Saturday, February 12, 2005

Weight / Body Fat Progress - from excel spreadsheet

I keep an excel spreadsheet which helps me track progress. Typically I track weight and body fat by a moving 5 day average -- which to me makes more sense. I'm not concerned with a particular number, but I am concerned with the trends supported by the change in the numbers.

With that in mind, there's some positive news. I'm lighter, lower body fat, and smaller in measurement, by what really is a significance difference from when I began this project in May-04.

Measurement differences
Here are the measurement differences as near as I can tell.


02.12.2005
C: 46.00"
B: 14.50
T: 24.75
N: 17.00"
UW: 44.00"
LW: 41.00"

LESS

06.20.2004
C: 53.00"
B: 17.00"
T: 27.50"
UW: 48.00"
LW: 43.00"

Lost roughly, 2.5" inches from biceps; ~2.75 inches from thighs; neck is unknown apparently; upper waist measurement is down 4" while lower waist measurement is down 2.00" (this is the toughest one I think). The biggest difference is the chest, where I've lost a full 7". HOpefully more to come :-).

It's also hard to ignore the practical reality of this: My suit no longer fits, and I'm now able to bid (on eBay) for 48 regular suits, rather than 50 inch suits. My suit pants are simply to big now, and once I get another suit (or 3) I'll have everything retailored. In the meanwhile, my business casual "uniforms" are also getting a bit small on me. I absolutely need to wear a belt or the pants basically fall off me. Also, numerous pairs of shorts no longer fit either. . . so, there's an eBay auction, and perhaps some purchasing that's going on. Although, the weird thing is 40 inch waist is often too big -- indeed, 42 inch waist is WAY too big for me (at least now). But 38 inch waist is too small (obviously) -- but I have a few 38inch shorts that fit and work (I suspect they are either 40s and mislabeled, or manufactures call 40s as 38s, to make people feel better about themselves. . . ).



Body Fat

My body fat was initially measured at 36.0%; the past 5-day moving average is 30.1%; so I've lost, theoretically 5.9% in body fat. This is a nice positive trend downward.

Weight

5-day weighted averages
Week ended / weight

01.02.2005 / divby0
01.09.2005 / 257.0 / 36.8
01.16.2005 / 252.3 / 34.6
01.23.2005 / 251.9 / 29.1
01.30.2005 / 248.0 / 31.5
02.05.2005 / 244.9 / 30.2
02.12.2005 / 245.9 / 30.1


Weight analysis

As for weight, I've now lost 26.0 pounds since 05-15-2004, roughly 9 months, 270 days. If it were a straight line curve that would mean that I have lost roughly 3 pounds per month; but, of course, it's not a straight line curve. Indeed, on 01.07.2005, my five day weighted average was 260.1 pounds. Some six weeks later, my five day weighted average is 245.1 pounds.

So, I've legitimately lost 15 pounds in six weeks, or 2.5 pounds per week (which is exactly what my stated goal was -- see January 28, 2005 post.). The post read, in part:

>> I’m starting to think I’d like to
set a weight goal for my birthday which is

Approximately 7 weeks to go until my birthday:
which is approximately 17.5 pounds. I would say
that my weighted average weight this week is roughly 250
or 251). Theoretically I could be down to 232.5. So the
potential rate is 1 pound per week, to perhaps 2 as much
as 2.5 pounds.

1 x 7 = 7 pounds; (243)
1.5x7 = 10.5 pounds; (239.5)
2x7 = 14 pounds; (236)
2.5x7= 17.5 pounds (232.5).


I currently weigh, on a weighted 5-day average, 245 pounds, so it would seem that I should comfortably make the 1 pound per week goal above. To make the 232.5 goal, I'd need to lose an additional 12.5 pounds, in five weeks, which is precisely 2.5 pounds per week. It's surely doable. Nonetheless, 236 or 239.5 are also doable.

The basic premise remains: more salad, smoothies and fruit and fewer fast food and soda coupled with the hard core exercise regimen will produce results.

No comments: