• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sam Ashen

Sam Ashen(ov) and the XCOMmies Fly Again!

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, Sam Ashen said:

Curious. Where did they hide the bodies of the ones who drowned?

Sent from my LG-D800 using Tapatalk

 

If they told you that then they'd have to kill you!

Which means they'd find out your exact body fat % but you again wouldn't know.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm mainly just curious about body fat as a starting point. Although, now I wish I had done it 6 months ago. And I'm probably not going to fork over the cash for another 6 months. I can get a DEXA done at a local university (not the one I work at, one nearby) because of their student nutrition program for $40.

 

I've tried doing body measurements with tape to get the body fat percentage. My abdomen doesn't measure correctly because of my abdominal surgeries, I'm weirdly flat in some areas and weirdly lumpy in other areas and then there is loose skin. And I have a large frame (I wear womens size 11 shoes US and my wrist is over 6.5" and I usually buy men's winter gloves). I've had measurements that said I was 40%+, but looking at images and just my best guess, it's probably not more than 35%. So I'd like to get a DEXA scan out of pure curiosity. 

 

I can tell i'm losing body fat from clothes, but even though I know curiosity killed the cat, I'm still curious!

 

In regards to consistency and body fat loss. I think I'm actually improving at this! Reading this makes me realize that this is precisely why I'm managing to lose weight eating around 1900-2000 calories per day, when I used to eat 1550-1700 to lose weight. I'm less hungry at the higher calorie range, so when I do over eat it's really not much more than 2000 calories. Whereas before I was more hungry at 1600 so my calories might vary from 1500 - 2700 during a week, with the high days being a social event with alcohol. Now that I eat more I'm less hungry and don't binge as much on the weekend at parties, etc. With having more calories to play with, I don't feel like I need cheat days. @CourtnieMarie, I think we solved the mystery!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, AugustaAdaByron said:

or did they sweep it under the rug?

 

A lot of methods are calibrated to Hydrostatic weighing.  I see a lot of two-stage formulas.  One that converts (circumference measurements or skinfold measurements) to a Density, followed by something that looks like:  495/ ρ -450

(noting that I am having a discussion with somebody who knows how to make the Greek letter, Rho.  EDIT:  Thanks Ada!)

 

It did catch me by surprise that Alan Thrall went with the Hydrostatic Weighing.

 

And I don't remember the video well enough to know what he said about DEXA.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Taddea Zhaan said:

I'm mainly just curious about body fat as a starting point. Although, now I wish I had done it 6 months ago. And I'm probably not going to fork over the cash for another 6 months. I can get a DEXA done at a local university (not the one I work at, one nearby) because of their student nutrition program for $40.

 

I've tried doing body measurements with tape to get the body fat percentage. My abdomen doesn't measure correctly because of my abdominal surgeries, I'm weirdly flat in some areas and weirdly lumpy in other areas and then there is loose skin. And I have a large frame (I wear womens size 11 shoes US and my wrist is over 6.5" and I usually buy men's winter gloves). I've had measurements that said I was 40%+, but looking at images and just my best guess, it's probably not more than 35%. So I'd like to get a DEXA scan out of pure curiosity. 

 

I can tell i'm losing body fat from clothes, but even though I know curiosity killed the cat, I'm still curious!

 

In regards to consistency and body fat loss. I think I'm actually improving at this! Reading this makes me realize that this is precisely why I'm managing to lose weight eating around 1900-2000 calories per day, when I used to eat 1550-1700 to lose weight. I'm less hungry at the higher calorie range, so when I do over eat it's really not much more than 2000 calories. Whereas before I was more hungry at 1600 so my calories might vary from 1500 - 2700 during a week, with the high days being a social event with alcohol. Now that I eat more I'm less hungry and don't binge as much on the weekend at parties, etc. With having more calories to play with, I don't feel like I need cheat days. @CourtnieMarie, I think we solved the mystery!

unfortunately i'm way to scared to try a higher calorie count per day at the risk of losing the ground i've already covered. I added an extra 100cals/day this week and will add another 100 next week to bring me to 1800/day but then i go back down to 1600/day. i know it's probably mostly a mental hurdle but finally something seems to be working after years of trying to lose the same 10 lbs so i ain't gunna mess that up now!

