Comments
Chickensandcoke t1_iwbwaoo wrote
Yeah the exact numbers may not be precise but the trend in the data is useful! Even if it’s off by 20%, as long as it’s off by 20% consistently the trend data is useful. Nice job!
somebody-interesting t1_iwchs1a wrote
Those scales aren't usually off by a consistent amount. Day to day factors have a huge impact on the accuracy and consistency. One of the biggest factors is hydration status. Step on the scale well hydrated vs dehydrated and you'll get wildly different results.
Chickensandcoke t1_iwchzzp wrote
Well yeah that’s a given, which is why you need to take a good amount of consistent measurements over time to get a meaningful dataset. Eventually you tease out your “average hydration level” or “average stomach content”. Doing it at the same time of day also helps a ton.
Low_Attention16 t1_iwd4t6r wrote
I always weigh after my morning pee before eating or drinking anything, that's the most consistent daily time I find.
vtriple t1_iwc8mcb wrote
So I'm guessing you haven't been taking 200 gs of protein every day?
leovolpe OP t1_iwc9gay wrote
No, the big problem for me is the diet more than the workouts. I tracked my macros for two weeks and I eat about 100-150g of proteins a day and 2500-3000 kcal
vtriple t1_iwca6iw wrote
Yeah, diet is super tough and will be 50% of your results. If you want the best results you need multiple types of protein as well. Something most don't think about is if you drink 30gs of whey isolate, you would maybe be lucky to actually absorb 5gs of that. If you're in really great shape and also take other supplements it might be a bit higher and closer to 7-8gs. So really you need different sources of protein every 1-2 hours throughout the day for optimal results.
RD__III t1_iwcsje0 wrote
> you would maybe be lucky to actually absorb 5gs of that. If you're in really great shape and also take other supplements it might be a bit higher and closer to 7-8gs. So really you need different sources of protein every 1-2 hours throughout the day for optimal results.
This has been debunked. You use all the protein you eat. There are limitations regarding muscle-protein-synthesis, and high quality protein after a fast, but overall, it's not a major issue unless you are a body builder. Meeting macros and calories is significantly more important than spacing.
​
vtriple t1_iwcuc66 wrote
I am not an expert by any means but the first think you linked mentioned what I'm talking about and linked it as a reference
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16779921/
It mentioned rates here "Whey is a “fast-acting” protein; its absorption rate has been estimated at ~ 10 g per hour [5]. At this rate, it would take just 2 h to fully absorb a 20-g dose of whey. While the rapid availability of AA will tend to spike MPS, earlier research examining whole body protein kinetics showed that concomitant oxidation of some of the AA may result in a lower net protein balance when compared to a protein source that is absorbed at a slower rate [10]. For example, cooked egg protein has an absorption rate of ~ 3 g per hour [5], meaning complete absorption of an omelet containing the same 20 g of protein would take approximately 7 h, which may help attenuate oxidation of AA and thus promote greater whole-body net positive protein balance."
RD__III t1_iwcv9dl wrote
That article is talking about overall daily intake, not limitations on a "per meal" basis. Specifically crazy high protein intake (they quote 200g-400g). There is nothing I can see in the abstract related at all to having smaller meals every 1-2 hours instead off fewer smaller ones, which is your initial claim.
​
>For example, cooked egg protein has an absorption rate of ~ 3 g per hour [5], meaning complete absorption of an omelet containing the same 20 g of protein would take approximately 7 h,
This seems to fly directly in the face of the "1-2 hours" claim I was refuting anyways?
vtriple t1_iwcw5gl wrote
My point was that if you ate 20 cooked eggs you're not going to absorb 60gs of protein per hour. It would only be ~ 3gs per hour. So it really depends on the type of protein used etc.
RD__III t1_iwcwjuo wrote
>My point was that if you ate 20 cooked eggs you're not going to absorb 60gs of protein per hour.
