Monday, 28 December 2015

How Training and Weight Loss improves Running Speeds

My running time improvements in 2015
In 2015, I returned to running after a break of some years.
After a slow start (on that first run my legs hurt after just 1.8 km!), I slowly built speed and distance, eventually topping out with a half-marathon in 2 hrs 27 minutes. Not exactly world class (I work with a guy a bit older than me that can run a full marathon in pretty much 3 hrs, give or take a minute or two either way). But for my first run of that distance in about 30 years, I was pretty pleased with myself.


I also find that having a bit more "breath" in me helps with my cycling, too
Technically, it is cardio-pulmonary improvement that I am noticing, but in practice it means I don't get so out of breath on hills!

Anyway.
How I did it: part A
1) build up distance and speed slowly over a long period. Don't just get up and try to run a record speed or distance, keeping going until you injure yourself
2) take rest weeks every now and then to give your body a chance to regrow all that lovely new muscle etc. etc.

How I did it: part B
1) I started off "free-style" running for about 6 weeks (weeks 3 to 8 on the chart above).

2) Then I started using a "perceived effort" pacing system (week 9), which shows up pretty clearly in the charts. Pacing to an approximate physical sensation (like degree of breathlessness) helps with pacing longer events. Just look at that 10k improvement!

3) Then I started using a BlueTooth heart rate belt and my wife's smartphone. But I found it rather cumbersome. But I was aiming to run in "zones" based on my Maximum Heart Rate.

4) So I splashed out on a "proper" sports watch - a Garmin 310xt, which is a (now) recently discontinued device, that was originally introduced as Garmin's top-of-the-range "tri-athlon" watch in 2009. The 310xt is still onsale from some outlets at a heavily discounted price, and I got mine, along with a "deluxe" heart rate belt for just 125 pounds ($188). You can read my review of the 310xt here.
the 310xt has "alerts", so it can be set up to beep and vibrate, and if you set up a heart-rate band for the alerts (say 155 to 165 bpm), then the watch cen help you stay in this band, while at the same time not requiring you to stare at it all the time. I have mine set up to beep once every kilometre, so I can keep a general eye on the numbers while still looking where I am going!
I got the watch at about week 22.

5) Then I started using lactate threshold heart rate for pacing from about week 26.
I knew that running 10k at that point in time would take me about an hour, so if I ran for about at hour at my "1 hour rate" (a.k.a. "lactate threshold"), then that would give my best 10k time.
So I did. Here's how I got on. as you can see, my heart rate is pretty constant, given that the course is undulating, except for a surge at the end, when I was really going for it!
The fact that I had enough energy to surge at the end suggests that I could have run the whole distance just a couple of heart beats a minute faster throughout.
But then it was onto cycling for the rest of the Summer.

How I did it: part C
1) I lost weight. You can see my weight loss during the year here. in fact, I,ve lost a bit more since then, and I am now about 82.5 kg (181 lbs), a weight I haven't been for about 17 years! I've recently set a few new personal records, despite not being in the best shape (quite a break from running over the Summer while I was concentrating on cycling!), and the big reason for that is that I am now a good 10kg (22 lbs) lighter than I was in the Spring/Summer

2) Light people run quicker. Owen Barder has an excellent tool to indicate just how much faster or slower you will go (with no other changes to yourself/training), if you lose or gain various amounts of weight.
Actually I suggest you explore Owen Barder's whole website, as I certainly found it helped me with information and encouragement. So I run a mile in about twice Roger Bannister's memorable 4 minute record. But he wasn't 51 at the time! How do I measure up against folks MY age?
There is a good online book of his on the site, too



Thursday, 24 December 2015

A bit of friendly competition

Things just got serious.

In 2015, I was the best rider from my workplace on the local 100km charity sportive - the Tour de Vale.
Actually, I was the ONLY rider from my workplace :-)

Naturally, I've been "bigging it up", and doing the "you should give it a go next year" line.

Anyway, looks like my colleague, John, has risen to the challenge.
Everyone knows that a "sportive" isn't a proper race, so it doesn't matter which of us covers the ground fastest, as there are no winners and losers, just finishers and non-finishers.

Yeah, right.

Back in the real world, it matters.

And, to make it worse, John is a darned fine rider. He has far more "competition" experience than me, as he used to be a serious MTB rider.
Way back when.
John has a bigger equipment budget than me, and a "better" bike that is about 8 kilos lighter than mine, too.
Actually, John has several bikes which are both "better" and lighter than mine.
All I have is Mermaid, my 18kg "cheapie".

So I am going to get my butt kicked, so as to speak.

Or perhaps not.
I have three main weapons.
1) I am about 20 kilos (44lbs) lighter than John - good job I've lost almost 14 kilos (30 lbs) this year. I'm going to try to shift a bit more before the event itself, as well.
2) I am using fancy software for training analysis (Training Peaks)
3) I clocked up about 6 metric "centuries" in 2015, and I will be starting 2016 at both my lightest and fittest for about 20 years.

I have one other "secret" weapon. A resting pulse in the 40's.
You just can't buy that.
OK, so it is mostly genetic, with just a touch of fitness on top.
You can't buy genetics.

But all of that will not be enough by itself.
I'm going to have to train more effectively than John, too.
And since John is no fool, that is going to require some serious hourage.
Boring paced work, not just pleasure riding with a few hills thrown in.
A serious exercise program, too, off the bike as well as on.
Some serious running early in 2016 to improve my cardio-pulmonary system.
Strength exercises.
Structured training designed so I reach my peak for the event - not before, and not after.

Let's see how it goes.
Nothing like a bit of friendly competition to get one motivated!

Sunday, 6 December 2015

Losing my KOM

A couple of days ago I lost two of my KOMs.
Boo hoo.
I don't actually know how many KOMs I had before that, but I know it isn't very many.
It is incredibly tempting to try to get those KOMs back.

However.

The difference between training and playing is whether your activities support your longer-term goals or whether it is about pride.
An effective athlete must be humble to achieve their goals.

Think about your goals.
If your goal is to get as many KOMs as possible, then search Strava or the overlooked ones on some minor road. Check the weather for when certain segments will have a HUGE tailwind (we are experiencing 45 mph, 72 kph, gusts from the South-West at the moment). Pump up your tyres extra hard, and off you go! Have fun.

But is that my goal?
No, it isn't.
So how did I get the KOM in the first place?
Well, as part of my training for my audax/randonnee ride in the Summer of 2015, I did quite a bit of running. Cardio-pulmonary fitness is the same whether you build it up running, cycling, or doing any other intense physical activity.
And the KOM?
Well, I run around a loop of streets near me that is about 1 mile (1.6 km) long.
I simply made one loop into a segment. There is a downhill bit and an uphill bit and a couple of flat bits. A nice little loop. Strava tells me I have run that segment over 100 times since I set it up.
On my (now lost) KOM lap of that segment, I did an 11.2 km run.
A little 1.2 km warm-up, then a 10km serious effort. This was the run I have mentioned before that afterwards I just sat on the edge of the road and rested. A neighbour stopped his car to check if I had had a heart attack or something, I looked that shattered.
But it was a 10km loop that went through that segment 6 times.
You don't have to be a genius to work out that if I JUST ran the segemnt again, just ONCE, as a classic "mile" run, rather than as a small part of a 10km run, I would go faster.
Plus I have lost about 6kg (13lbs) in weight since then, so that alone would knock 40 seconds or so off my time for that mile - my legs have less belly to move about now!

http://www.runningforfitness.org/calc/racepaces/rp?metres=10000&hr=0&min=58&sec=22&age=50&gender=M&Submit=Calculate suggests I could knock about a minute of my PR for that ex-KOM segment just by running it as a stand-alone run rather than as a small part of a longer run. That alone would give me the KOM back :-)
http://www.runningforfitness.org/calc/diet/weighteffect?metres=1609&hr=0&min=8&sec=09&weight=87&weightunits=kg&Submit=Calculate suggests I could knock off another 30 seconds or so due to the weight loss. So that KOM looks like an easy one to retake.

But let's stand back a little and thing about the bigger picture.
What am I attempting to achieve?
Many of you already know the answer - I am hoping to get a good time (sub 5 hrs, which will be 22 minutes quicker than my 2015 time) in the local 62mile (100km) sportive - the 2016 Tour de Vale - AND do a 200 to 250 mile (320 to 400km) audax/randonnee ride in the Summer of 2016 too.