 

i would like to gradually increase my calories at some point though so that i can maintain around 2000... am i dreaming?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, CourtnieMarie said:

unfortunately i'm way to scared to try a higher calorie count per day at the risk of losing the ground i've already covered. I added an extra 100cals/day this week and will add another 100 next week to bring me to 1800/day but then i go back down to 1600/day. i know it's probably mostly a mental hurdle but finally something seems to be working after years of trying to lose the same 10 lbs so i ain't gunna mess that up now!

 

i would like to gradually increase my calories at some point though so that i can maintain around 2000... am i dreaming?

 

Sorry to hijack your thread Sam!

 

I just wanted to say that I don't think you are dreaming. I think metabolism repair is possible. I'll try to give the short and dirty of my n=1. 

  • My top weight was 305
  • Got down to 195, then up to 260
  • Was hospitalized and basically in starvation mode for 1 year, was down to 200 but with zero muscle mass. (this was 8 years ago)
  • Gained muscle and lost fat, was up to 220, but could walk again!
  • Down to 175 in fall 2015, currently hanging around 181. 

 

So despite losing about 125 pounds, and starving to death for 14 months, my metabolism has recovered enough that I am eating around 1900 and my weight is not skyrocketing through the roof. This is with a history of being morbidly obese. So it's not like I am genetically a lean person. All four of my siblings are in the same genetic boat. Only one of them has been leaner than I am as an adult. 

 

I couldn't really tell you how to recover metabolism though. :confused: It seems to have been a long process of slowly increasing calories, which is what I have done over the last 6 months somewhat unintentionally when I started focusing on gains rather than weight loss. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CourtnieMarie said:

unfortunately i'm way to scared to try a higher calorie count per day at the risk of losing the ground i've already covered.

 

When I started, SS mentioned that maintenance calories has a tendency to creep upwards as you keep lifting.  The quote I am looking for is very early in my Battle Log and I can retrieve it a little later.  I stink at tagging people.

 

53 minutes ago, Taddea Zhaan said:

Sorry to hijack your thread Sam!

 

No such thing! :D

 

Eh - maybe go back a couple of threads.  But that was a Threadsplosion. :lol:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sam Ashen said:

 

A lot of methods are calibrated to Hydrostatic weighing.  I see a lot of two-stage formulas.  One that converts (circumference measurements or skinfold measurements) to a Density, followed by something that looks like:  495/p-450

(noting that I am having a discussion with somebody who knows how to make the Greek letter, Rho.)

 

It did catch me by surprise that Alan Thrall went with the Hydrostatic Weighing.

 

And I don't remember the video well enough to know what he said about DEXA.

 

About DEXA, I think he said something 3-5% wrong at estimations but then newer researched showed it can be off by 5-10% if I recall correctly.

 

I wouldn't have expected it the Hydrostatic Weighing either.

(And here's your ρ, my friend!)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, AugustaAdaByron said:

I didn't write it down but as far as I recall I was not correct in any of the estimations.

 

Odds of that happening:  Approximately 1 in 437.9.  I'm glad you did better than that in University.

 

Probability of getting statistical average:  Approximately 21.4%

 

I get the impression nobody got it all correct, but did not read through the comments.

 

1 hour ago, AugustaAdaByron said:

(And here's your ρ, my friend!)

 

Thanks! :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sam Ashen said:

 

Odds of that happening:  Approximately 1 in 437.9.  I'm glad you did better than that in University.

 

Probability of getting statistical average:  Approximately 21.4%

 

I get the impression nobody got it all correct, but did not read through the comments.

 

 

I overestimated in most of those. 

