I did a pulse feast on a Saturday and a cheat day the following Sunday, actually it was just a cheat meal, with a sweet bun, a small chocolate cake and a bottle of pomegranate juice. I don’t think it was that much a caloric surplus than my normal diet but after a few days when I measured I went from 11% body fat, back to 12.6%, gaining more than 1kg of fat and losing a bit more than that of muscle (I have access to a very precise scanner). Maybe I should have done the opposite like stated at the article “In the defense of cheat days” by John Romaniello and had the cheat day before the pulse feast.
Maybe the increased sensibility of insulin after the pulse feast was the responsible for storing the extra calories as fat. Even if it was that the case, I think that it shouldn’t be accompanied by a decrease in muscle and since I was trying for the first time Gironda’s 8X8 system, maybe the lose of muscle was due to my overdoing in the workout and unrelated to the pulse feast.
I didn’t have a cheat probably for 3-4 weeks, eating a low carbohydrate/high protein diet, with no bread, etc., basically what Chris Shugart says and nothing else changed in my diet besides that cheat day, so I can’t find another reason besides that single event. After everything going well for weeks I thought my FFB metabolism had become a bit better in managing carbs and didn’t think just one cheat would be enough to make such a change so fast. What do you think?
[quote]Quiron wrote:
I did a pulse feast on a Saturday and a cheat day the following Sunday, actually it was just a cheat meal, with a sweet bun, a small chocolate cake and a bottle of pomegranate juice. I don’t think it was that much a caloric surplus than my normal diet but after a few days when I measured I went from 11% body fat, back to 12.6%, gaining more than 1kg of fat and losing a bit more than that of muscle (I have access to a very precise scanner). Maybe I should have done the opposite like stated at the article “In the defense of cheat days” by John Romaniello and had the cheat day before the pulse feast.
Maybe the increased sensibility of insulin after the pulse feast was the responsible for storing the extra calories as fat. Even if it was that the case, I think that it shouldn’t be accompanied by a decrease in muscle and since I was trying for the first time Gironda’s 8X8 system, maybe the lose of muscle was due to my overdoing in the workout and unrelated to the pulse feast.
I didn’t have a cheat probably for 3-4 weeks, eating a low carbohydrate/high protein diet, with no bread, etc., basically what Chris Shugart says and nothing else changed in my diet besides that cheat day, so I can’t find another reason besides that single event. After everything going well for weeks I thought my FFB metabolism had become a bit better in managing carbs and didn’t think just one cheat would be enough to make such a change so fast. What do you think?[/quote]
Most self administered BF measurments have a degree of associatred error, from .05-1.00 so you are still in range of error, not to mention the water retention from extra carbs. How do you think you lost muscle? No way, you may have lost stength due to a number of factors including CNS recovery, but lost muscle after a pulse feast and a cheat day?!..highly unlikley.
I wasn’t aware anyone still thought that any device you hold or stand on is accurate.
This is why a “little knowledge” can end up holding most of you back instead of what would happen if you just kept this shit simple until you made some major progress.
[quote]Hip Scar wrote:
Most self administered BF measurments have a degree of associatred error, from .05-1.00 so you are still in range of error, not to mention the water retention from extra carbs. How do you think you lost muscle? No way, you may have lost stength due to a number of factors including CNS recovery, but lost muscle after a pulse feast and a cheat day?!..highly unlikley.[/quote]
Just out of curiosity I’ve measured my body fat several days in a row with one of the electronic measuring devices and it would fluctuate a full percentage point depending on what I ate or how much I drank. Definitely not worth reading too much into it.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I wasn’t aware anyone still thought that any device you hold or stand on is accurate.
This is why a “little knowledge” can end up holding most of you back instead of what would happen if you just kept this shit simple until you made some major progress.[/quote]
No shit. Stop sweating the small stuff, dude.
I love minutia of human biology more than most people but you’re just being obsessive about it.
Doing things like pulse fasting and manipulating carbs when I was dieting more aggressively this year had my weight bounching around 10lbs over the course of a week.
Water weight and muscle glycogen in your case, it’s highly unlikely you deposited it as fat AND managed to burn muscle.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I wasn’t aware anyone still thought that any device you hold or stand on is accurate.