Like most folks, I have a full-time job, so my training time is not exactly unlimited.
My training should therefore be focussed on stuff which will help my twin goals (Tour de Vale and audax/randonnee) for 2016.
I was hoping to go out for a spin on the bike this morning - get maybe 30-ish miles in (50 km).
But no.
They are behind at work, and the three hours I would have spent riding will be spent at work instead. On a Sunday. Looks like it is panning out into a long run up to Christmas. I'm working 6 days next week, so that'll make 13 days running at work, and it may actually get worse than that.
It's not all bad, though. Work gives me the financial resources to pay for the bike in the first place! I was just eyeing up some new tyres online last night, too :-) Hoping to be getting a power meter for 2017, and that's not going to buy itself either!

So that KOM doesn't look like it will be a big part of my plans.
I ran a couple of slow-ish 10Ks in November, just to keep in shape, but really if I want to be concentrating on longer cycle events, I need to be concentrating on longer distance running.
Longer-distance running is much more similar to longer-distance cycling, especially when you get past about 15km and start to actually eat and drink as part of the event. I ran a half-marathon as part of my preparations last year (including running through that ex-KOM segment 12 times!), and I ate and drank a bit about every 40 minutes - just like I do when cycling long distances.

And that, really, is the difference between playing and training.
Play is fun. Training often isn't. It is easy to get distracted while training, and find oneself playing instead.

But you have to "keep your eyes on the prize", as they say.
Which is why most folks never achieve their potential - they play instead of train.

So I'd best forget about that KOM, then :-)

Sunday, 29 November 2015

What's YOUR creatine level.

So, what's the level of creatine in your blood?
Don't know?

Let me put it like this.
British Cycling, the organization that is in charge of cycling in the UK (and, incidentally, issued the racing licences held by Mr Wiggins' and Mr Froome) say they have been using it on their cyclists for a decade (their words).
Apparently, creatine increases endurance, and that extra endurance allows harder training, which is why it is associated with extra muscles. It is not the creatine as such that gives you the muscles, it is the extra training it allows.

I took creatine supplements of about 9mg a day for 3 weeks in the Summer (along with some BCAA supplements and some multi-vitamins). Whether it helped me, I don't know, because I have no control to compare it to. The three weeks, I am assured by my body-building friends (body-builders tend to be creatine fanatics!) wouldn't have added much muscle, but I "probably" got the endurance benefits. Summer over, and I stopped taking it again. Within a month or so it would have all been pee'd out of my body.

So, do I know MY creatine levels?
Well, actually, I kind of do.
It has been measured during several of the other sets of tests I have had over the years.
Here are my numbers (no supplements involved - these are my "natural" numbers)
1st April 2008 (age 43) = 68 umol/L
16th June 2009 = 63 umol/L
23rd June 2009 = 68 umol/L
30th June 2009 = 69 umol/L
7th July 2009 = 69 umol/L
28th July 2009 = 64 umol/L
9th December 2009 = 57 umol/L
18th February 2013 = 61 umol/L
13th October 2015 = 62 umol/L

Apparently, "normal" is between 63 and 111 umol/L.
It is safe to conclude, therefore, that I have pretty low levels of creatine, and I sometimes fall below the "low" end of the "normal" range.
Extra creatine, therefore, could well be expected to have a significant effect on me, which is why I took it.

Do you take sports supplementation?
Do you know your "natural" levels, or are you just taking them because everyone else does?
For serious sport, there is always the medical exemption. A guy like me, with the various long-term health issues I have piled up over the years, could get an exemption from loads of stuff that would get other people banned :-)
(As a side issue, what makes you think that some of the KOMs on Strava weren't set by blatantly doping athletes!).

Creatine turns out to be "legal" for sport. I suppose it is because you can get a lot of it just from eating a weird diet!

So what do YOU think about "legal" sports supplementation? Should only dietary-induced creatine be OK?
What about the most popular supplementation - caffeine.
Good bad or ugly?
Let me know what you think.

Thursday, 26 November 2015

Training Peaks - worth a look?

Massive overtraining (circled in red) recorded in Training Peaks... or not.
I'm giving Training Peaks a try. I'll get onto a fuller review at a later date, but here are a few snippets to start out.

1. The "app" seems to be an add-on to the online program, rather than being a stand-alone app.

2. There is a "free" version and a paid "premium" version. The "free" version is basically a training diary, plus the program calculates how "tough" the workout was (Tss - training stress score). The "premium" version (costs £75, $120, €105 per year) gives you the fancy graph you see above.

3. Training Peaks makes the usual "default" assumptions - no, my resting heart rate ISN'T 60 (!) and my "threshold" heart rate ISN'T 148 either!

4. The "default" assumptions can be changed, but only in the computer version, not the app.

5. The amount of information is almost overwhelming. Be prepared to a lot of reading up on various topics to get the best out of Training Peaks.
Or get a coach that can do it for you!

6. Training Peaks, even in the "free" version, allows some pretty fancy analysis - stuff that "free" Strava users can only dream about.
"Premium" users get to see the graph at the top of the page which allows even more analysis.
For example, do you know when you are recovered enough from a hard training session to take on an event? How long should your tapering period be? (If you don't taper, then I think "premium" Training Peaks might be a bit beyond your needs for the moment. Even I taper!)
(update: Strava has a "fitness and freshness" page in "Premium", but it was really Training Peaks that started this stuff!)

7. Training Peaks assumes you start logging you rides etc. from a low level of fitness. So you look ("premium" version only) like you are getting massively fit in the first few weeks, but are so fatigued that you should be unable to walk, let alone train. I "preloaded" about 2 months of estimated activities to "flatten out" the initial training figures. Another few months of "real" activities, and the graphs will be showing sensible numbers ... An example can be seen in the picture at the top of the post ("premium" version only), where Training Peaks has assumed my fitness level is far lower than it actually is, and the area I have marked in red would normally be showing a dangerous level of overtraining, but it just a "getting going" artifact.
See the update section further down for an example of a more sensible graph that I have preloaded with the bulk of my major activities going back about 4 months. Yes, I really do perform about 100 TSS points of activity at medium intensity on 5 days or so a week!
You can set "start fitness" numbers in Training Peaks, but without a coach, or a friend who uses Training Peaks, how would you know what numbers to start at?
8 ... Which leads to the next point. If you are going to switch to Training Peaks, then do so when doing general training in the "off-season", NOT while doing structured training in the run-up to an event. Training Peaks relies on quite a few months of data input to give realistic (and useful) graphs (I'm getting bored of writing it, but, again, premium version only).
I believed I have helped things along by loading up about 4 months of activities, including a lot of manual entries to cover the stuff that I don't bother logging on Strava - I don't wear an HRM 14 hours a day, you know!

9. For me, the best feature is the summary graph (yep, premium version only) that shows fatigue, fitness, and "balance". The object is to get fitness as high as possible, yet get "balance" positive by the time you do an event. Exercise increases fatigue and fitness, but rest causes fatigue to fall faster than fitness (this is basically why we get fitter by doing exercise!). Too much rest, and fitness falls unnecessarily - once you are decently rested, further rest won't help, yet fitness is falling all the time. Training Peaks aims to help you get that balance right. In the picture at the top of the post, the blue line (with the shading below it) is my level of fitness, the pink line is my fatigue, and the yellow line is my balance of fitness and fatigue. In the picture above, I can see that if I had an event/race/sportive coming up, I should rest up for a few days, during which time I will lose a little fitness, but recover from a LOT of fatigue. Really, I should be trying to get the fitness line (blue) as high as possible and at the same time get the balance line (yellow) back into the "positive" range before an event/race/sportive.
But don't worry too much about my graph for the moment - the system has yet to catch up with the decent level of fitness I already have :-)

10. Like I said in 8 above, start using Training Peaks BEFORE you need it because in the first few months of use, the figures for fatigue and recovery aren't going to be that accurate unless you really are as unfit as the program assumes. Get a good few months of data in there, and it should sort itself out. See the graph further down to see how loading about 4 months of "old" activities makes the numbers look more sensible. I have kind of repeated this point because it is SO important!

11. You have a LOT of flexibility in how to enter workouts. If you do a regular thing and you work out training load (expressed as tss and intensity) then you can add a manual entry WITH the full effects showing on the training graphs ( you know what I am going to say - premium version only), rather than just the Strava way of adding it to total mileage, but not much else.
I do a physical job, so I measured the outdoor part of it with my 310xt and HRM belt today. So I got an estimate of how much "training" I do as a by-product of my job. Turns out to be quite a bit. I walk about 5 miles (8km) a day, just for starters. But I don't have to measure it every day. I can just use today's figure for a manual entry for other days. Yes, every month or so, I ought to recalibrate the activity, because if I am getting fitter than I am likely to be doing the same amount of "work" at a lower heart-rate, and therefore incurring less "training". But at least I can do it like that.
I don't wear an HRM 24 hours a day, so it is good to be able to make an "educated estimate" of workload. But you have to be honest with yourself - that 30 minute gym session is unlikely to be the same as a 100km cycle session, however much you sweated!

12. No social side. You can make your training public, but if you want social, then that is what Strava is for.

13. No segments. If you want to pretend you are a top rider, then, again, that is catered for by Strava. If you want to train to be closer to actually being a top rider, then that is where programs like Training Peaks take over. Training Peaks isn't about competing with your mates, it is about competing with yourself. Segments can still be useful as training exercises, though, as part of a broader training program.

14. No little trophies and badges. Play on Strava, Train on Training Peaks.

15. Is Training Peaks better than Strava, then? Nope. It is just different, to do different things. I've met a lot of interesting folks through Strava, and picked up a lot of tips. I still use Strava. I like the badges :-) I like the social side. Indeed, my runs and rides are currently "auto-forwarding" from Garmin Connect to both Strava AND Training Peaks.
But Training Peaks has better training tools, especially in the "premium" version, as long as you are prepared to put the hours in to learn how to use those tools properly. Twelve months ago, I would have found Training Peaks rather intimidating. Since then I have read half a dozen training books, maybe 50 scientific papers on training, and a lot of general training articles and blogs. I have spoken to long term marathon runners to check that what I am reading makes sense. I did my first 200+km ride, and about 6 other "metric" centuries. I've learnt a lot, and developed a lot. I think I am ready for Training Peaks. But like I have mentioned before, it is a steep learning curve for a novice without a coach to understand all the graphs and their purpose.
There we are just a taster. I'll do a proper review in a couple of months time when I can say for certain whether the numbers have settled down after there initial rise from an assumed-low base.

Update 29th November 2015:
The first graph again, showing "start-up" artefacts even after being pre-loaded with a couple of months of (mainly) estimated data.

That;s a bit more like it. The data for the last couple of months is the same as the first chart (excepting I have added another day or two to the "current" end). But this time I have added all my big rides and every run I made that was 5km or over, stretching back to July (so about 5 months of data in total). I have similarly used estimates for the non-Garmin part of my training.Slowly rising fitness, with big improvements in "balance" when I have a few days off from work.
After all, I SHOULD have gotten fitter in November - I have run two 10Km runs, and those are the first 10Kms since late July.
So easy to come up with a basic training plan with Training Peaks.
I just entered how many hours a week I wanted as training (1 chose 10). then I enetered any big events I have, and how important they are to me.
For me the "big" event is the one in the middle of the plan (the end of June). It is the local charity "sportive" 100km ride.Then later, near the end of August, I fancy a go at beating my PR for distance in a day. I did 161km in 2014, 232km in 2015, and it would be nice to push the 300km mark in 2016.
These two events are marked with the little trophy with an "A" on it (A = the most important stuff).
I like to start the year with a January 1st ride, so I put in a 50km for that date. But if it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen. I can reschedule it for another day. So that one is just a "C" on the trophy symbol.
The plan is in grey, because it is a plan. When I actual do some of the training, the grey bars get replaced with coloured ones, so I can see what I have done, and what I still have to do.
The plan has added a "light" week on every 4th week (for recovery). Train for more than about 3 months without a "recovery week" and your chance of an injury goes up quite a bit! My busy life means I tend to get a rest week every now and then anyway!
Of course, the plan is fully customisable, so if you really know what you are doing, or you have a coach, they can fiddle with the plan to get the best from it.
But for the rest of us, a decent, sensible, "automatic" plan is a good place to start,
It even handles my "double peak" in the Summer in a sensible manner.

Tuesday, 24 November 2015

Weight Loss Update - almost the end of November 2015

Almost 11 months of weight loss. Down about 10 kg (22 lbs) overall.
I've been doing these monthly updates about the end of the month. But this month I know I will VERY busy in a week's time, so I'm doing this a week early.

The big "headline" is that for the 6 days I have been 86 kilos (about 190 lbs) or less.
I started the year at 96.6kg (about 212 lbs).
In the Spring I was losing weight at about 2 kilos (4.4 lbs) per month.
5 weeks ago I switched to a low saturated fat diet, and lost 4 kilos (8.8 lbs) in that time.

Because we have "fancy" weighing scales, I can check whether I am losing fat or whether I am just dehydrating (although if one lost 10 kg of body water the physical signs of that would be VERY obvious!).
I bought the new scales shortly after starting the diet which is very low in saturated fat.
This is what the scales say:
25th October 2015.
Wt 88.3 kg, Body fat 21.1%, total body water 56.9%, muscle 38.8%

24th Novemebr 2015
Wt 85.7 kg, Body fat 20.3%, total body water 57.7%, muscle 39.3%

So lets turn those percentages into weight
25th Oct: Wt 88.3 kg, BF 18.6 kg, Water 50.2 kg, Muscle 34.3 kg
24th Nov: Wt 85.7 kg, BF 17.4 kg, Water 49.4 kg, Muscle 33.7 kg

The reason why each set of numbers "doesn't add up" is because muscle also contains some water, so that gets counted twice! I suspect that body fat also involves a very small amount of water being stored.

What is important is that, in the 4 1/2 weeks I have been doing this advanced measuring, I have lost 1.2 kg of body fat.
That's actual body fat.
You can't fake it by skipping breakfast the day of a weigh-in at a slimming club.
You can't fake it by taking diuretics
It's actual body fat.

When most people say they want to lose weight, they mean they want to lose fat.
I have also lost a bit of muscle, but that may be because my fitness regime has been intentionally less that it was in the Spring/Summer.
It also demonstrates the adage that fat people have big muscles - we have to have in order to just shift our butts about!

As I have mentioned before, "real" weight loss has physical signs beyond the weighing scales.
I have lost about 2.5 inches (about 6 cm) from my waistline, and I had to buy a smaller belt.
My current pair of trousers (US: pants) have a 36" waist, my previous pair was a 38" waist.
only a couple of years ago, the 38's were getting tight, and I was considering a 40" waist!

The effect of my running is more difficult to measure as there is a "confounding" factor. Do I seem to run faster without too much effort because I am lighter, or because I have developed my muscles to run better?
Owen Barder's excellent "Running for Fitness" website suggests that my 10k time will drop by about 34 seconds for every kilo I lose in weight. So I need to do another "threshold" 10K just to see how much I can get under my previous PR, and compare that with the predicted figure for the weight loss.

Similarly, the effect on my cycling, although I haven't really tested yet, is likely to be substantial.
My bike weighs in at 18kg, but as everyone agrees that it is total weight that counts (bike and rider), the weight I have lost from myself could have been "bought" by staying fat and buying a lightweight bike.
An 8 kilo bike.
How much does an 8 kilo bike cost?
$5000?
$10000?
That's how much money I have saved by losing weight rather than get a lightweight bike!.
And before anyone suggests that I can get a 9kilo bike for such and such, I said an 8 kilo bike.
And remember, most lightweight bikes have the weight quoted WITHOUT pedals.
My figure of 18 kg is from weighing my ACTUAL bike, in full running order, pedals, mudguards (fenders), rack and all.
And guess what: - I can get Mermaid down by another kilo just by changing from my Marathon Plus tyres to a lighter tyre (like Marathon Supreme, for example - cost twice as much as "plus", but half the weight!). Cost $100 to $150 for a "quality" item.
I could take off the STEEL mudguards.
I could take off the rack.
And suddenly, compared with the diet, I am looking at staying fat and buying a bike UNDER the UCI weight limit!
Sub-UCI limit bike, or spend $150 and go on a diet.

I could take off more weight, too.
I have heavy-duty double-wall wheels with 36 spokes each. Another couple of hundred dollars would save quite a bit on the weight of the wheels.
Carbon? I'm pretty sure there are NO carbon parts on Mermaid - even the handlebars are steel!

Seems to me that only a fool would buy a really lightweight bike while still being fat.
But then, as they say, a fool and his money are easily parted.

The logic is compelling.
If you want to go faster and you are overweight, keep your hand in your pocket and lose some weight. I did and saved a fortune.
It is also easier to lose weight on a heavier bike because you have to expend more calories to get up hills etc!

Already got a lightweight bike, but you're still overweight?
Next time you want to buy a fancy upgrade part, get a "winter training bike" - something heavy and tough that can withstand rain and bad roads and salt. 
And then ride it. 
A lot.
That'll get you thinner so when you switch back to your fancy bike, the fancy bike will seem VERY easy to ride, and you'll be a good bit quicker, too.

