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.
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.
Body fat percentage does not help "strength" at all (on the contrary actually). Strength isn't really a good judge. As I said before, if two men have 150 lbs of lean mass and the same proportions, the one with more body fat will be "stronger" due to better levers. It is physics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieOlSkool
If this was the case, powerlifters would tend to be leaner guys, but they're not.
That's why they have weight classes.
"The Ant" Hawthorne deadlifts 600 lbs at 130 lb body weight. That's 4.6X BW. The world record holder for squats does 900 lbs, but weighs well over 200 lbs. Which one is the "better" lifter?
It is all physics.. which is why body fat % isn't really relevant to "strength."
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.
Ah, the old anecdotal appeal to one's authority. So, you think the people at NSCA don't have the same amount of experience you do? I take it these organizations don't deal with athletes like you do? Maybe that just went over their heads.
By the way, the reason most endurance athletes are at lower body fat % is because their very high level of activity warrants that they would be at those levels. However, you haven't tested anyone to make a blanket statement that their body fat is at a certain level. Just because you see someone's abs doesn't mean they are at sub 10%.
Also, we are talking about health here. I don't exactly know how this came to be a discussion about endurance athletes. So having lower body fat % for an endurance athlete is optimal. Yaaaay. We're not talking about sports performance here but whether having a six pack is necessary for optimal health, not whether someone can run a quicker marathon.
Quote:
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.
Your body leaned out because cycling created a caloric deficit. A body responding to a caloric deficit is simply a natural response. Whether it is optimal or not depends on multiple factors. Am I saying you got unhealthier? No. But am I saying your health markers improved because your body responded to a caloric deficit? Not necessarily. Bodybuilders can drop to body fat levels below 7%. Is that optimal?
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).
you just show how clueless you are.
I know him personally, he's losing shows because he's refusing to use.
Body fat percentage does not help "strength" at all (on the contrary actually). Strength isn't really a good judge. As I said before, if two men have 150 lbs of lean mass and the same proportions, the one with more body fat will be "stronger" due to better levers. It is physics.
Well, then why did you mention strength in your other post?
Quote:
That's why they have weight classes.
"The Ant" Hawthorne deadlifts 600 lbs at 130 lb body weight. That's 4.6X BW. The world record holder for squats does 900 lbs, but weighs well over 200 lbs. Which one is the "better" lifter?
Well in my other post I actually did say that dropping body fat increase the RATIO of weight lifted relative to body weight. I don't dispute that. I guess in that way, dropping body fat improves your ratio, but doesn't necessarily up your lifts.
Ah, the old anecdotal appeal to one's authority. So, you think the people at NSCA don't have the same amount of experience you do? I take it these organizations don't deal with athletes like you do? Maybe that just went over their heads.
No, the point is... are athletes not the pinnacle of human physicality?
The people at NSCA will agree with what we both are saying; 13-15% may be healthy for a sedentary - low / moderate activity male.. but not an athlete. Human beings are not sedentary creatures, so logic would dictate that the bodies elite athletes have are what is "natural" adaptation for humans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieOlSkool
By the way, the reason most endurance athletes are at lower body fat % is because their very high level of activity warrants that they would be at those levels. However, you haven't tested anyone to make a blanket statement that their body fat is at a certain level. Just because you see someone's abs doesn't mean they are at sub 10%.
They are usually at sub 10% with visible abs. Are you disagreeing with that statement?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieOlSkool
Also, we are talking about health here. I don't exactly know how this came to be a discussion about endurance athletes. So having lower body fat % for an endurance athlete is optimal. Yaaaay. We're not talking about sports performance here but whether having a six pack is necessary for optimal health, not whether someone can run a quicker marathon.
Endurance athletes are at the upper limits of human physiology. They are the apex.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieOlSkool
Your body leaned out because cycling created a caloric deficit. A body responding to a caloric deficit is simply a natural response. Whether it is optimal or not depends on multiple factors. Am I saying you got unhealthier? No. But am I saying your health markers improved because your body responded to a caloric deficit? Not necessarily. Bodybuilders can drop to body fat levels below 7%. Is that optimal?
No, my body leaned out because it was an adaptation to my level of physical activity. Not only did my body fat decrease, my weight increased, my resting heart rate decreased (stronger heart), and I have visible quad and calf development. My previous state of activity was insufficient, so the human body made changes. Why did the body fat percentage level off at 7%?
Bodybuilders drop below 7% for a few hours and their body rapidly replaces the fat after they are done STARVING themselves. Hence, the body does not consider that an optimal state.
For the sake of argument, isn't true health better measured by a blood work-up to see cholesterol, trigylcercide levels, and glucose (among other areas that are tested), rather than superficial six-packs??
You can look terrifc on the outside and be sick inside. Of course, in our society, looking good externally seems more important than actual health, right?
For the sake of argument, isn't true health better measured by a blood work-up to see cholesterol, trigylcercide levels, and glucose (among other areas that are tested), rather than superficial six-packs??
You can look terrifc on the outside and be sick inside. Of course, in our society, looking good externally seems more important than actual health, right?
Even the blood panel is a tough call to make these days. Cholesterol isn't as understood as we thought, and the blood panel can be corrected with drugs.
True about looks. However, in society if one looks good naturally they usually are quite healthy. The problem is.. most people making money off their bodies are not natural. They are selling a look that is unobtainable by natural methods.
No, it just means you exercise. It doesn't mean you eat right or take care of yourself.
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.
