Ken's Road to Kona » weight loss

P90X – Day 1 – Chest and Back, Ab RipperX

Ken — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:13:24 +0000

I started P90x today. I had heard so many things about it and its popularity that I decided to do my own research. In case you don’t know what p90x is about, it’s a 90 day fitness program that is very “X”treme in every aspect. Every workout is planned out for you for the full 90 days. The “secret” of P90x is the theory of muscle confusion: Overtime, when people do the same workouts over and over again and your body adapts to those workouts,which in turn creates a plateau of development. What p90x does is trick the body to where you NEVER plateau and always making conscience gains with different workouts every 30 days.

I like how they advertise it’s not a quick fix to being fit, and the host Tony Horton makes it clear it’s not a couch-to-fitness program. Looking at their website, participant’s results seem amazing. People have lost double digit body fat percentages, weight, and increased strength and flexibility…all the things I’ve been talking about. I think what appealed to me most is that I don’t have to think about what workout is coming next; I can just look at the p90x calender, and follow the program. Add this with my triathlon coaching that starts off next week.

P90X - X is for Xtreme.

After day 1, I can totally feel the tightness in my muscles in my back and chest. I think doing all the pull-ups well definitely help with the swim. Today is plyometrics. I was thinking about substituting this for a swim, bike or run, but after some research, many runners who are doing p90x say this workout is invaluable as it works your weaknesses and makes you more of a explosive runner. So be it.

I’m concerned about all the workouts. During my winter break, it’s not a big deal. However, with my coaching beginning next week, marathon build up, it’ll be a little tough getting all the workouts in. Doesn’t look like there will much sleeping in come 2010. The p90x program tells you to take before and after pics at day 1,30,60, and 90. I did take my before photos, but due to lack of narcissism that I have, I’m not gonna post them online till the end. Overall, I”m pretty excited with everything moving in the right direction

I didn’t eat a donut

Ken — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:11:57 +0000

My workplace is a haven for junk food. We have a Starbucks on the first floor, and people are always bringing in chocolates, cakes, you name it on often a daily basis. If your office is like mine, they put them out in the kitchen area so everyone can grab a piece. I have to pass this display on the way to my office.

I walked into work this morning and I saw the 2 boxes of Dunkin Donuts sitting by the water cooler. “Oh no you didn’t!” “Damn you!” I took a deep breath and just kept walking. Upon going back to the kitchen to fill up my water bottle, people were conversing around the area eating donuts celebrating the Phillies entering going back to the World Series. All types of flavors were on display: Boston Creme, Chocolate glazed, Old Fashioned, Chocolate Covered…the whole gambit.

“Ken, don’t you want one?”

“No thank you”

A silent gasp ensued.

See, I have a reputation of having a large appitite, mostly earned during my Ironman training.

“Are youuuuu sure?”

“Yea…I’m sure”

Walking away was probably the hardest thing. I felt like I missed out on something. There will be a few more attempts to get me off the wagon: Halloween being the closest. And if the Phillies actually WIN the World Series, I know I’ll definitely have to be on my A-game. Since I’ve added the weight tab to this blog, I’ve been really anal about what I eat. Eating when not hungry or bored is simply not an option anymore.

Goodbye Starbucks Marble Loaf

Ken — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:59:29 +0000

Dear Starbucks Marble loaf,

We’re over. You lied to me. Or maybe I lied to myself. Regardless, I think our relationship is over.

We first met at the corner, as I was looking for a light snack to quell my Ironman training hungers. I’d have you with a bottled Ice Coffee (Mocha). I must admit, you were really good when warmed up in the microwave.

But alas, you were fake. At least Ice Coffee (Mocha) has it’s nutritional value typed onto the bottle (180 calories). Not sure what I was thinking, but I thought you were around the same calorie content. Maybe I should have listened to what my mother taught me: “All that glitters is not gold”. And now I must tell everyone what you are really made of

Your ex,

We are sooo not together anymore

Ken

1 sliceCalories: 430

Total fat: 22g

Carbs: 52g

Protein:6g

Transitions…

Ken — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 05:26:04 +0000

I really hate, “Sorry I haven’t been around” posts. They reak of laziness. And I hate that. But seriously, Labor Day weekend in conjunction with the beginning of the school year (I work at a University) has kept me off balance. To make it worse, I’ll be starting business school, so I’m trying urgently to put everything in order so I can accommodate my work, class schedule, training, and the little bit of a social life I desire to have.