The mistake folks make is they try to buy speed first (with a lightweight bike), then do the hard bit (losing weight and doing a lot of training) later.
What I am suggesting is that you do it the other way round.

Sunday, 22 November 2015

Morning Commute Report: Saturday 21st November 2015

Left the house as usual. Weather forecast was not too promising.
Wearing "Cat" boots, with my waterproof trousers on top.
#teamplatform, of course!
Some "noob" told me last week that you can't tuck your boots inside your waterproof trousers, but I do it anyway (I have loose trousers, and use a modern variant of cycle clips to keep stuff out of the chain! The waterproof trousers are even loose enough, just, to put them on without taking the boots off)
5 thin layers on my main body, and a "helmet liner" (oversized skullcap that covers the ears).
It's about 2 C (36F), so I am wearing knitted gloves.
Reach the roundabout on the main road, and the sleet starts, quickly followed by a power outage on my side of town.
The quiet is broken by burglar alarms going off.
Suddenly, my "urban" commute under streetlighting is VERY dark.
Switch my headlight from "low" to "high", and continue, pushing hard against the 20 mph (32 kph) headwind.
I'm glad my skullcap has a bright yellow band on the lower part, to complement my hi-viz vest (make that 6 layers, including the hi-viz vest!)
My line is a little loose exiting the next roundabout, because I am having trouble locating the edge of the road. But the sleet is fairly light.
After I pass the prison, there are streetlights on again (must be a different substation or something), and it is downhill from here.
Get to work, but the heating is on the blink, so I keep my skullcap on.
Didn't see any wannabee racers out in the sleet - in fact I didn't see any other cyclists.
When I get there, John is already there. John rides MTB with cleats, and comes in early and changes into regular work boots later. The rest of us go #teamplatform, and ride in in what we wear for the day. Back in the day (20+ years ago), John was a  "sponsored" MTB rider, but that was 20+ years ago.
A while later, Richard comes in, wearing hiking boots (#teamplatform again) - he has cycled in on his bike that has a 8-speed Shimano rear hub, but he is complaining about the cold. About 6 hours later he cheers up :-)
Of the three of us, I have by far the cheapest bike, the others having arrived on bikes worth about twice what mine is. Indeed, John has quite a few bikes - a "work" bike, a "turbo trainer" bike, and a few MTB bikes. He is the only one of us with any titanium parts, but not on his work bike. John has a skullcap, too, a merino wool one, with a small peak. And a merino "base" layer. Me, I've just got merino undertrousers on. Plus my polyester skullcap. Richard, who is feeling the cold, doesn't have any merino OR a skullcap.
Just another day in the lives of 3 all-year-round bike commuters.

Sunday, 8 November 2015

Long Term Review - Aldi (Crane) Cycling Jacket

Crane breathable and waterproof cycling jacket
Length of testing: about 6 weeks so far (since late September 2015)
Price: About 20 pounds ($31, 26 Euros)
From: My local Aldi store, during one of their periodic cycling promotions

Pros:
  1. Colour/Color - I was looking for a yellow waterproof jacket for cycling . Some folks insist on being dressed in black, and they profoundly believe that colour makes no difference to safety, but they are profoundly wrong. Get a nice, bright, jacket! I sometimes wear red in daylight, but when it gets dim it really has to be yellow or white.
  2. Waterproof - I am not a maniac for cycling in the rain, but, hey, I live in a country where it rains quite a bit (Gulf Stream and edge of a continental shelf and all that!).

Tuesday, 3 November 2015

Garmin 310xt at an even lower price!

Garmin have officially discontinued the 310xt, so the remaining ones are being reduced in price to clear the stock. I payed (iirc) £125 (about $190, €167) for mine, including an HRM belt, but they are now on Amazon for just £110, including postage/shipping.
That's cheaper than the Forerunner 25! (Garmin's current entry-level running watch).
OK, the FR25 has Bluetooth, and phone integration, but the 310xt is a previous model pro-triathlon watch!
You want power and features to make you a better athlete, but you are on a modest budget, then the 310xt has to be THE "value" purchase out there!

So this is what you get.
Bike : £500 max
Tools: £100
Garmin 310xt with HRM: £110
Stages 105 power meter or powertap g3  wheel: under £600

Forget the rest. For £1300 quid YOU can be a monster rider.

You could substitute the 310xt for the also discontinued Edge 500 (Wiggle is currently clearing them out for just £120, with premium hr belt and cadence sensor).
However, for the "value" athlete, running will form part of your program, and an Edge 500 isn't that good for running!

What many folks actually do:
Bike (maybe on bike to work scheme)  £1000
Fancy cycle clothes £300.

Which do you think will go faster after 6 months of training?
The £500 bike plus the "training" stuff, or the £1000 bike with the rider looking very sophisticated?

If you have big bucks, buy what you want, but for value and features, nothing matches the 310xt!

Not got £1300?
Then drop the power meter, and that lowers the budget to just £710.
Power meters allow pacing for rides to be worked out. Heart rate is a bit variable, but as long as you eat properly and go to bed nice and early every night, then they make good pacing tools, too.

My budget was, I guess, only about £500, that's why I have a 18kg (40 lb) bike!
But I still have the 310xt - a well- trained rider on a heavy bike will wipe the floor with a novice on a fancy lightweight bike over any distance more than, say, 50km (30 miles).

Remember, this is old stock being shifted, and once they are gone, they are gone.
It could be a good couple of years before the "replacement" ( the 910xt) is offered at anything like so good a price!

Sunday, 1 November 2015

No longer overweight - 10 months on the "Exercise" diet, with a new diet twist for the last couple of weeks

10 months of a diet high in exercise, with a diet low in saturated fat , and still high in exercise, for the last couple of weeks
Just a quick summary, as I already trailed the "big news" a few days back - I am now the lightest I have been for the last 15+ years.
There is always "physical" evidence of the sort of weight loss I have achieved this year - I have just moved from a pair of 38" waist trousers (which fitted a little closely) to a pair of 36" trousers (which fit comfortably). The trousers are the same style from the same supplier, so barring minor manufacturing differences, they should be the essentially the same, apart from the size.

Saturday, 31 October 2015

Training Plans for the Winter

Time to draw up a winter training plan!
Don't forget to take a break at some point in the year, just to give things a chance to heal up, and for your mind to think about something else for a bit.
For me, the "break" is going to be from the last week of November, right up until Christmas. We will be VERY busy at work during that time, so it makes sense to choose those four or so weeks.
Of course, I'll still be commuting my 20-odd miles (32km) a week to work, and still walking my 25-odd miles (40km) AT work. But not running or cycling apart from that.
For the earlier part of November, I'll be continuing my running with Anna - just 6 to 12 miles (10 to 20km) a week to keep things "ticking over". Maybe get in the odd " interval " session on the bike - nothing too serious.
"Proper" training will resume in January, with a January 1st "no excuses" ride. I'll be continuing the running, too. I find the extra fitness from running really helps with not getting too out of breath on the hills.
Then it is a case of deciding what events and challenges I want to tackle, and working back from there.
My "A" event (the most important!) is a local "charity" sportive - the 100km Tour de Vale. I rode it in 5 hrs 22 mins last year, and this year I will be looking to break the 5 hour mark.
Last year, my first 100km (62 mile) ride was a practice of the course, and my second was the event itself.
This year, I want a few more "centuries" under my belt first!
The event is at the end of June, so I will rest for the two weeks before that, then put in a "super compensation" week, doing as many miles (and hard ones at that) as I can for the week before that. So that's June filled up. I guess I want a century in the middle of May, and another at the end, with a ride of about 60km ( with hill repeats) between them. I did this last year, but in June, and it worked really well for the event after the local one (but no later event this year, so I will move that part of the training forwards to May).
Couple of centuries in April.
That means I need to be riding at least a couple of 60km rides in March, with a couple of 50km rides in February.
And what if it snows?
Well, as I demonstrated last year, I can actually ride a 50km with snow tyres with no real problems.
I was hoping to squeeze in a fairly local 10km running event, too, but it looks like it will be on the same day as the Tour de Vale, so that looks like a non-starter.
After the Tour de Vale, I will have a rest week, the I'll be picking up the distance for another long-distance ride in the Summer.
I'll probably aim to just push up the distance a bit - say, to 250 or 300 km. Nothing definite - I'll see how the training goes before getting too fixated. I will probably have a go at Audax UK's badge for a 50, 100, 150, and 200km ride, all in the same season.
As I said above, the Tour de Vale is my "A" event, and that is what my training will be geared towards. Anything else will be a bonus :-)

So that's me.
What are you planning?