This is why a “little knowledge” can end up holding most of you back instead of what would happen if you just kept this shit simple until you made some major progress.[/quote]
I am aware of the “accuracy” of bioimpedance methods, however I never saw a high quality device like this in US (I live in Japan) with 6 points of contact and you have to give some credit to its precision, since it gives even your measurements (arm circumference, chest, etc.), what is something easy to confirm it’s precise. I know it doesn’t directly measure fat and that it is an estimate comparing to the different impedances of body tissues, however it is good to measure changes, especially if those changes are consistent with time and at the same conditions.
Until I made some major progress? I think going from 25% body fat to 11%(that would be far too different to be in the error range right?) and being able to bench press more than my weight after an injury that I couldn’t move my shoulder for more than one year is a shit of a progress… thank you for your “little knowledge contribution” anyway.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I wasn’t aware anyone still thought that any device you hold or stand on is accurate.
This is why a “little knowledge” can end up holding most of you back instead of what would happen if you just kept this shit simple until you made some major progress.[/quote]
I am aware of the “accuracy” of bioimpedance methods, however I never saw a high quality device like this in US (I live in Japan) with 6 points of contact and you have to give some credit to its precision, since it gives even your measurements (arm circumference, chest, etc.), what is something easy to confirm it’s precise. I know it doesn’t directly measure fat and that it is an estimate comparing to the different impedances of body tissues, however it is good to measure changes, especially if those changes are consistent with time and at the same conditions.
Until I made some major progress? I think going from 25% body fat to 11%(that would be far too different to be in the error range right?) and being able to bench press more than my weight after an injury that I couldn’t move my shoulder for more than year is a shit of a progress… thank you for your “little knowledge contribution” anyway.[/quote]
You’re over thinking things.
If you weigh yourself on a daily basis, it will fluctuate. Similarly, depending on what you eat or do, your BF might fluctuate as well.
Some advice. Throw away the bodyfat measurements and become friendly with looking at the mirror or taking pictures of yourself to judge progress. This is the most accurate measuring stick, as there is never room for error. As you look better, you will be indefinitely losing BF or gaining muscle.
[quote]Ghost22 wrote:
No shit. Stop sweating the small stuff, dude.
I love minutia of human biology more than most people but you’re just being obsessive about it.
Doing things like pulse fasting and manipulating carbs when I was dieting more aggressively this year had my weight bounching around 10lbs over the course of a week.
Water weight and muscle glycogen in your case, it’s highly unlikely you deposited it as fat AND managed to burn muscle. [/quote]
Well, we all need a certain degree of obsession to attain an objective and just quoting Chris Shugart :“This isn’t vanity. It goes beyond tight abs and big biceps. And it’s not obsession. It’s a promise we make. A promise not to let ourselves become boring and common. A promise to live an engaged life”
And after doing the gross part to get around 10-11%, I think you do need to care about minutia to get to a single digit.
I know it fluctuates and I don’t measure that frequently and I do the method suggested to simply look at the mirror and taking pictures and they were consistent with the predicted % of the device, the linea alba started appearing around 15% as it is usually the case and I can finally see the first row of abs after a long time when I supposedly got to around 12%.
I am not discussing the accuracy or not, just that it has been quite consistent and I never got much water retention after a cheat day, so it was probably exaggerated due to the pulse feast. Since it was just my second time I did a pulse feast, I wasn’t aware of what happens and then my doubt. When I measured after some days it was back to 11%, actually less and I didn’t have lost the muscle anyway, so you were right about the water excess being read as fat.
Bioelectrical impedance devices have a real weakness in relation to hydration. If you can maintain your hydration levels, then they could at least track your gain and loss. But doing anything that disrupts that balance, and that is so easy to do, will throw off the measurement.
Adding in a pulse fast will cause a disruption in your hydration, and then throwing in a cheat meal on top of that could throw a little shock to your system to throw off your hydration levels.
No method is perfect, but I would put impedance at the bottom of the list.
I have been using skin fold measurements myself, (cheap and can be done at home,) but while being more accurate (if done right that is,) is still not perfect. And while I have been putting up the numbers here, and doing the math to show the change in body fat and lean body mass levels, I am aware that these numbers are not going to be accurate. But the accuracy I am actually looking for is that the numbers are moving in a positive direction.
