Gotta agree with Debra on the trolling and general bullshit we’ve all seen from Oleena in the SAMA forum, I mean come on girl, with your track record, try as I might, I can’t take you seriously. And honestly on a woman at 3%, we would be able to see her pancreas secreting insulin. Even with bad lighting.
[quote]dianab wrote:
Gotta agree with Debra on the trolling and general bullshit we’ve all seen from Oleena in the SAMA forum, I mean come on girl, with your track record, try as I might, I can’t take you seriously. And honestly on a woman at 3%, we would be able to see her pancreas secreting insulin. Even with bad lighting.[/quote]
Thanks for the super nice mental image D.
[quote]dianab wrote:
Gotta agree with Debra on the trolling and general bullshit we’ve all seen from Oleena in the SAMA forum, I mean come on girl, with your track record, try as I might, I can’t take you seriously. And honestly on a woman at 3%, we would be able to see her pancreas secreting insulin. Even with bad lighting.[/quote]
LOL.
Unfortunately, anyone can get a PT cert. I mean, come on, how many “qualified” drivers cut me off EVERYDAY who have tested for a driver’s license?
Passing a test means nothing.
The relentless pursuit of knowledge and personal strive to accomplish that which is physically impossible for most defines an athlete or at least one who desires to help others achieve their goals.
Any person even slightly well versed in the fitness industry should know how difficult and unrealistic it would be for a man, let alone a woman, to get down to 3%.
[quote]debraD wrote:
ouroboro_s wrote:
debraD wrote:
3%
lol
You’d think a PT know this kind of basic stuff.
Why is it obvious to everyone but me? I don’t think it is. What she knows is what the woman told her. Perhaps next time she’ll request written documentation to present to all the arm chair warriors. The woman looks impressive, in my opinion at any rate. Perhaps I’m easy to impress.
Just throw yourself on the top of the pile.
Well if you’re claiming to be a professional trainer and it’s not obvious then you probably need to spend less time trolling and more time reading about your field. But you are not and so it doesn’t apply to you, at least as far as I know.
If someone is going to make ridiculous claims they had better expect to be called on them and I don’t think that’s an unreasonable expectation.[/quote]
If you read the whole thread, you’d see that I agreed with everyone in that I originally thought that bbs compete at a higher bodyfat percentage. Infact, I even went back last night and asked the girl again for a print out.
If all you know about body building is what you’ve read off of the internet (which is all the experience I’ve had with it personally), and then someone in real life who’s doing it tells you different, you’re inclined to go with the first hand instead of the obscure typed stuff.
Debra, you sure seem a little over-excited about the “trolling” stuff, and a little under-informed about what all I’m up to on this site. It’d be equally ridiculous to argue that you should stop posting masturbation material because it gets in the way of your workout research.
[quote]dianab wrote:
Gotta agree with Debra on the trolling and general bullshit we’ve all seen from Oleena in the SAMA forum, I mean come on girl, with your track record, try as I might, I can’t take you seriously. And honestly on a woman at 3%, we would be able to see her pancreas secreting insulin. Even with bad lighting.[/quote]
Well sweetie, that’s the difference between men and women. For a long time I posted a training log in the main training log area because the men can tell the difference between play and work. Some women also can, but I’ve been disappointed with the lack of them on here.
Training is training. I spend a ton of time reading books, articles, building programs, and talking with people who know more than me. When I workout, there’s no joking around.
The men understand that what happens in SAMA has no relation to the workout room. Anyone who thinks it does is taking it WAY too seriously. Come on. There’s an entire thread of asses, and another one trying to hunt down my ellusive male character. It has pictures of naked men clicking their heels while wearing angel wings.
[quote]CBear84 wrote:
Oleena wrote:
eating a starvation diet to drop body fat is a bad idea is true.
this is true
It doesn’t make sense when you think about calories in and calories out
applying a “kcal in, kcal out” rule is a blanket idea and most of those are fucked up, any time you try to go specific with it.
weight loss is different from fat loss is different from muscle gain is different in a sedentary vs active vs goals vs history vs ability vs metabolism vs etc etc etc.
i hate the kcal in, kcal out theory. i dont even like typing it. [/quote]
Agreed. I’ve watched other trainers at my gym put people on diets under 1200 calories, and then make them do “functional training” and cardio until the people are ready to cry.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
dianab wrote:
Gotta agree with Debra on the trolling and general bullshit we’ve all seen from Oleena in the SAMA forum, I mean come on girl, with your track record, try as I might, I can’t take you seriously. And honestly on a woman at 3%, we would be able to see her pancreas secreting insulin. Even with bad lighting.
Well sweetie, that’s the difference between men and women. For a long time I posted a training log in the main training log area because the men can tell the difference between play and work. Some women also can, but I’ve been disappointed with the lack of them on here.