Update, 1st November 2015:
New training exercise for the Winter.
Lots of wet days in the winter, so I thought I'd share an exercise I've started doing recently.
Climbing stairs.
Lots of times.

Just knocked out 25 reps of a set of domestic stairs (about 3 metres/10 feet of climb per rep) in just under 6 minutes.
Got to be good for cycling, and as you are lifting your entire weight, it is rather reminiscent of cycling standing up.
Use the stairs in your house, in your office, anywhere.
Raining outside?
Who cares.
Indoor training that is quick and convenient (and if you can do more than about 25 reps of a flight of stairs without noticing it, then you are pretty fit!)

You gotta want to change

Change.

How many psychologists does it take to change a lightbulb?
One, but the lightbulb really has to want to change.

Hopefully, that's broken the ice.

Change.

Do you want to change your life?

I do.

For me, change was not a sudden thing, but something that grew over a number of years.

I've mentioned before that I was quite ill 6 1/2 years ago, but I was looking for change even before that.
I looked at some of my old medical records today (online, patient-accessible medical records are a fabulous thing), and they showed that in an "official" weigh-in in 2007, and again in 2008, I weighed in at 100kg (220 lbs). The weight had crept on over a number of years, particularly after the Summer of 1998, when I changed from a "physical" job to an office-based role. When I changed jobs in '98, I weighed 85kg (187lbs), but just 9 years later I had put on 15kg (33lbs). That's a lot!
I wasn't happy about it, and tried to cut back on the food, and always lost a bit, then I would just get so hungry after a while that I would just eat.

Yes, a lot of us have been there.

Anyway, then I was ill in the Spring on 2009. Quite a dramatic year, really, since my mother died in January of that same year.
I got to see a couple of specialists - one for my lungs and one for my blood. The blood specialist said I had to "mobilize". It was up to me, she said. Walk 3 miles a day (about 5km), or face a long decline of worsening health.

As I said before, I was already looking for change, so this seemed as good a direction to go in as any.
Lost a bit of weight, and put it back on again.

The next big change happened when the company I worked for had a reorganization. It involved consolidating the work done at four separate sites into a single new operation at a new site. Net headcount reduction, 300.
I turned down a pretty generous redundancy payment, and managed to get a transfer to a much more physical job in the town where I live. I wanted the extra physicality in the work as a form of exercise.
Lost a bit of weight, and put it back on again.

Then, in the Winter of 2013/14, I made a choice that has changed my life. I decided that I was going to get fitter riding a bike.
So I committed to riding on January 1st 2014, and I was going to ride up a local hill (it is just about a Category 4 climb, with the minimum required rise of 80m).
January 1st comes round, and it is a mixture of rain and drizzle - with the forecast being much the same all that day.

So I rode in the rain for a couple of hours and got wet.
I was ready for change, I had committed to change, and change happened.

So what makes my tale any different than any other new year's resolution - good for a day or two, maybe a week or two, but the forgotten until the next new year?

You gotta want to change, and I wanted to.
I was proud of that ride, and I still am.
When things are tough, I remind myself how I rode up a hill in the rain on New Year's Day.
Anyway, that year (2014) I got my weight down to 94.5kg (208 lbs) in the Summer, although it slipped back up to 96.5kg (212 lbs) by the end of the year, but still down.
Of course, I rode further, much further, later in the year (topping out with a 100 mile (160km) odyssey to the site of my former workplace, which had been replaced by a supermarket.
But that day in the rain still stands out for me.
That was the day I changed.

Of course, I have made further progress since then - from that end of 2014 weight of 96.5 kg, I am down to just 88kg (194 lbs), the lightest I have been in more than 15 years. I cycled that huge 232km in the Summer just ended, too, but even after that, the day in the rain in 2014 still stands out. What made the weight keep coming down was probably the running I added from January 2015 onwards. I worked my way up from a rather mediocre mile-and-a-bit to a more impressive half-marathon (it took me 2 hrs 27 minutes, by the way, but then again, it was the first time I had run that far for 30 years!). Yes there were tough days, especially at the start of the running - blisters, sore legs, sore feet - I even lost a toenail at one point. But I had committed to change, really committed, not just words but actions, so I got through it.

Change isn't cheap, and it isn't provisional.
From 2000 to 2007, I changed, too.
I studied for a degree part-time, while still holding down a full-time job.
Yes, I committed.
Yes, I got high marks (one of my tutors called me the "100 percent guy", because I gave 100%, and on one assignment, I submitted "perfect" answers, and she marked me 100% :-)

So, even before I was ill, I was embracing change.
I graduated aged 43, when most folks are already stagnating.
Then I was ill, then I changed my health and fitness.

A couple of weeks ago, the doctor said I had to change my diet - my blood cholesterol levels are a bit shaky. Not terrible, just shaky.
So I changed my diet as well.
Once you start really committing to change (and I mean REALLY committing, not just saying the words like you do at work), then further changes become easier (even if they do involve tofu!)

That's me.
I wanted to change.
I was open to change.
I was looking for change.
When change came, I took it.
And didn't look back.

And what of you all?
Are you ready for change?
You want things - maybe to lose a little weight, or maybe to go a bit further or a bit faster on your bike.
But will you do it the way I used to?
To give it a go, but it never seems to work out?
To look for reasons why what you want isn't really possible?

Or will you give it an honest go.
Even when it rains?

Thursday, 29 October 2015

Newsflash: lightest weight for 15 years

This morning I weighed in, as usual.
What was unusual was the weight - just 87.8kg (193 lbs).
I had a cup of tea, and then sat down and used my tablet for a few hours.
I reweighed, and I was down to 87.5kg!
I've left it as 87.8 kg in my notebook, though.
(Any real weight gains/losses will show up after a while, even with inconsistent measurement, but I normally get up, weigh, eat, go to work, so, for me, the first, higher, weigh-in is the "honest" one.)
That is the first time I have been under 88 kg for at least 15 years!
Indeed, the first time I have dropped under 89kg in that period was just last week!
I started the year on 96.5kg (212 lbs) on January 1st.
So that is 8.7kg (19 lbs) down this year.
I tend to slowly revise down my target weight.
When I started on January 1st, the "target" was about 94.5kg (the weight I had dropped to the previous Summer).
When I passed that, I had an informal number of about 90kg in mind.
Now I seem to be reliably past that 90kg number, I would like to be down to 85kg, the weight I was in the Summer of '98.
But Christmas is coming, and the metaphorical goose is getting fat - let's hope I don't follow suit!
Here goes!

Tuesday, 27 October 2015

Everyday cycling

I know I have been going on a bit too much recently about my longer rides and the training I put in.
But that isn't what most of my cycling actually is.

Sunday, 25 October 2015

The Importance of Rest

Remember when you were at school and you had PE (gym class)? Remember when it was Summer and you did running?
Remember how you had to learn to run slower for the 800m (1/2 mile) and 1500m (mile) runs?
Remember Cross-country?
You had to pace yourself to last the distance.
That's how training (and life in general) is.
Pace yourself to get the best results.
I've had a heavy cold for a week or so. Colds often "settle" on my chest.
So I've been taking it easy.
That's partly why you haven't seen me posting much on Strava recently.
How easy is easy?
Well, I still walk about 25 miles (40km) a week, and cycle about 20 (32km).
(I cycle to work, and walk a lot when I am there)
So still more than most of the population!
Haven't had a day off sick in 6 years, and "pacing" myself helps a lot.

So why don't I post all those little bits on Strava to "prove" I've done them?
Well, I used to post all the cycling, but do folks really want me clogging up their feeds with four or more sort rides a day?
So I tend to just post the "extras".

But pacing isn't just about taking it easy when you are sick.
Think about how training works.
You do a hard run/ride, take a rest day (or cross-train some other muscles), then next time you are fitter, and can go further and faster.

What happens if there is no rest day?
You get slower.
This continues until you either get so slow you take a rest day, or you injure yourself and your take a rest day.
Some folks do heavy days then light days, some folks cross-train, some folks do "2 days on, one day off".
But we all need those rest days.

But, but, but...
January 2014, I trained for 31 days straight - where were the rest days?
Well, I only did a bit each day (it was a 10 miles a day challenge), and most days I broke it up into sections - a couple of miles to work, then a couple at lunchtime, then some more home, then some more in the evening. It was about distance, not speed.
So those 31 days weren't "hard" days!
If you never need recovery days, you simply aren't training hard enough!