Yeah, but there's minimal difference between eating 3 cooked eggs at breakfast, or having a hardboiled egg every hour till lunch.
And frankly, none of that *really* matters unless you are a top tier competitor. If you're trying to get stronger for yourself, just up the protein intake, watch the calories and you'll be fine.
vtriple t1_iwcx8vg wrote
Aiming for at least 3-5 diff types of protein across the number of Gs you should get a day is the best bet.
RD__III t1_iwcz32l wrote
Define "type"?
Unless your Vegetarian or Vegan, It's not a massive worry, as most all animal sources are complete proteins, not incomplete, so it's not required to have different sources to get all the essential amino acids.
Sure, you don't want to just eat whey all day everyday, but yet again, you should focus more on a solid amount of protein, meeting your calories and sticking to your diet than making sure you eat every 1-2 hours, or you have 5 different "types" of protein, or you eat within 30 minutes of completing a workout, or whatever hyper specific study some influencer decided to overhype for views.
This whole overcomplication around dieting is really unnecessary unless you're a top tier athlete. you'll do a lot better changing your focus from "protein types" to just staying on diet and program.
vtriple t1_iwczh8p wrote
Well, this is all from training I did to become a top-tier athlete, so that's probably why it sounds a bit off. I'd call it optimization because you need all things to be right.
RD__III t1_iwd5wdk wrote
Yeah, And I used to be in the same boat. But for a person with a 9-5 and a host of obligations, trying to factor in all that optimization causes you to lose the forest for the trees. you spend so much effort for that one percent increase, you start to miss the +25% stuff.
vtriple t1_iwd6ivy wrote
That's actually a really good point. Maybe next time I try and get back into it more seriously I should scale some of this stuff back.
RD__III t1_iwd9hfc wrote
>Maybe next time I try and get back into it more seriously I should scale some of this stuff back.
I really recommend it. I tried to hop back on the fitness train after college and failed multiple times because I kept trying to keep track of the minutia, would fail at it, then would downward spiral due to my failure.
Nowadays, I just track my protein and calories, my taste enforces enough diversity in meal composition, and follow a simple(ish) program, and am stronger than I've ever been in my life (although I need a lot more conditioning, which is going to get added after my current program cycle).
Michael90_Denmark t1_iwcbm1s wrote
Nice, I’m also trying to gain weight. I’m 183cm and 78 kg. Started working out again 1,5 years ago when the gym opened again. Went from 65kg to 77-78 kg. My body fat is 15 %., though But planing to get 5-6 more kilos before I do a full cut.
ExtraAd4090 t1_iwcmkp3 wrote
i used to weigh about 69kg and ive worked upto 80. as a fellow skinny tall person i know how hard it is, so hard to gain, and so easy to loose. well done!
[deleted] t1_iwej42j wrote
[deleted]
Majestic_Salad_I1 t1_iwez2rq wrote
20lbs in 3 weeks is physically impossible unless you went from a completely dehydrated morning state with no clothes to a post-vacation, post-Chinese food and alcohol drinking binge bloated Sunday night with clothes and shoes on, all while eating an absurd amount of calories for the entire 3 weeks. Sorry, but the math doesn’t work out when a pound of fat takes a 3,600 calorie surplus and the body burns around 2,000/day. That means a pound of fat gained per day, or a 5,600 calorie per day diet assuming no exercise, or 6,000+ calorie per day diet with exercise. Water has zero calories, so that must have been a lot of beer.
totoropoko t1_iwbp86b wrote
Same here OP, but I'm trying from the other end to get to 82. Get stuck around 85.
Hahhahaahahahhelpme t1_iwc2rij wrote
I think the lower right chart should be labeled “lean body mass”, instead of muscle mass. The muscle mass is a subset of your lean body mass, but it’s not easy to determine exactly what your muscle mass is without perhaps doing an MRI.
