Ready to Recomp . . .

sgt1372

sijomial wrote: »

This really tickled my funny bone!
"I could obviously improve my OHP but that's not a pressing concern."

Glad you got a chuckle out of that. It was an entirely unintentional pun.

sgt1372

heybales wrote: »

Ah ha! Where that website and other calculators miss out on best 1RM estimates is not including the Actual Resistance - the fact you were lifting a majority of your weight at the same time.

That % of your weight really needs to be added on, then 1RM estimated, then current bodyweight taken out again for weight on the bar.

This is also best method when you change to other rep ranges.

http://www.exrx.net/WeightTraining/Bodyweight.html

For instance, squats and DL's includes about 77% of your bodyweight.
So actual resistance was 357 & 457.
1RM's would be 414 & 530 AR.
On the bar would be 293 & 409.

Hey, 20 lbs is worth it!

heybales wrote: »

Oh, I meant purely as estimating 1RM from existing levels.

Not in actually increasing anything, your estimated 1RM is actually 20lb heavier than you are given credit for, for squats and DL's.

Which means your comparisons are actually in higher bracket even again.

But true, not an automatic compare then, and not possible to log those results for it on the website for future compare.

But that same risk mindset is exactly why I backed out of the 5x5 getting my strength back, just too great an odds one bad rep form could knock something out. 3 x 10-14 much safer in that regard.

I don't really buy into the "actual resistance" analysis, which is what I meant by "not interested."

I agree that you are actually lifting more weight than indicated in the 1RM estimate but that doesn't change the fact that whatever weight that is is the max estimated weight that you can lift (regardless of what amount of your body weight that you may also be lifting). This analysis also doesn't take into account that you may not actually do a 1RM at the estimated weight; it is just an estimate of relative (not actual) strength.

For example, I can do a DL at 1x6x335 which has an 1RME of 389 per the Strength Level calculator.

However, I cannot do an actual 1RM at 389. I tried 385 and couldn't even budge the bar. My highest previous actually attempted and achieved 1RM was 365 but it nearly killed me. That's the reason I don't attempt actual 1RM's any more.

So, it doesn't matter what the "actual resistance" calculation is because it really has nothing to do w/what I can really lift or not.

Neither does the 1RME for that matter, except that it's a common basis of comparison with other men whose lifts are logged and rated on the Strength Level website, which is mainly what I am using it for, and as a reasonable basis for comparison w/1RMEs using other similar calculators (none of which use the "actual resistance" method of calculation).

sgt1372

I lost (and maintained the loss) of a few pounds over the past 2 months and just got current DXA and hydro BF measurements. So, I thought I should post the results to update my progress.

As usual, the DXA BF% result was higher than the hydro -- 12.5% vs 8.3%. Big difference but if I take the average it's 10.4%, which is about where my hydro result was in the last 2 tests. So, 10% it is.

More importantly, it's notable that my VAT weight/size dropped significantly from my maintenance baseline beginning around TG 2016.

My VAT wt/size was 0.58# and 17.08 cubic inches on 11/21/16 but dropped to only 0.06# and 1.61 cubic inches (about 1.17" cubed) on 2/24/18, which (assuming it's correct) is an incredibly small amount of VAT.

It is also notable that while the BF% (from baseline to current) differed greatly between DXA and hydro, the net change measured by each method over the 13 month period was almost identical:

Here are the DXA results:

11/21/2016 BW# 162.5 BF# 26.6 LBM# 128.7 BMC# 7.2 Total LBM# 135.9 BF% 16.4
02/24/2018 BW# 157.4 BF# 19.7 LBM# 130.5 BMC# 7.2 Total LBM# 137.7 BF% 12.5

Net Change BW# -5.1 BF# -6.9 LBM# +1.8 BMC# 0.0 Total LBM# +1.8 BF% -3.9


And, here are the hydro results:

12/3/2016 BW# 161.0 BF# 19.5 Total LBM# 141.5 BF% 12.1
03/3/2018 BW# 156.4 BF# 13.0 Total LBM# 143.4 BF% 8.3

Net Change BW# -4.6 BF# -6.5 Total LBM# +1.9 BF% -3.8

It's really interesting that the net results are virtually identical, despite the fact the BF% computed by each method differed by 4%.

It's also notable that the net "recomp" effect of my method of exercise and eating has yielded only a 2# gain in LBM with a corresponding loss of about 6.5-7# in BF over the past 13 months.

Very little change in BF#/LBM# in an absolute sense BUT these changes resulted in a 4% drop in BF% as computed by both methods, which is 24% less per DXA and 31% less per hydro (a BIG difference).

Bottom line: I have been able to maintain my weight loss successfully over the past 13 months. My initial weight was 192 and my goal weight was 160. However, I ended up maintaining at 158 and, despite the recent 2# weight loss, I am still w/in the range of 158 +/- #3.

My daily maintenance cal allotment has been 1650 for the past 6 months but I have only been eating about 1550 net cals/day for the past 2 months, which I believe accounts for the 2# weight loss.

The question I'm considering now is whether I should increase my cal intake by 100 cal/day to prevent any further weight loss or just continue to do the same in order to reduce my weight and BF further.

I actually like the way I look at 156 better than 158 and I like the idea of being at 10% (or less) BF. So, I may just try to maintain at this weight/BF% instead and than up my cals to get back to 158.

We'll see . . .

sgt1372

I thought I'd also post a copy of the Libra graph for my weight loss and maintenance journey over the past 19 months. Click the link below if you'd like to see it.