But, but, but...
Strava says all your rides are "epic", and you get a bigger "Suffer Score" than all your buddies.
Guess what.
You have your settings set wrong.
What Heart Rate did you use?
Just try it - set your heart rate just 5 beats per minute slower in Strava, and watch your Suffer Scores shoot up!
I'm 50, a little overweight, so I should have a maximum heart rate of 170, right? (220 - my age).
Hmm.
My Garmin 310xt says I have reached a heart rate of 182 cycling (downhill!), and 184 running (uphill).
(Btw, I have a second, "Bluetooth", heart rate belt that gives results on my smartphone consistent with my Garmin belt, so it's not that I have a "dodgy"/"worn out" belt, or a defective Garmin watch!)

If I use a maximum heart rate of 170 bpm for Strava, then everything I do is epic!

I can convert my max hr to an estimated " threshold hr" using a suitable bit I can find on the internet. 153bpm sound about right to you? I ran for an hour with an average heart-rate of 165 bpm. So my "threshold" isn't 153bpm either!
Yours might be, or it might not be.
Everyone is a bit different - and that's the point.
You should train for your body, not mine or anyone else's!


Want to play the "heart rate reserve" game?
My "resting heart rate" is 60 bpm, right? 
Same as everyone else's? 
Nope, mine is usually 47 or 48bpm.
I got 55 bpm at my last medical check, and I jogged to the medical centre (so it was hardly a " totally rested" measurement!).
I actually got 42bpm this morning, which is a bit low - I think I will mention it next time I see the doctor.
My "resting heart rate" is certainly NOT 60bpm.

Guessing and averages don't mean squat if you really want to train, not just play, with Strava.
My 200km badge.
Sorry about the furmiture :-)
I rode a 232km day in the Summer on an 18kg bike, with 10kg in the panniers on top of that. Carried all my own food and water.
That is MAYBE epic (but remember what they say - if you can ride 200km every day for a fortnight, you are good enough to come last in the Tour de France!)
I could barely walk when I finished.
Your little 30 minutes with a tailwind isn't epic.
It may well have been hard, but it wasn't epic.
If you can do it every day for a week, it certainly wasn't epic!
If you train hard, you need rest/recovery days.
If you train light (like my 31 days in January 2014), then you don't.
BUT ... if you only train light, you will never achieve your full potential.

Is "hard" the same for everyone?
Nope!
I work with a guy in his 50s that can run a 3 hr marathon. I don't mean 3:59. I mean 3:00.
In "the season" he runs 4 days of 10km, and 2 half-marathons a week.
Now that's fit!
I've run exactly ONE half-marathon in the last 30 years. (Took me 2 hrs and 27 mins!)
My "hard" is his "light".
And guess what. 4x10km + 2x21km, and he still takes the seventh day as a " rest day".
So "hard" is a personal thing.
Don't look at Strava.
You know if it was hard.
Anything under an hour is likely to be "easy" - or at least "easier" - unless, of course, you are going at your "threshold"/"one hour pace" for that hour - even then, with a warm-up and cool-down, you are going to be more like an hour and a half (!).

First 10km I ran under an hour for 30 years - that was hard.
Set myself to run at about my "threshold", aiming to keep at 160 to 165 bpm. Ran it in 58m22s.
See what would have happened if I put my heart rate into Strava at too low a level?
I'd have been running for an hour, averaging 95% of my "maximum heart rate". All I had to do was put 153bpm into Strava as my LTHR, not a more realistic number (it was, last time, I tested it, about 165 bpm).
Surely "Epic", yet physiologically impossible. If you can run for an hour at 95% of your maximum heart rate, then you're simply using the wrong numbers (likely) or other is a fault with your smartphone/belt/Garmin (unlikely, but theoretically possible).

Go on, try it. Set your heart rate 10 bpm lower in Strava, and see what happens.
The find a real " pro" on Strava, like for instance LtD, and look at his rides. Mostly in zone 1. And he rides the Pro Tour. (And he takes rest days). It is the duration and speed COMBINED (thus distance) that makes his rides epic. But LtD is training for maybe 30 hours a week. You're not. (I'm not). And he still takes rest days.
10km for my " marathoner" colleague takes about 40 minutes, and is one of his "easier" days ☺ For him the 21kms are the "hard days".
But he still has his "rest" day.

10km for me is a "very hard day" if I do it in about an hour, so I NEED a rest day!
This difference in "hard" is why "individualization" came about. Train to YOUR body, not someone else's.

When you do hard days you damage your muscle fibres.
You gotta let the muscles heal up (they grow back stronger - that's why you get fitter!).
Not everybody has the same rate of muscle repair. Tends to be better when you are younger. I'm 50, so I'm not " younger" ☺
That's individualization, too.

You might need more than me. You might need less (especially if you are younger!)
Train to your body. Not someone else's.

Before a big event, take a rest. 
You might lose a touch of fitness (prevailing theory is that it takes two weeks of inactivity to lose one week of gains), but you need to be at you best on the start line.
For a local 100km event, I only did my walking and my commute for the week before the event. No extra cycling.
For the London to Brighton, I did the same.
For my 200km ride (that stretched to 232km on the day) I only did my walking and my basic commute for 2 weeks before, and I stayed indoors and just rested for the whole day before (and the whole day after).
But, hey, I'm 50, and getting back into shape after a long break (many years - work, life, family, you know how it goes).
30 years ago, I used to cycle 100+ km a week, and run 50+ km a week, no problems. But I was 20 kilos ( 44 lbs) lighter and 30 years younger then!
All that is individualization, too. That's me, at age 20, and at age 50.

You might need more recovery, you might need less. 
You need the amount YOUR BODY REQUIRES.

Training + Recovery = Fitness.
Training - Recovery = Less fitness, and more injury risk.

You pace yourself on events so you last the distance (remember the running I mentioned at the start - you run slower at the start of an 800m event than you do for a 100m event)
So make your training "paced"!
Your pacing will be different than mine - maybe "faster ", maybe "slower". 
Individualization, remember
Sooner or later you have to recover.

So train hard, rest properly, and don't be afraid to take "light days" if you are sick.  
You might recover quickly from illnesses, or you might not. Individualization, remember.
Train to your body, not to somebody else's body.
Train to your body, not to some book or training plan you downloaded off the internet.
Train well, live well, enjoy yourself, and succeed.

Individualization.

Go on, "Google" it.

Update Friday 18th December 2015:
Colds and illness all gone.
Today is a day off work.
I work a pattern with a different day off each week (yes, I work most Saturdays!)
Today I took it easy.
Cycled to work slowly (yes, it is my day off, but I did 3 hours overtime).
Cycled home slowly.
Did a gentle 3.5 km (call it 2 miles!) run with Anna.
And after lunch I had a 2 hour nap.

Naps are important. Pro athletes do it. So do I.

A bit of gentle cycling. A three-hour shift. A short, gentle, run. A nap.
That's a rest day :-)

So train hard, fulfill your potential, and enjoy your rest days!

Sunday, 18 October 2015

Long Term Review: My Fitness Pal and comparison to "Low-Fat" Diet.

A different sort of review this time - for an online "service" rather than a physical product.
The "tester" is Anna, Mrs Pedal Pusher, rather than me.
So lets see how she gets on!

Service: My Fitness Pal (website and Android App - also available on "other platforms")
Price: "Free" version is being tested
Test Period: Depends on how long Anna keeps using it!
Results: 6.5 kg (about 14 lbs) weight loss in 9 weeks. Diet still continuing.

Anna has started using My Fitness Pal.
She was drawn to My Fitness Pal because one of her friends has used it and has lost quite a bit of weight (about 25% of her bodyweight!). Indeed her friend dropped from a BMI of about 35 (notably obese, and halfway towards morbidly obese) to about 25 (the border of "correct weight" and overweight"). Dropping that amount of weight, and moving from "obese" to "healthy/correct/normal" has quite large beneficial health implications, especially as it was achieved with a mixture of diet AND exercise, so her friend is both fitter and feels more energetic as well as being quite a bit lighter!

Anna's first reactions were that it was fairly easy to set up, but that the calorie allowance seemed unrealistically low!
I said not to worry too much, as we have a set of fancy weighing scales that (after you put in some user settings) estimate daily calorie usage, and suggested a figure based on that.

It is often said that a good place to start with a diet is to aim to lose about a pound (half-a-kilo) of weight a week, and that this amount of weight loss means you have to "undereat" by about 500 calories a day. 500 calories is about a Big Mac (slight variations by country!), or a bit less than 4 ounces (100g) of chocolate.