 

University, thankfully, was about getting strict results via logical reasoning so it was easier than seeing someone for a few seconds and guess their body fat. ;) 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very quick googling found me this.

 

Flaws will be in the assumptions made.  The big one is the two-body model.  Fat mass and non-fat mass.  By using  ρ =0.9 for fat mass and  ρ =1.1 for non-fat mass, you can derive the first formula 495/ ρ -450.  (Ignoring the times 100 screw-up they threw in.  I use per-unit and percent interchangeably every single day so I just ignore it when I see it.)

 

Next is it is calibrated according to a population and not to an individual.  So it goes back to what is above.  From what I understand, bone density can mess with the results.

 

Another one I found:

 

Note: Units for all weights are in kg and RV is in L. The 0.1 represents an estimated volume (L) of gas in the GI tract.

 

They would be *seriously* underestimating my fart mass.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding was that as you build muscle your maintenance calories will increase, this fits with both what SS said about lifting and maintenance and also what the Stronglifts 5x5 website claims on their GOMAD page. It also makes sense that as your weights increase each lifting session is creating more kinetic energy so must require more calories. So it could be more that you use more energy doing healthy things rather than any metabolism magic.

On the body fat % subject, there is so much guesswork. I've discovered that our fitbit scales have a fudge factor where you tell them whether you think you're 'lean' or 'regular'.

We may not enjoy living together, but dying together isn't going to solve anything.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Sam Ashen said:

 

1.  In a sharp contrast with what seems to be a majority of NF Rebels, Alan Thrall apparently believes Hydrostatic weighing is still the Gold Standard of Body Fat Testing.  My own take on it is I suppose they easily calibrate the system by performing autopsies on the ones who drown.  An autopsy is exact.  (I forget what the Hydrostatic guy said about DEXA Scans.)

 

3.  No, I do not have any current plans to do a Hydrostatic weighing.  For me, I believe a tape measure is good enough.  The tape measure says 18% to 20%, but I have not calibrated it recently.  Dead reckoning says 20%.  (I believe my LBM is 160 and I weigh 200.  Therefore my BF% is 20%.)

 

5.  The big take I got from the video is Alan Thrall saying the key to reducing Body Fat is consistency.  And *that* is why MM condemns big ranges in calorie intake.

 

7. The effect of a huge range between low Calorie Days and IfItFitsMyMouth Days is cutting and bulking the same few pounds and no real change in body composition.

1. I don't think anyone has ever said that hydrostatic is inaccurate. Mostly just that DEXA or bodpod is best balance of accurate, accessible and wallet-friendly than other methods.

 

3. That's circular reasoning if I've ever seen it ;)

 

5. DING DING DING DING!!!!!

 

7. DING DING DING DING!!!!!

 

 

4 hours ago, Taddea Zhaan said:

I'm mainly just curious about body fat as a starting point. Although, now I wish I had done it 6 months ago. And I'm probably not going to fork over the cash for another 6 months. I can get a DEXA done at a local university (not the one I work at, one nearby) because of their student nutrition program for $40.

 

I've tried doing body measurements with tape to get the body fat percentage. My abdomen doesn't measure correctly because of my abdominal surgeries, I'm weirdly flat in some areas and weirdly lumpy in other areas and then there is loose skin. And I have a large frame (I wear womens size 11 shoes US and my wrist is over 6.5" and I usually buy men's winter gloves). I've had measurements that said I was 40%+, but looking at images and just my best guess, it's probably not more than 35%. So I'd like to get a DEXA scan out of pure curiosity. 

 

I can tell i'm losing body fat from clothes, but even though I know curiosity killed the cat, I'm still curious!

 

In regards to consistency and body fat loss. I think I'm actually improving at this! Reading this makes me realize that this is precisely why I'm managing to lose weight eating around 1900-2000 calories per day, when I used to eat 1550-1700 to lose weight. I'm less hungry at the higher calorie range, so when I do over eat it's really not much more than 2000 calories. Whereas before I was more hungry at 1600 so my calories might vary from 1500 - 2700 during a week, with the high days being a social event with alcohol. Now that I eat more I'm less hungry and don't binge as much on the weekend at parties, etc. With having more calories to play with, I don't feel like I need cheat days. @CourtnieMarie, I think we solved the mystery!