But even then the “official” number should only be done every 2 weeks. You can check it sooner if you want to, but don’t use the number, and make changes until the “official” 2nd week number comes in. This keeps you from freaking out over minor fluctuations over a couple of days.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I wasn’t aware anyone still thought that any device you hold or stand on is accurate.
This is why a “little knowledge” can end up holding most of you back instead of what would happen if you just kept this shit simple until you made some major progress.[/quote]
I am aware of the “accuracy” of bioimpedance methods, however I never saw a high quality device like this in US (I live in Japan) with 6 points of contact and you have to give some credit to its precision, since it gives even your measurements (arm circumference, chest, etc.), what is something easy to confirm it’s precise. I know it doesn’t directly measure fat and that it is an estimate comparing to the different impedances of body tissues, however it is good to measure changes, especially if those changes are consistent with time and at the same conditions.
Until I made some major progress? I think going from 25% body fat to 11%(that would be far too different to be in the error range right?) and being able to bench press more than my weight after an injury that I couldn’t move my shoulder for more than one year is a shit of a progress… thank you for your “little knowledge contribution” anyway.[/quote]
Oh, you’re welcome…seeing as you didn’t understand how much body water can effect a reading.
I know some of you jackasses think everyone you are speaking to is clueless…but gee, some of us have been there ten years or so before you.
I owned several of those things, from the ones you stand on to the ones you hold. They all suck in regards to giving a reliable consistent reading unless you are either sedentary or a small woman or man who fits their average standards of measurement.
But hey, what do I know…I just started training yesterday.
Oh, you’re welcome…seeing as you didn’t understand how much body water can effect a reading.
I know some of you jackasses think everyone you are speaking to is clueless…but gee, some of us have been there ten years or so before you.
I owned several of those things, from the ones you stand on to the ones you hold. They all suck in regards to giving a reliable consistent reading unless you are either sedentary or a small woman or man who fits their average standards of measurement.
But hey, what do I know…I just started training yesterday.[/quote]
It’s funny how you make the same assumption that you are accusing that people are clueless. Yes, I was aware body water can affect the reading and I said that I usually didn’t have much water retention issues with the occasional cheating day. What I didn’t know and I’m not ashamed of being ignorant about, is excessive hydration due to a pulse feast, unlike you, who seems to be a fucking arrogant that thinks knows it all and didn’t give any contribution excepting feeding more shit to your miserable ego.
And no, I doubt very much that you owned this kind the gym I’m going has. Unless you are extremely rich, I doubt you could afford it, it’s not the common shit you are referring to…
Now, if you don’t have anything else to do than trolling, go back to your wheelchair and find some mutants to follow your wise advise, Prick-fessor X
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I wasn’t aware anyone still thought that any device you hold or stand on is accurate.
This is why a “little knowledge” can end up holding most of you back instead of what would happen if you just kept this shit simple until you made some major progress.[/quote]
I have one of those BEI brat calipers and taking measurements before and after a workout can change it 2%. I wish my workouts were that awesome. I’d be 0% in no time!
Oh, you’re welcome…seeing as you didn’t understand how much body water can effect a reading.
I know some of you jackasses think everyone you are speaking to is clueless…but gee, some of us have been there ten years or so before you.
I owned several of those things, from the ones you stand on to the ones you hold. They all suck in regards to giving a reliable consistent reading unless you are either sedentary or a small woman or man who fits their average standards of measurement.
But hey, what do I know…I just started training yesterday.[/quote]
It’s funny how you make the same assumption that you are accusing that people are clueless. Yes, I was aware body water can affect the reading and I said that I usually didn’t have much water retention issues with the occasional cheating day. What I didn’t know and I’m not ashamed of being ignorant about, is excessive hydration due to a pulse feast, unlike you, who seems to be a fucking arrogant that thinks knows it all and didn’t give any contribution excepting feeding more shit to your miserable ego.
And no, I doubt very much that you owned this kind the gym I’m going has. Unless you are extremely rich, I doubt you could afford it, it’s not the common shit you are referring to…
Now, if you don’t have anything else to do than trolling, go back to your wheelchair and find some mutants to follow your wise advise, Prick-fessor X
[/quote]