Macrophage87 t1_iwde7gr wrote
Your body fat and muscle mass are so well correlated that I seriously doubt the trend.
autoencoder t1_iwdi6c1 wrote
Those scales typically rely on your data (your age and height and whether you're an athlete) more than the impedance measurement.
domestic_omnom t1_iwcqa2h wrote
I'm always amazed that people that are so much taller than me weighs less.
I'm 5'7 and sitting at around 200. Not fat either, I wear a 34 waist.
When I was training Muay Thai I weighed around 157 and a size 30.
leovolpe OP t1_iwcre44 wrote
It's a body type thing. I have a friend that is also about 5'7 and weights a little more than me. But if you see him you would never guess so because he doesn't appear fat at all and is quite fit
llama-pajama-party t1_iwfrmku wrote
Are you American?
lepercake t1_iwd85y8 wrote
Heh, I'm 186 - was always skinny until I hit 90kg - enjoy your 20s, young man!
Prudent-Host-3656 t1_iwbx3k6 wrote
Was it a health goal to improve bodyfat and musculature?
leovolpe OP t1_iwbz95c wrote
Yes it was. But I also wanted to change my phisique to look more muscular.
ImprovedPersonality t1_iwcrlpc wrote
5kg gain within 4 months? Wow, that’s a lot.
How has your strength improved? Especially in relation to your body weight.
leovolpe OP t1_iwcujm1 wrote
To make an example, 2 years ago I couldn't do a pull up and I weighted 69kg. Now I can do 15 in less then a minute
Pretend-Mouse-7967 t1_iwfimx5 wrote
Jeez, you fucking go bro!
HerrBatman t1_iwel9q8 wrote
Nice! I'm still struggeling at 3-4 in a row but im also at ~100kg bodyweight ;D
fatej92 t1_iwexd46 wrote
I gained about 6kg in 3 months... Now I'm down about 3kg cause I had a back injury
ImprovedPersonality t1_iwfqu2u wrote
Back injury from training too hard too fast with bad form?
fatej92 t1_iwgc1rg wrote
Wasn't training when it happened. I was sitting down after my workout and breakfast and simply yawned and stretched, and suddenly my back (near the spine & right shoulder plate) and also right side of my neck were in agonizing pain and immobile. Mobility returned but the pain remains still, basically lost all my drive for gains and now I'm just doing physiotherapy hoping to get better.
bad_syntax t1_iwefbna wrote
I was 6'2" an 115 lbs pounds when I signed up for the USMC, got a waiver, met a bunch of marines and backed out and joined the Army instead. Got to basic, couldn't do 1 push-up, ran/walked my 2 miles in like 19 minutes. Finished basic, could do 80 push-ups, ran my 2 miles in 12 minutes. Still the exact same weight.
Went to Germany, spent my first 6 months deployed, then 4 months eating Burger King every day. I hit 175 easily.
Now I'm like 235, and so broken I can't do anything to burn it off. Got a pool that even in Dallas I can only swim in a couple months of the year without a $500+ gas heating bill.
​
Point is, eat really bad you can put on weight.
Join the army and blow your knees, back, and shoulder, and you can keep it on.
leovolpe OP t1_iwfm7zm wrote
I still want to eat healthy and have a sustainable diet. There is no point in rushing it by eating fat and sugar for a year a d probably compromise my health. I rather take it slowly but healthy.
[deleted] t1_iwch2y5 wrote
[removed]
TotallynottheCCP t1_iwe8wkj wrote
I can't imagine "trying" to reach 172 at 6'2 lol it's taking 45 minutes of fucking intense cardio every....single....day to stay under 225 at 6'2.
Dempseylicious23 t1_iwed21c wrote
Diet is a more significant factor in weight management than exercise.
You’re likely consuming slightly more calories than you should be if you are struggling to keep off the lbs.