Your story is so amazing! :D just have to say.

 

50 minutes ago, AugustaAdaByron said:

 

I overestimated in most of those. 

 

University, thankfully, was about getting strict results via logical reasoning so it was easier than seeing someone for a few seconds and guess their body fat. ;) 

I also overestimated nearly all of them. I think I only underestimated one. Makes me feel better about where I think I am BF wise. I would self-estimate at 24-27%, and based on my poor estimates in this, I'm probably closer to 20%.

 

42 minutes ago, Sam Ashen said:

They would be *seriously* underestimating my fart mass.

I just like this for the typo :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, miss_marissa said:

1. I don't think anyone has ever said that hydrostatic is inaccurate. Mostly just that DEXA or bodpod is best balance of accurate, accessible and wallet-friendly than other methods.

 

Spezzy and Catspaw call DEXA the best and I considered them to be representative of NF.  Here is something I found:

 

Quote

 

This method may underestimate body fat percentage of athletes as they tend to have denser bones and muscles than non-athletes, and may overestimate body fat percentage of elderly patients suffering from osteoporosis. 

 

 

My bias comes from studying electrical engineering.  Therefore I do not trust anything electrical or electronic. :P

 

I cannot imagine the amount of witchcraft involved in arriving at a number.  As a contrast, the simple formula from Hydrostatic weighing helps me follow along.

 

Reiterating:  I consider my build to be pretty much "main-sequence."  So I would expect all methods to come up with similar results.  The methods I can think of are Dunk Tank, DEXA, Skinfold, Tape Measure, Biometric Impedance at Darkside Fitness, BodPod.

 

18 minutes ago, miss_marissa said:

3. That's circular reasoning if I've ever seen it ;)

 

I put two different methods under the same point, so it got misunderstood as circular.

A. Tape Measure.  BF(h=177; w=89; n=39) = 18.9%

B. Reckoning.  BF(160, 200) = 20.0%

 

So if my reckoning is wrong and my non-fat mass is 155, then my BF% would be 22.5%.  If it is 165, then my BF% would be 17.5%.

 

26 minutes ago, miss_marissa said:

I also overestimated nearly all of them. I think I only underestimated one.

 

I saw in the comments some people saying the 9.8% was total BS.  No visible abs.

 

27 minutes ago, miss_marissa said:

Makes me feel better about where I think I am BF wise. I would self-estimate at 24-27%, and based on my poor estimates in this, I'm probably closer to 20%.

 

Yup.  Pretty much everybody who sees your abz selfies would agree.

 

Not sure if the tape measure method would fail on you.  The most spectacular tape measure fail I have seen is Spezzy.

 

Also.  Body image comes into play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Sam Ashen said:

I put two different methods under the same point, so it got misunderstood as circular.

A. Tape Measure.  BF(h=177; w=89; n=39) = 18.9%

B. Reckoning.  BF(160, 200) = 20.0%

 

So if my reckoning is wrong and my non-fat mass is 155, then my BF% would be 22.5%.  If it is 165, then my BF% would be 17.5%.

Typically most people use total weight and a BF estimate to estimate lean mass. You estimated your lean mass and your total weight and used that to confirm a BF estimate. But to me it seems your LBM estimate is based off your tape measure estimate of your BF. (I'm not sure otherwise how you would be able to estimate your LBM...)

EITHER WAY. I think you're probably in the right ballpark.

 

32 minutes ago, Sam Ashen said:

 

I saw in the comments some people saying the 9.8% was total BS.  No visible abs.

He addressed the visible abs part. Genetics! :)

 

32 minutes ago, Sam Ashen said:

Yup.  Pretty much everybody who sees your abz selfies would agree.