I had to sleep in my car on August 31st. I was suppose to move in on that day but the residents who lived in my new apartment before me didn’t get out on time. My new landlord thought they would be able to clean it in time. But since they didn’t, and I had to be out of my old place, I had no where to sleep that night. I parked my car in the campus area which allowed me to connect to the wireless signal, so I at least had internet for 2 hours. I felt like I was on a undercover stake out. I woke up early the next morning and went for a swim at the gym. It was there were I took a shower and went to work the next day.

Moving out...

I’ve committed to my weight loss plan for the fall and winter: I want to weigh 160 pounds by March. Let me explain:

I’ve been doing a lot of research on weight loss and running/cycling that I think I’ve come to a pretty good conclusion where I need to be. Before I go into it, this decision reminds me of a time when I had as a freshman at Boston College and i was a member of the crew team. For the most part, we were a very undersized team Many of us would be going on to the lightweight team the following year. Now, when we raced undersized freshman crews like ourselves, we would beat them easily. That year (1997), those crews consisted of Tufts, UMass, and even MIT. But when we faced bigger freshman crews like University of New Hampshire, Virginia, Colby, or Williams; we would get blown off the line. We would never even got close to them. One of the varsity guys who watched the whole race said, “Well, you got beat of the line, but once they had open water, they couldn’t extend the lead any more, you guys hung in there!”

Moving in? I don't think so...

So, should this mean I should just focus on power? No, it’s the exact opposite. To make the triathlon analogy: I’m still in the “freshman boat” and everyone else are the bigger and stronger crews. But instead of raw power and being blown of the line, I have added resistance (body fat) and get blown off the line (i.e. the swim start). Thinking about it now, it must have been all that endurance work we did. But did it matter? You can have all the endurance in the world, but if you aren’t “in it” at the beginning…then who cares? These are my thoughts as I head into fall/winter. The main point I want to bring up here is that my power to weight ratio MUST improve. I’ve written many times about passing people on the bike on flats but getting caught on the hills. This thread explains it better than I can:

Question:Why is it that time-trialers seem to lose it in the mountains, and a good climber often gets beaten in a time trial on the flats?

Answer: The answer involves the interplay of body weight, power output and wind resistance. On the flats, resistance (which slows you down) is primarily related to the resistance created by a rider’s bike and body as they move through the air. Big riders, in a low racing position, have a frontal surface area that is quite similar to that of smaller riders. But big riders tend to generate more power thanks to their larger muscle mass. That’s why time trials and sprints on flat or rolling terrain favor the bigger, muscular riders.

However the resistance (that slows one down) on a hill is related to gravity. When a rider fights gravity while going uphill, the power-to-weight ratio, not total absolute power output is more important. The more Watts a rider can produce for his (or her) body weight, the faster that rider can climb. To improve climbing, you must either lose weight or increase your sustainable wattage — or do both.

Here’s an example. A big rider (let’s say 85 kg or 187 lbs.) and can produce 425 Watts for 20 minutes (a standard test interval) and thus has a power-to-weight ratio of 5.0 Watts per kg. (Top climbers have a ratio of 6-7 Watts-per-kilo.) For comparison, a lighter rider, let’s say 60-kg climber (or 132 lbs.) need only produce 360 Watts to achieve 6 Watts per kilo. In this scenario, the lighter rider will overcome the effects of gravity more easily (remember that it is the power per kg that is important in overcoming the resistance of gravity), but the bigger rider will do better on the flats where the wind resistance is relatively weight independent and thus equal for the light and heavier rider – thus the lighter rider is 65 Watts behind and will lose the sprint.

So how much weight should I lose? And how does this come into play with running?

