Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't understand this. It's like some feel that achieving this is the pinnacle of health or sexual prowess. I don't really see why some think that in order to be "not fat" they have to have visible abs. Like they consider themselves as "having a gut" when they don't have visible abdominal muscles. Where does this stem from?
Healthy body fat levels in many adults don't correspond with even having visible abs. For some people (not everyone), abs are visible only at very low body fat percentages, and in fact these body fat percentages can at times be too low an unhealthy. I'm not saying that people with visible abs are unhealthy at all, I'm just saying that some people (especially men) have this weird idea that if they can't see their abs, they have failed at physical fitness. Why is this?
As Stallone said: less than 4% body fat is actually dangerous.
And some people need that fat reserve if you get sick.
I had abbs like that, when I went farm haying all summer, back when it was done by hand and the bales weighted more than me. Somewhere below an inch of something else I'm sure they're still there!!
But the quote I was referring to made it a point to say that core exercises can help someone get visible abs. That's not necessarily true.
I guess my wording was off, but I wasn't suggesting core exercise can give you the elusive "six pack." Instead of walking with a hunched back, or a tight pelvis sticking your hips out, core exercise straightens out your torso. If you aren't overweight, your stomach would appear flat because your core muscles are supporting your posture correctly. Washboard abs require rigorous cardio, caloric deficit, healthy eating, etc. to reduce your overall bodyfat percentage.
Is having a six pack as healthy as it's cracked up to be?
I don't understand this. It's like some feel that achieving this is the pinnacle of health or sexual prowess. I don't really see why some think that in order to be "not fat" they have to have visible abs. Like they consider themselves as "having a gut" when they don't have visible abdominal muscles. Where does this stem from?
I like having a visible six pack. Why? Because, just like a woman with big boobs, or all these women you see who PAY to get big boobs, nose jobs, tummy tucks, etc. its empowering to feel really good about yourself. Actually, its MORE than that because having visible six pack is an indicator of the hard work, dedication to health, nutrition, exercise and fitness over a long period of time that led to that. With bodybuilders excluded (no one here is a bodybuilder) who do you know (man or woman) who has worked to get six pack abs who is not also the picture of good health and physical fitness? I dont know of any.
We have all seen the studies that show that the more fat that is in a person's stomach area, the greater their risk for diabetes, heart disease, and other illnesses. Have a strong core (and healthy nutritonal intake along with vigorous exercise) pretty much lowers a persons chances of getting those illnesses to zero.
Plus, I LOVE the way I look and so do the ladies. And the wife.
He could pass as a natural bodybuilder alongside guys like Matt Ogus and Alberto Nunez.
Absolutely not natural. He is not natty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieOlSkool
Are you saying that people without six packs are unhealthy?
Because a male in his 30s who has a body fat of 14% is at pretty healthy levels.
I agree that having a six pack CAN be healthy, but I don't think it's prerequisite to actually being healthy. On the flip side of the equation, a person with visible abs but a very low body weight is not very healthy at all despite having visible abs. I knew a guy who had a six pack, but he also weighed 115 lb. at 5'9. A six pack isn't an end-all be-all. And also, if someone tries to get a six pack and ends up losing more weight than they actually need to in the pursuit of a six pack, that is unhealthy, too. Some people are just underweight and even if they don't have six packs, they probably shouldn't worry about getting one until they have enough of a healthy weight.
Men don't need to be 7-10% body fat to be healthy.
Sure, they can be healthy.. but they will be less healthy than the 7-10% range. That is the optimal range. If I'm carrying around 14%, my endurance and strength most likely isn't as good as if I'm at 7-10%.
Debatable. But, I won't discuss it here since it's not relevant to the topic.
Quote:
Sure, they can be healthy.. but they will be less healthy than the 7-10% range. That is the optimal range. If I'm carrying around 14%, my endurance and strength most likely isn't as good as if I'm at 7-10%.
Got any studies backing up that 7-10% is "optimal"?
End-all, be-all guidelines don't work. 7-10% body fat isn't good for a guy that weighs 100 lb. He can have great muscle definition but he'll be weak. Now, if a guy was 160 lb. and was 7-10%, then yes, he'd be quite healthy.
Here is a chart showing ideal levels. See how men in the 26-35 range are already on the low end when they are 13-15%, and are on the "very lean" area when they are 8-12%, per the NSCA
Sure, they can be healthy.. but they will be less healthy than the 7-10% range. That is the optimal range. If I'm carrying around 14%, my endurance and strength most likely isn't as good as if I'm at 7-10%.
You can't say that 7-10 is optimal as a blanket statement. Endurance? Sure, that could be better (and even that's up in the air). But strength? Almost the opposite. Most men are going to be stronger at 13-15 than at 7-10.
Absolutely not. He has veins under the navel, denoting <7% body fat. The human body does not allow that body fat percentage for extended periods (as in.. more than a few hours).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hivemind31
You can't say that 7-10 is optimal as a blanket statement. Endurance? Sure, that could be better (and even that's up in the air). But strength? Almost the opposite. Most men are going to be stronger at 13-15 than at 7-10.
Not exactly. Most men are stronger on paper with 13-15% with the same lean body mass weight due to more advantageous levers. If two men have 150 lbs of lean mass, the guy with the higher fat content will usually lift more. It is due to physics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieOlSkool
Debatable. But, I won't discuss it here since it's not relevant to the topic.
Got any studies backing up that 7-10% is "optimal"?
End-all, be-all guidelines don't work. 7-10% body fat isn't good for a guy that weighs 100 lb. He can have great muscle definition but he'll be weak. Now, if a guy was 160 lb. and was 7-10%, then yes, he'd be quite healthy.
Here is a chart showing ideal levels. See how men in the 26-35 range are already on the low end when they are 13-15%, and are on the "very lean" area when they are 8-12%, per the NSCA
My experience says most "tables" are good for the average sedentary to low-moderate activity male. For athletes, they perform optimally as their body fat reaches the minimum sustainable threshold. Tell a cyclist, runner, summer, basketball player, soccer player, or any of the sort that their conditioning will be better at 13% vs. 7%. It simply won't.
Like I said, I was at 10-11% when I started cycling. If that was "optimal," my body would not have leaned out to 7%, where it has been holding for months now. The human body is resourceful; it keeps the necessary amount in the tank and gets rid of excess.
You can't say that 7-10 is optimal as a blanket statement. Endurance? Sure, that could be better (and even that's up in the air). But strength? Almost the opposite. Most men are going to be stronger at 13-15 than at 7-10.
Plus the statement that endurance AND strength are better at that level is really strange, considering that they are rather different aspects of fitness and strength isn't really related to body fat level whatsoever. Maybe his RATIO of lifts to body weight improved, but I don't see why dropping body fat necessarily improves strength, considering that one must be in a caloric deficit to get to 7% body fat, and caloric deficits don't tend to lead to strength gains.
If this was the case, powerlifters would tend to be leaner guys, but they're not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