 

Not sure if the tape measure method would fail on you.  The most spectacular tape measure fail I have seen is Spezzy.

 

Also.  Body image comes into play.

I've never tried tape measure method. But I, also like Spezzy, tend to carry most of my weight/fat in a certain area of my body (DAT ASS) so I imagine it would probably underestimate me. My only experience with measuring bodyfat before is the electrical impedance method, which typically estimate me between 27-29, but I assume those were high estimates based on the "use my eyes" method, which is how I arrived at the 24-27 range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, miss_marissa said:

Typically most people use total weight and a BF estimate to estimate lean mass. You estimated your lean mass and your total weight and used that to confirm a BF estimate. But to me it seems your LBM estimate is based off your tape measure estimate of your BF. (I'm not sure otherwise how you would be able to estimate your LBM...)

EITHER WAY. I think you're probably in the right ballpark.

 

The number 160 is based on Biometric Impedance and Skinfold measurements done at Darkside Fitness dating back to last year.  I am assuming that has not changed since late last year.

 

Being more clear:  If the tape measure points to a significantly different number, for example if I weigh in at 200 and the tape measure says I am at 15%, then it would be appropriate to recalibrate.

 

Stepping on the scale is quick.  Taking a tape measure is quick.  Requesting a test takes a bit more time.  DEXA or Dunking requires an Adventure.

 

Also.  Body image issues.  Finding out the number is even higher than estimated is depressing and screws up the rest of the day.

 

34 minutes ago, miss_marissa said:

But I, also like Spezzy, tend to carry most of my weight/fat in a certain area of my body (DAT ASS) so I imagine it would probably underestimate me.

 

Tape measure for women ASSumes fat is carried around the waist and hips.  The ASSumption fails in her case because the method assumes the OMG measurement is fat.  When you meet her in person, you will understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sam Ashen said:

They would be *seriously* underestimating my fart mass.

 

Not a typo, by the way.

 

Suppose body weight is 90 kg and body volume is 85 L.  0.1 L is deducted for fart mass volume to get a density of 1.06 and a BF% of 16.95%.

 

If the underlying fart mass assumption seriously underestimated the massive fart, then the body volume might be 85.5 L.  Now the 0.1 L deduction only results in a density of 1.054 and a BF% of 19.7%.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tanktimus the Encourager said:

Fart mass.

That is all.

 

Apparently eating supper and reading my own thread are not compatible.

 

5 hours ago, ixaera said:

I guess lay off the lentils a few days before getting measured, huh??

 

If I were to guess, there is a good chance they might give you instructions on how to prepare for the measurement.  It would not surprise me if they had you fast the evening before to minimize the amount of food passing through your system.

 

Regarding getting rid of all of your air underwater, do you remember that guy yelling at Alan Thrall to keep blowing?  There is one experience I can remember this makes me think of.  Years ago in my life in California, I had one allergy shot appointment go bad and I was back at the doctor's office.  So they conducted tests for lung capacity and idk air velocity or something.  So the guy administering the test did exactly the same thing.  Blow!  Blowblowblow!  Keep blowing!

 

So they probably measure when the underwater weight is not changing much (stabilized) and therefore there is not much air left in the lungs.  So they pick another number out of the air (<-----see what I did?) and deduct that out of the calculated volume.

-----------------------------------

 

Very light day today.

 

Power Snatch Singles at 64, 74, 84, 5x94, 114 for shiggles

 

Power Clean and Jerk Singles at 114, 124, 5x134, 144, 154

 

And that's it!

 

Score for Today:

2579 Calories

290 Carbs

84 Fat

180 Protein

 

-1.6 Overall

 

Morning weigh-in was very light.  89.9 kg, just 0.1 kg above my YTD low.  I have a chart nearby and I can take a screenshot...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here it is in candlestick style stock chart format:

 

C7jfud.png

 

So who is the resident stock chart reader?

