HERE.

The theories expounded by ranger are not backed up by science and if attempted will cause you harm.

He has said many times that his posts are all in fun not realizing that someone might attempt to do as he says he does.

Don't be drawn in by falsehood. Exercise responsibly; take your time with weight loss.

☢☢☢☢☢☢☢☢☢

[eliotsmith]

To those who respond to ranger as if he is making a true claim, please consider this from Jan 3 in the Age related thread by NavHaz:

Yea, this forum is just fun stuff.

Social chit-chat.

Nothing serious.

[NavigationHazard]

Don't lose sight of what I take to be the main point:

Even at low-to-moderate "fat-burning" intensity, piling up the training volume in an attempt to lose weight rapidly is mistaken.

Let's accept for the purposes of argument that the stationary bike riding actually is UT2 (I have serious doubts). That would make the proportion of fat burned to carbohydrate something like 60/40. 1800 calories over 142 minutes would imply 1080 calories worth of fat being burned. It also implies 720 calories worth of carbohydrates.

As for the erging, if it's UT1 (an optimistic assumption) it's probably powered by something like 35/65 fat burned to carbohydrate. 2100 calories there over 90 minutes would imply 735 calories worth of fat being burned. It also implies 1365 calories worth of carbohydrates.

IMO the problem isn't the 1815 calories worth of fat being burned off. It's that doing it requires also that 2085 calories worth of carbs be expended in the process. Unless you put those substantially back in, over and above whatever you're eating to cover the rest of your day, you're bound to draw down the glycogen stored in your muscles and maybe also that in your liver. Restricting the carbs along with the calories in your post-exercise diet is pretty much guaranteed to do do it.

So what's the problem? Well, since glycogen requires water to be stored cellularly (conventional wisdom is ~2.7 grams of water to each gram of glycogen, though the exact amount may be open to question), drawing down stored muscle glycogen fosters the illusion of rapid weight loss. It isn't actually genuine weight loss, since as soon as you eat the carbs you've been neglecting your body will try to put back the glycogen you've drawn down -- and the water necessary to their storage. And if the glycogen depletion is severe enough, it'll degrade performance along with your ability to recover from exercise. This is also true if it's prolonged to the point where it becomes chronic.

Bottom line, IMO: even if you know what you're doing nutritionally, it's very very difficult to manage significant rapid weight loss without affecting performance. Misapprehend the energy stores you're using, and their replenishment, and you risk chronic, degrading muscle fatigue.

See http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Abstr ... ing.6.aspx

See also http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/56/1/292S.pdf

[Vano]

Professor,
How about a PM screenshot of anything ? UT 1, UT 2, Relaxed 1:49 rowing Something over 5k.

[mikvan52]

Great stuff, Nav'.

Thanks!

the main point:

(snip)

... the problem isn't the (x number of) calories of fat being burned off. It's that doing it requires also that (the y number of) calories of carbs be expended in the process. (IOW) you're bound to draw down the glycogen stored in your muscles and maybe also that in your liver. Restricting the carbs along with the calories in your post-exercise diet is pretty much guaranteed to do do it.

So what's the problem? ===> glycogen requires water to be stored cellularly (conventional wisdom is ~2.7 grams of water to each gram of glycogen, though the exact amount may be open to question), drawing down stored muscle glycogen fosters the illusion of rapid weight loss. It isn't actually genuine weight loss, since as soon as you eat the carbs you've been neglecting your body will try to put back the glycogen you've drawn down -- and the water necessary to their storage. And if the glycogen depletion is severe enough, it'll degrade performance along with your ability to recover from exercise. This is also true if it's prolonged to the point where it becomes chronic.

I only shortened your post as an exercise to try to remember what you said...

I remember what it was like to run out of glycogen (and water) on long distance runs.

Not something I'd recommend to anyone!

Let it be known too that ranger has been complimented for his excellent erging regardless of his weight. It confuses me as to why he has to loose this weight at all?

Is a 6:40 2k at 165lbs any different than a 6:38 at 170 lbs,

IMHO: No!

[ranger]

Don't lose sight of what I take to be the main point:

Even at low-to-moderate "fat-burning" intensity, piling up the training volume in an attempt to lose weight rapidly is mistaken.

Let's accept for the purposes of argument that the stationary bike riding actually is UT2 (I have serious doubts). That would make the proportion of fat burned to carbohydrate something like 60/40. 1800 calories over 142 minutes would imply 1080 calories worth of fat being burned. It also implies 720 calories worth of carbohydrates.

As for the erging, if it's UT1 (an optimistic assumption) it's probably powered by something like 35/65 fat burned to carbohydrate. 2100 calories there over 90 minutes would imply 735 calories worth of fat being burned. It also implies 1365 calories worth of carbohydrates.