So our scales came up with the figure of 2200 calories a day for Anna, from which we need to take of the 500 a day she is hoping to lose, which gives 1700 calories a day.
Yet My Fitness Pal only "allowed" Anna 1460 calories!
(as we subsequently found out, this number is a "basal metabolism" target, and if you exercise, the target goes up to a more realistic level!)
Anna set it up on the computer first, then downloaded the app for her tablet.
Mysteriously, the app only "allowed" Anna 1200 calories, despite having logged in with the identity she had already set up!
A bit of tinkering, and unselecting, then reselecting, a few of the options, and the app just jumped back up to the same 1460 "basic target" as the website.
Odd.
But, hey, it seems to work now.

Day One:
Anna weighed in in the morning, like I do.
Weighing-in regularly, and recording the results (either in a notebook or with an app) is an important aspect of weight-loss.
I said that Anna should use the higher figure of 1700, and see how she got on.
That evening, we went for a little run - just a couple of miles on one of those easy walk/run programs.
Logged that into My Fitness Pal, and it added some extra calories to the allowance!
So it was now back up in the 1700 calories region I suggested (and the scales implied).
Anna was very pleased that, as long as she does the sort of exercise she normally does, that 1460 calories figure doesn't apply.
Anna overshot her calorie "target" for the day by 21 or so calories - a meaninglessly small variation given the number of assumptions used in calculating everything! Btw, 21 calories is about 5 grammes (a fifth of an ounce) of protein or carbohydrate, or just 2 1/2 grammes (about a 10th of an ounce) of fat. Just how accurately do YOU weigh you food? (Shop bought food can easily vary by this much either way from the amount stated on the label, sue to natural variation and production tolerances!)
There is a breakdown by food types etc. as well, and Anna was marginally over the carbs target, and WELL UNDER for sodium (salt).
So, for day one, things were pretty much on target.

Day Two:
The next day, Anna weighed in again, and was pleased to see she was lighter (of course, as we know, that is probably just "water" variation!).
Anna then made her regular grocery trip to town, on her bike as usual. That evening we went for the 2 mile walk/jog again.
Two sets of exercises (the bike ride and the evening run) mean that My Fitness Pal added quite a bit to the 1460 calorie "basic target", and increased it to 1830 calories!
Anna easily came in under that (about 550 calories under, in addition to the 500 calorie "shortfall" assumption of the diet in the first place.

Day Three:
As Day Two!

Day Four:
Just a touch heavier on the scales this morning (no doubt just natural daily variation).
If all our assumpions about food and exercise were spot on, and there have been no metabolic changes, or stuff like that, Anna would have lost about 1550 calories by now.
But remember that is just half-a-pound of fat (about a quarter of a kilo!).
If you weigh yourself every day for a week, not on a diet, then you will find you weight varies by more than this!
Anna reports that she is feeling just a bit hungry at the moment. Not starving hungry - just not full.
We've had breakfast (I, of course, had more than her, because I'm not watching the calories as much as I am trying to push up the exercise!), and it is a good while until lunch.
But looked at in another way, if Anna was 500+ calories UNDER her My Fitness Pal "target" yesterday, then it is surely OK today to eat some of that "extra" saving - after all, the target is to save 500 calories a day over a sustained period, not try to save as much per day as you can (which can lead to the "starve" and "binge" problems that so many dieters are familiar with.
After a light lunch, we went out again - more of a fast walk than a slow run!
But we were walking for about 50 minutes, so it all adds up to more calories used, even though it was pretty low intensity stuff.
My Fitness Pal allowed Anna a couple of hundred extra calories for the walk.
During the walk, Anna started feeling rather tired, but that was as likely to be left over from not sleeping too well the night before, rather than "weakness" due to the diet.
Back home again, and a banana and a cup of strong tea, and Anna was feeling better.
The banana came in at about 100 calories, while the tea is "free" (black tea without sugar has effectively no calories at all!).
Anna now has about 750 calories left for the evening meal and any other snacks before bed.
That ought to be plenty.
Lets see how tomorrow goes!

Day Five:
More of the same, blah, blah. Not much to see on the scales.
Anna ran a couple of miles in the morning.
Got to the end of the day with a few calories spare (vs. the target).
Anna is finding the My Fitness Pal calorie target to be quite manageable, providing she "earns" an extra 300 to 400 calories a day through exercise.
I spoke to one of the ladies I work with, and she said the same thing. My colleague also said you get into the mentality of going for an extra run just so you can "earn" enough extra calories for a chocolate biscuit (or whatever your fancy is)
Extra bonus: The local medical centre sent me a letter saying my cholesterol is too high, and I need to switch to a low-fat diet for three months (to see if that will sort out the problem).
So now Anna is "calorie-counting" on My Fitness Pal, but can eat anything, and I am NOT calorie-counting, but I am trying to eat both "sensibly" and with a "low-fat" focus. I'd like to lose a bit more weight, but the main thing I need to focus on for the next three months is getting my saturated fat intake RIGHT down. But if I can lose weight at the same time, then hey, it is win, win :-)
My weight (before I got the letter, and started the diet) this morning was 90.5kg (199 lbs)

Day Six:
See Day Five.
Anna's weight down a touch.
Anna did another couple of miles of running in the morning.
I mostly rested up as I have a heavy cold, but I had two separate medical appointments at the medical centre, so I slowly jogged there and back for both.
My weight this morning, after just one day on the low-fat diet is down 600g (21 oz - more than a pound already!). To be fair, I am still a bit ill, so the illness may have supressed my hunger yesterday evening (when I ate a lot less than usual!), rather than anything to do with the low-fat diet!


Day Seven:
Breakthrough for Anna.
Anna's weight is down just over a kilo (about 2.5 lbs) at the "morning weigh-in" compared to the pre-diet weigh-in at the start of day one.
No running for Anna today, but a BIG (and heavy) grocery shop on the bike. Lugging groceries up the hill sure burns up the calories!
For me, a "regular" day doing a fairly active job.
My morning weigh-in was down ANOTHER 600g (21 ounces again!), so that is 1.2 kg (a bit more than 2 1/2 pounds!) in just two days.
But, again, I suspect my heavy cold, and the various medications I am taking for it, may be supressing my appetite, as I wasn't that hungry yesterday.

Day Eight:
That's 6 days of calorie-counting dieting for Anna, and 3 days of low-fat dieting for me.
We both weighed in "lighter" this morning.
Anna is down 1.6kg (3.5 lbs) in those 6 days. A good start.
I lost another 100 grammes (about 4 ounces) today, to give me a weight loss of 1.3kg (2.9 lbs) from 3 days of dieting. I'm very pleased, obviously!
Anna reports that in general she isn't hungry, but she doesn't feel full either. She reports mild hunger in the evenings. As for me, I guess it is about the same, except that I tend to be "not full" rather than "hungry" when I go to bed.. Anna is now actually getting to the end of each day with typically 300 calories left in her allowance, as well as the "original" 500 calorie "shortfall" taht it built into the plan.
Mind you, Anna is pretty active, and so am I.
As I came home from work this evening, I saw a woman out running in a coat that looked a bit like Anna's - as I got closer I could see it WAS Anna! She'd also done another large (20kg, 44 lb) grocery shop on her bike earlier in the day.
Me - I "guestimated" my calorie usage on a day like today (when I do a shift and a half of semi-manual work), using the Harvard tables, and have previously come up with the figure of about 3800 calories - including cycling to work and back. Told you I was active :-)
I have a few ideas about our weight loss, and I suspect not all of it is fat ...
I'll probably write up a summary of "week 1" over the weekend, and include various "confounding factors" (as they are scientifically known) for why we seem to be losing a bit more weight than we should given our calorie shortfall ... (even though I am not counting mine, I know roughly how much I eat!)
I'm sure lots of you folks have been on diets that went really well in the first few weeks, then it all started to go wrong after a month or two (sometimes as long as six months!), and I'll explore some of those issues, too.
Anna made pumpkin soup today (delicious!), and quite a bit of that. Pumpkins are pretty low in calories (just look up how low!), and thus her calories intake was pretty low. So low in fact that she ate less than 1000 calories today ... and My Fitness pal came up with a warning telling her to eat more. Good to see that, although I suspect it had as much to do with the lawyers as a desire to keep folks healthy.
Let's see what that "1000 calorie day" does on tomorrow's weigh-in, given that Anna also "earned" another 400 bonus calories from exercise.
BTW, Anna did a "full" weigh-in on our scales today, to compare with the "start" figure she got.
Weight down 1.6 kg (about 3.5 lbs), body fat % unchanged. Total Body Water is actually UP 0.1% (Anna tries to drink her 8 glasses a day of water!), muscle is unchanged, and bone mass is also unchanged.