 

From a more fundamentalist point of view, here are my thoughts:

1. Week 20 is not yet closed.  Two days remain.

2. I tend to bounce off this weight like a springboard.

3. Saturday is a Competition day, just like Week 16.

4. Week 16 was a big red brick.

5. Definitely weighing in lighter in Week 20 than in Week 16.

6. No significant change in intake from the start of the year.  YTD average is approximately 3360.

7. Stock charts are unbecoming to XCOMmies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, miss_marissa said:

Makes me feel better about where I think I am BF wise.

 

Exactly what my thoughts were as well.

 

 

11 hours ago, Sam Ashen said:

DEXA or Dunking requires an Adventure.

 

 

And that's what my thoughts were here...

 

o-DUNKIN-DONUTS-DELIVERY-facebook.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you need a chartist to predict what your weight will do next , based on pretty patterns.

We may not enjoy living together, but dying together isn't going to solve anything.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Sam Ashen said:

So here it is in candlestick style stock chart format:

 

C7jfud.png

 

So who is the resident stock chart reader?

 

From a more fundamentalist point of view, here are my thoughts:

1. Week 20 is not yet closed.  Two days remain.

2. I tend to bounce off this weight like a springboard.

3. Saturday is a Competition day, just like Week 16.

4. Week 16 was a big red brick.

5. Definitely weighing in lighter in Week 20 than in Week 16.

6. No significant change in intake from the start of the year.  YTD average is approximately 3360.

7. Stock charts are unbecoming to XCOMmies.

 

What am I trying to predict? Also, you didn't say what the chart was of. But I am guessing I am supposed to infer it is your weight in KG?

 

I forget, but I don't think you wanted to weigh in light, you wanted to weigh in at what you normally weigh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Taddea Zhaan said:

Also, you didn't say what the chart was of. But I am guessing I am supposed to infer it is your weight in KG?

 

Correct.  Context was in the post immediately before.

 

13 hours ago, Sam Ashen said:

Morning weigh-in was very light.  89.9 kg, just 0.1 kg above my YTD low.  I have a chart nearby and I can take a screenshot...

 

3 hours ago, Taddea Zhaan said:

I forget, but I don't think you wanted to weigh in light, you wanted to weigh in at what you normally weigh?

 

In this case, it is weight class specific.  So it really does not matter as long as I weigh in at 94 kg or less.

 

3 hours ago, Taddea Zhaan said:

What am I trying to predict?

 

No chartists here, I guess.  But we will find out soon.  Who is ready for more circular logic?

 

If the trend is upwards, then the upward trend will continue until it stops going up.  Then it will either level off or go back down.

If the trend is level, then the level trend will continue until either it starts going up or down.

If the trend is downwards, then the downward trend will continue until it stops going down.  Then it will either level off or go back up.

 

One person I have seen write articles every once in a while uses a purple crayon.  So one way to look at this is to take a purple crayon and draw a line at 90 all the way across and another line at 93 all the way across.  From this, I can argue that from 90 to 93, there is a big channel.  In the world of stocks (I drew this like a stock chart.) there is "support" at 90 and "resistance" at 93.  There is demand at 90 because people who read these charts believe the price will bounce back to 93 where they can sell at a profit.  This works because people believe it will work and act in a way that makes it work.

 

Going back to talking about my weight, there is "support" at 90 kg and "resistance" at 93 kg.

 

You can also take your crayon and draw a downward sloping channel.  Connect the bottoms starting from Week 11 and the tops starting from Week 11.  It works the same way as "support" and "resistance," except these levels are gradually moving downwards.  So the next question is, which one is correct?

 

Going back to talking about my weight, the next question is what changed.  Brainstorming.....

1. No significant change in intake.  Still averaging just under 3400.

2. No significant change in activity.  Week 17 did see a change to an Olympic program.

3. Not sure about consistency, as measured by the number of MFP crazy days.

4. The hours of daylight are increasing quite noticeably.

 

This morning was 200 pounds even.  90.7 kg.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.