TotallynottheCCP t1_iwek94p wrote
Probably. I fucking hate how calorie-dense most food is.
leovolpe OP t1_iwfldpg wrote
How? A meal of chicken and vegetables is like 400kcal, how the heck am I going to reach 3000kcal a day. If I eat too many vegetables I get full and I can't eat all my calories. So I have to make the decision to eat healthy or to eat less healthy but 3000kcal
Edit: probably we also have different metabolisms and I burn more calories
llama-pajama-party t1_iwfrw6q wrote
Most foods are the opposite of calorie dense. It’s decision making.
TotallynottheCCP t1_iwg8nvy wrote
Definitely most food. I'm not talking about junk food just food in general.
llama-pajama-party t1_iwgin38 wrote
What is food in general for you?
TotallynottheCCP t1_iwhq4mc wrote
Some of the most common stuff I eat regularly:
- Tater tots
- Hash browns
- Eggs
- Cottage Cheese
- Pasta (occasionally with some hamburger)
- Skim milk
- Cheese
- Salads (usually with tuna)
- Rice (various types)
- Mashed Potatoes
- Stir fry
- Cereal
- Grilled cheese sandwiches (though not so much anymore considering how absurdly expensive deli meat is)
HerrBatman t1_iwemete wrote
i would try weight training and gaining muscle mass. Increased muscle mass increases the required calories even while not working out.
Also, please get a rest day in every now and then and your performance will propably go up even though you trained less :)
swaggyquack t1_iwendec wrote
Congrats. Many people don't realize how hard it is to gain weight for some. I often struggle to maintain 170lbs
teratogenic17 t1_iwerz10 wrote
Hold my beer (and cheesecake)
blahahaX t1_iwg4p0a wrote
Wow your are super lean. Sub 10% body fat percentage, were you doing a cut?
leovolpe OP t1_iwg76yh wrote
Nope hahaha. I just have a fast metabolism and I'm active
cepegma t1_iwgtfe0 wrote
I've done something similar. I've combined a tracker with an intelligent scale and a food-tracking app. Even if the data is essential. I realized that to meet my weight goal, the most critical piece of information is to understand the dynamics of my body and how food and exercise interact with it. The rest follows.
One_Idea_239 t1_iwbykfh wrote
So you have increased your weight but it is not a pure increase in muscle mass, you have just increased your body weight overall. Can i ask why? As normally people want to increase muscle weight and mass rather than increase fat
leovolpe OP t1_iwc0ek2 wrote
First af all, my body fat was always low so increasing it few % points actually looks good on me.
Second, to gain muscles (which was my primary goal) ideally you have to be in a caloric surplus, which will inevitably lead to fat gain.
Third, I think my scale has an algorithm like more weight-->fat gain. You can see this from the extremely good correlation between the fat graph and the weight graph. And also, when I got covid I lost like 2-3kg in 2 days which was mainly a water loss, but the scale thought that it was a fat loss, which would be impossible given the short period of time. So I think I actually gained less fat than what the scale is showing.
One_Idea_239 t1_iwc0j2s wrote
Fair enough, everything seemed pretty closely correlated so that's why i asked. Interesting data
ImprovedPersonality t1_iwcrejk wrote
Don’t trust the body fat percentage “measurement” of cheap scales. Especially those which only have foot electrodes.
That being said, it’s very hard to gain muscle mass without gaining any fat, especially when you already are at a low BMI and reasonably fit. Even more so when you are gaining 5kg within 4 months like this guy.
RD__III t1_iwcsx2k wrote
First off, the BF% on these is pretty gimmicky, Regardless, a bulk with minimal fat gain is actually pretty hard to pull off, especially if you're not experienced in dieting for muscle gain. It's easier to just aim higher than you think, and know you need to lose a little fat later.
leovolpe OP t1_iwblb3x wrote
Data collected with a cheap BIA scale. The graphs were created with excel after exporting the data from the scale app. The black line is a 5 point moving avarage
I'm a skinny guy and started working out 2 years ago. A year ago I bought a BIA scale to track my progress. The most reliable graph is the weight graph. The other two have to be taken just for reference because I don't think a cheap scale can get those parameters really precisely.