Day Nine:
Remember that 1000 calorie day yesterday?
Nothing in life is free.
This morning, Anna woke up lighter, but feeling weak and dizzy. Settled down after breakfast (her normal porridge). Too low a calorie intake has odd effects on the body!
After a proper breakfast and a modest lunch, Anna is now out jogging again (only a couple of miles!) because the weather looks a bit iffy, and it is better to get it over with.
I have to hand it to Anna - she doesn't try and wimp out with the usual 101 excuses.
But then her determination is partly why I married her in the first place!
Once she had decided that she was going to give the diet a try, she is giving it a serious try.
I'm proud of her :-)

Three weeks into the diet:
Anna is now down 2.7kg (that's about 6 lbs).
Anna seems to have settled down a bit better now, and usually comes in about 200 to 300 calories a day under her "limit" - mind you, Anna usually builds up more "extra" calorie allowance than that every day. We walk/run for about 3.5km (a bit over two miles) 4 or 5 times a week, and Anna cycles and walks quite a bit, too - averaging perhaps a couple of miles a day on the bike, and three miles a day on foot - as well as the casual walking that one does as part of life!
Me - I'm down 2.5 kg (that's about 5.5 lbs).
I was a bit concerned that I was losing weight a bit quicker than I expected, and as I have a realtively physical job, I didn't want to lose too much weight too quickly and feel exhausted all the time.
So a couple of times a week I am eating until I am "full" - not "bloated", just "full". Bread with seedy bits in it seems to feature in my diet, as do quite a few dates, but my dentist says that all the extra sugar from snacking on dates is affecting my teeth - so I'll be looking to replace some of my "date" snacks with boiled/microwaved potatoes instead! Potatoes seem to be low on both fat AND sugar, and, even better, I like them (even simple microwaved potatoes with the skin on!)

Nine weeks into the diet:
Anna has lost about 6.5kg (a bit more than 14lbs, 1 "stone") on the calorie-counting My Fitness Pal diet.
I have lost about the same on the non-calorie-counting low-saturated fat and low-ish sugar diet.
That's just in nine weeks.

Anna finds all the endless weighing and logging of what she eats a bit of a chore. She uses the ability to select a previously entered meal, to make an estimate, quite a bit.
Anna likes the flexibility to eat any food any time of day, with the only real requirement being that the total calories eaten in a day are low enough. She reminded me of this when she was eating a piece of chocolate!
Anna says she has no real trouble any more with hunger.
But then again, she is jogging a couple of miles (about 3.5 km, actually) about three times a week, and she gets our groceries on her bicycle (rather than using our the car), so she "earns" quite a lot of "extra" calories.
Anna's diet has also dropped in fat a bit, as she is obviously cooking the same meals for me and herself! 

As for me, I have been taking positive action to slow down my rate of weight loss (!) There have been quite a few evenings when I'm not really hungry, yet have forced myself to eat a bit more to keep my weight up.
Folks sometimes ask me what my target weight is. I don't know. 
I originally thought (on January 1st 2015) that it might be good to get down to 94.5kg, and keep it off right through the year (a 2kg weight loss), then maybe work on getting down to 85kg for the Summer of 2016, probably with a bit of a rose as 2016 drew to a close.
What actually happened is that I was 93.5kg for my 200km "Audax" ride, but I kept losing weight afterwards. I started this "low-whatever" diet at 90.5 kg, and after about 9 weeks I weighed in at 83.6kg this morning. That's a total weight loss of 13kg (27.6lbs, about 2" stone") since January 1st. 
I have lost more weight than any target I had :-)
And more importantly, my BMI has fallen from 27.2 to 23.7.
That has health benefits.


I've started calling my diet "The Puritan Diet", because you can eat anything you want as long as you don't enjoy it :-)
The biggest change in my diet is that I used to eat about a kilo a week of cheese, and now I don't eat any cheese (a kilo of my favourite cheese contains about 4000 calories!)
I no longer have butter in my sandwiches, either. Just bread and filling.
Yogurt is now fat-free, rather than the tastier full-fat.
Potatoes are steamed or microwaved. No more chips or fries.
Chocolate is rare. An ounce a month, maybe.
See why I call it the puritan diet!
As for saturated fat, Anna tries to get products with under 1g of saturated fat per 100g of product. Yep, the tastiest cuts of meat are out. Even quite a lot of poultry products fail the 1g per 100g test! Most " reduced fat" products do, too. But I never liked them anyway!
I have taken to eating olives. Not sure I like them, but they are good for me :-)
Like I said, I can eat anything I want as long as I don't enjoy it!
Yes, I miss the cheese. 
Yes, I really miss the cheese.
But I'm glad of the weight loss and predicted health benefits that come with giving up the cheese.
Christmas is coming, and mince pieces, stollen, Christmas cake, Christmas pudding (all of which I adore) are obviously all on the "banned" list for The Puritan Diet. 
I'll try to stay strong.
I'll let you know how I get on after Christmas!


More to follow (obviously)

Sunday, 11 October 2015

The Myth of the "Workout Weight Loss"

Some folks like to weigh themselves before a workout/run/ride and again afterwards.
Today I did this.
I weighed in at 92.5 kg (203 lbs) when I got up, then I had a single cup of tea (no sugar, as always), and went for a pre-breakfast ride,
I came back and weighed-in again at 90.6 kg (199 lbs)

So I lost almost 2 kg (or about 4 lbs) in weight this morning.
Few more workouts/rides like that and I'll soon be thin again!

Or not.

Monday, 5 October 2015

Long Term Review: Garmin ForeRunner 310XT GPS Watch


Garmin FR310xt in "action" - I've covered 72km at this point, and my heart rate is currently 145bpm
(pic taken during the 2015 BHF London to Brighton Bike Ride)
I'm sure some of you will have noticed that I have mentioned my 310xt more than a few times, and shown a few pictures of it too.
So here is the write up!
Purchased: May 2015, from Amazon, with "premium" HRM belt.
Regular retail purchase (no "freebies" for me!)
Price Paid: iirc, about 130 pounds (c. 200 dollars, c. 170 euros)

Features: well, it is a GPS watch, so it records your position using GPS!
It has a few other tricks, too:

1) Waterproof - as in, go swimming with in on - remember, the 310XT is marketed as a "triathlete's" watch. The sensor for the "premium" HRM belt is also waterproof - note that it doesn't record underwater, but at least it will still work after you get out again!
Handy if I ever fall in the canal, and something to think about if you cycle on canal towpaths, as I sometimes do.
The 310xt is listed as being waterproof to 50 metres depth - so if you like a bit of holiday swimming in a nice warm sea (or even a bit of snorkelling), this watch will be fine with that.
Waterproof also means sandproof ... which might be a consideration for some.
Would YOUR bike computer stand falling into a canal/river?

Wednesday, 30 September 2015

Nine Months on the "Exercise Diet" - a quick update

9 months on the "Exercise Diet"
Blue line is the "raw" data from my morning weigh-ins
Green line is a simple 3-day average
Red line is a "trend" line, using the 90/10 formula.

Monday, 28 September 2015

Thinking About "Brevet" Routes

A route for the future. I can put a "stop" in at Great Missenden, but it adds only 100m to the route distance, so I left it out.
A good Audax route has enough, but not too many, stops!
I've been thinking about "brevet" routes recently.
about 5 weeks ago, I went on my first "brevet" - a 208km "solo" ride under the auspices of Audax UK.

Audax UK offers an award for a set of rides of 50km, 100km, 150km and 200km.
Next year, I think I might go for that award (they call it a "Randonneur 500")

I already did a lot of such intermediate distance rides this year, and with a bit of thought I could easily make next year's traing rides into my "Randonneur 500" material!
Indeed, I did 8 "half-century" rides, and 5 "century" rides this year,
The longest of those "centuries" was actually a 138km effort.
So all I have do do next year is the same as this year, plus stretch that 138km ride into a 150km ride and I'm there.

But I enjoy more than just endlessly going around the same pre-set route time after time.
I like the variation and exploration of cycling.
I like getting lost sometimes, and finding things I would have otherwise missed.
So it is time to think up some new routes.

Sunday, 13 September 2015

Weight loss and running speed

Calories expended per mile are pretty much the same however fast you run.
Faster runners merely cover the distance quicker!
Data from Harvard Medical School
horizontal axis is speed in mph, vertical axis is calories used
Does running faster make you lose weight faster?
A good question.
I took a reputable data source (Harvard Medical School), and plotted out the data on the chart above.
I used the dataset for the 185lb person, because that is the closest to what I weigh (actually I weigh more like 200 lbs!)