I’ve seen a lot of talk about the Stillman height/weight ratio table for distance runners. It works like this:

The average man is allocated 110 lbs (50kg) for the first 5 feet (1.524m) in height. Thereafter, he is allocated 5½ lbs (2.495 kg) for every additional inch (O.025m) in height. Thus, a man 6 feet tall (1.829m) would be allocated 110lbs (50kg) plus 12 x 5½lbs (2.495kg), which comes to 176 lbs or 12 st 8lbs (80kg). The exceptions to the rule are Japanese wrestlers, heavyweight boxers and certain rugby players, who aim to exceed this weight. Females are allocated 100 lbs (45kg) for the first 5 feet (1.524m) and 5lbs (2.268kg) for every inch thereafter. Therefore a woman who is 5 ft 6ins (1.676m) tall would be given 100 lbs plus 6 x 5lbs, which totals 130 lbs or 9st.4lbs (59kg).

These allocations are considered healthy guidelines for non-active people. However, a distance runner needs to weigh less, about 5 to 10 per cent less. This makes our 6 foot tall male requiring to be 8 to 17 lbs less than his 1761bs, around 168lbs to 159 lbs. And our female of 5ft 6ins should be around 6 lbs to 13lbs less, around 124 lbs to 117 lbs.

The key factor in successful distance running is your height:weight ratio.

Great, another ratio. The article goes to give examples of famous top performance athletes who fall exactly into this height:weight ratio scheme. That being the case, it is something that can’t be ignored. Chris Lear, author of “Running with the Buffaloes”; University of Colorado Cross-Country Coach Mark Wetmore made sure his runners stayed lean and emphasized the importance of not gaining weight when you’re injured. In the book he is quoted as saying that the ideal running physique is “Like a Skeleton with a Condom pulled over it’s skull”. Well damn!

I asked Coach Dean Herbert, a very well respected running coach on the internet about body weight and running and this is what he told me:

“….Though there is slightly more fat burned on very long run late-miles there has not been a connection made to BODY fat content. That is the key missing link. You should be concerned with total calories burned (80-120 or so per mile of running) which lead to a deficit between your intake and output. That is how weight is lost. By the way, when it comes to determining ideal weights every method has been derived from data/statistics on groups of people… not individuals. Body morphology greatly impacts weight. What that means is that all formulas apply to large groups of people not individuals. So be VERY careful in applying some formula and coming up with a “fact” that you should weigh 10% less.”

Got it.

Well, if I start with the Stillman height/weight guide to losing weight, this should give me a goal to aim for. I weighed myself this week and I’m currently at 181 pounds (I raced Ironman UK at 178). I’m 5″10, so according to Stillman, my NORMAL NON-ACTIVE weight should be 165 pounds. Jesus, I have to lose 15 just to be “normal non-active”? If Stillman says I should be 5-10 percent LESS than that, then that means I need to weigh 148.5 – 156.5 pounds!!!!

So now what?

Armed with this information, I’m come up with a plan:

I’m buying a power meter hopefully by the winter holiday so I can train with it in earnest during the winter. I can then begin to establish a power/weight ratio on the bike. The thing I’m excited about getting this is that it creates the “carrot” and something I can push towards and judge my training besides heart rate.

Nutrition wise: My goal is to be at a 500 calorie deficit per day. I’m not going to starve myself. I do love to eat. However, the key to success here is not to do this alone. So I hope you’ll help me. Additionally, I’m going to join a local triathlon club.

In conclusion, you can see why I’ve decided to primarily focus on weight loss. I lost weight before by default because I was training for an Ironman, I was actually only 3 or 4 pounds over my intended goal (175), but if I want to do this (qualify for Kona in 3-4 years) it’s time to get real. Most of my body fat comes from the hips and butt and I will “focus” (yes, I know you can’t spot train) but I will be counting calories like there is no tomorrow. With the power meter coming this winter, I’ll then be able to calculate my power/weight ratio as well.

To make it fun, I’ll post my weight every week where my Race Count Down timer is, so we can all keep track.