IMO the problem isn't the 1815 calories worth of fat being burned off. It's that doing it requires also that 2085 calories worth of carbs be expended in the process. Unless you put those substantially back in, over and above whatever you're eating to cover the rest of your day, you're bound to draw down the glycogen stored in your muscles and maybe also that in your liver. Restricting the carbs along with the calories in your post-exercise diet is pretty much guaranteed to do do it.

So what's the problem? Well, since glycogen requires water to be stored cellularly (conventional wisdom is ~2.7 grams of water to each gram of glycogen, though the exact amount may be open to question), drawing down stored muscle glycogen fosters the illusion of rapid weight loss. It isn't actually genuine weight loss, since as soon as you eat the carbs you've been neglecting your body will try to put back the glycogen you've drawn down -- and the water necessary to their storage. And if the glycogen depletion is severe enough, it'll degrade performance along with your ability to recover from exercise. This is also true if it's prolonged to the point where it becomes chronic.

Bottom line, IMO: even if you know what you're doing nutritionally, it's very very difficult to manage significant rapid weight loss without affecting performance. Misapprehend the energy stores you're using, and their replenishment, and you risk chronic, degrading muscle fatigue.

See http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Abstr ... ing.6.aspx

See also http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/56/1/292S.pdf

Well, the only thing wrong with all of this number crunching is fact.

This is how I have lost weight--repeatedly--with no ill effects.

I have three WR lightweight rows.

Last year, I had the best lightweight 2K in my age division by three seconds, without even preparing for it, just on the basis of foundational rowing.

This year, rowing as a lightweight, I think I will be somewhere in the range of 20 seconds below the WR in my age divison (55s), even though I am 59 years old.

My goal is to pull a lwt 6:16 at 60.

That is 26 seconds under the present WR.

There's that seven seconds per 500m again!

ranger

[ranger]

It confuses me as to why he has to lose this weight at all

There is nothing at all wrong with being 10% body fat.

At 10% body fat, I am 160 lbs.

Makes you feel great.

According to _Rowing Faster_, the normal elite rower is 8% body fat.

At 8% body fat, I am 156.5 lbs.

I have 144 lbs. of non-fat body mass.

ranger

[ranger]

I just got out my JuiceLady.

Time to start living on grapefruit.

I think it would be great to get down to 156.5 lbs.

8% body fat.

So I think I will give it a go.

If I just keep up my diet and my cross-training, I should get there soon, just as a matter of course.

My stroking power is now elite for a lightweight of any age (12 SPI).

My cross-training is elite-level, too: three hours a day.

I thnk I can also get my body composition to elite levels, too: 8% body fat.

I haven't lost any of my youthful strength: I can still do 30 pull ups.

Onward!

Time to sharpen.

My goal for sharpening is 8 x 500m (3:30 rest) @ 1:31.

That predicts a 6:16 2K.

At 12 SPI, I'll have to rate 38 spm to get to 1:31.

That's entirely reasonable, I think.

I'll also have to do 1K @ 1:31.

For lightweights, 6:16 is below the erg standard for the US National Team.

ranger

[ranger]

Professor,
How about a PM screenshot of anything ? UT 1, UT 2, Relaxed 1:49 rowing Something over 5k.

Sure, happy to do that.

In the background, I am doing a lot of 1:47 @ 24 spm (12 SPI).

UT1

Perhaps I can get a screenshot of 10K or so of that.

ranger

[ranger]

MPH/Calories Burned Per Mile
10/26
15/31
20/38
25/47
30/59

I'm guessing those figures are based on road miles. ranger's turbo is uncalibrated and his reported speed is unrealistically high owing to low resistance. His calorie consumption is almost certainly lower than the above figures.

Your adverbs ("unrealistically," "almost certainly") are all unsupported presuppositions, entirely arbitrary judgments.

ranger

[mikvan52]

I am doing a lot of 1:47 @ 24 spm (12 SPI).


Perhaps I can get a screenshot of 10K or so of that.

Notice what is not said:

"I will post an IND_V of a 10k in the rankings"

You see, Rich never circumlocutes

"the erg: the great truth machine"

I say: TSO Caught MWO

(the special one caught mouth wide open)

[Byron Drachman]

[removed] Oops. I forgot I was keeping away from here. It could be bad for your health.

[Nosmo]

....Well, the only thing wrong with all of this number crunching is fact.
.....

Rich,
you said you would start posting screen shots of your morning weight starting on Monday. Why not start now? It is easiest to loose weight when you first start so I don't think there is anything to be gained by waiting.

It would be interesting for all involved if you posted your weight and workouts. Hard data will demonstrate how rapidly you can loose weight and what effects it has. I agree with MVB, I don't really care if you are 170 or 155, but the weight loss attempt is interesting.