Training is training. I spend a ton of time reading books, articles, building programs, and talking with people who know more than me. When I workout, there’s no joking around.
The men understand that what happens in SAMA has no relation to the workout room. Anyone who thinks it does is taking it WAY too seriously. Come on. There’s an entire thread of asses, and another one trying to hunt down my ellusive male character. It has pictures of naked men clicking their heels while wearing angel wings.[/quote]
well sweetie? don’t be asking me to pick out drapes now, we’re not that familiar.
I can tell the difference between work and play. It’s not the subject matter that prevents me from looking at you as a valuable forum member, as much as the tone and character of your posts. I find you to be rather condescending and unable to admit you may be wrong sometimes. These (internet) personality traits prevent me from giving you any real credibility.
Never posted here or really looked at this part of the site , but when I saw 3% bodyfat I couldn’t resist.
Although I hate hate hate to admit it, debraD is spot on with this one.
It’s ok Oleenaman. We all know you’re a dude.
[quote]dianab wrote:
Oleena wrote:
I find you to be rather condescending and unable to admit you may be wrong sometimes. These (internet) personality traits prevent me from giving you any real credibility. [/quote]
Which posts are you basing this on? The ones in this forum?
This is a pretty silly argument IMO.
If people come at me with attitude, chances are I’m going to give it back. If they have an opinion, I might ask for sources (you’ll note that when people questioned the 3.1% bf girl I agreed to try and find out more. I didn’t argue “Oh my god. I’m Oleena so I have to be right”) Those traits have apparently made me so disagreeable that people who have nothing to do with me have formed opinions and know my name.
This is further proof that arguing on the internet is a waste of time.
Not sure there’s anything to argue about. You want to produce some printout that says she’s at 3.1% bodyfat even though you admitted your own eyes tell you that isn’t so. You compared her to national level Figure competitors even though your client is a bodybuilder as if that proves what exactly - that she has less bodyfat than women who compete in the 10%-12% range?
I think you pride yourself on your education and intelligence, but this entire thread lacks common sense. Less faith in the obviously not true printouts and compare apples to apples would be good things.
So the girl at my work brought in her papers today from the hydrostatic bodyfat measurement tests. I asked her how it was possible for her to be at 3% when top bodybuilders compete at higher bf%. She replied that her trainer told her pro body builders have mature muscle that actually starts storing pockets of fat within the muscle. Now, I have no idea whether this is possible or true. She said that because her muscle is new, it’s harder packed.
On one hand, I could see how this would be possible as the body does tend to adjust to the conditions it’s given and if you deprived it of fat for long enough, it might try to store it in weird places (the way that my arm bone gained an extra calcium coating when I was in kendo because it was a target and was constantly hit in drills). But once again, I’d need more proof that this was possible.
As for how valid hydrostatic testing is, apparently it’s within 1.5% accuracy:
http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwfit/bodycomp.html
Underwater Weighing
(a.k.a. Hydrostatic Weighing)
Description: This method uses Archimedes principle which states that when a body is submerged in water, there is a buoyant counter force equal to the weight of the water which is displaced. Because bone and muscle are more dense than water, a person with a larger percentage of fat free mass will weigh more in the water and have a lower percent body fat. Conversely, fat floats. Therefore, a large amount of fat mass will make the body lighter in the water and have a higher percent body fat.
How accurate is it?
If each test is performed correctly according to the recommended guidelines, there is a +/- 1.5% error. (Note: Accuracy depends on the clientâ??s ability to blow all the air out of their lungs both during a pre-test screening with a spirometer, and during the test itself. Since air makes the body float, inability to perform either of these maneuvers will result in miscalculation of the percent body fat.)
Advantages:
This method is currently considered the “gold standard” in percent body fat measurement
Repeat measures usually prove consistent, and can be used to chart progress
I’m sure most people are going to write me off and call me stupid for posting this, but I really am curious as to if this is possible. So far, all I’ve received for proof is “You’re an idiot” and “everyone knows”. Okay, well, there’s a lot of things that everyone knows, not all of them are true, and it’s always good to know a thing for sure. So throw me some sources here people.
I don’t think you are stupid but I think your friend is stupid but oh well your friend has it on paper, congrats for her.
Like I always tell my one friend who bitches about her weight, who cares what you weigh, care about how you LOOK!.
So, I don’t believe she’s near 3% regardless of what that paper says, but thanks for posting it 
I could see being around 4.5%, maybe even a bare min of 4% at max for hardcore pro bodybuilders but it’s extremely rare and hard to achieve, not just some crazy diet but brutal brutal ass work.
EX:
"typical fat % levels:
Men:
Contest bodybuilder: 3-5%
Extremely lean: 6-9%
Lean: 10-15%
Average Male: 16-20%
Poor: 20-25%
Very Poor: 25%+
Women:
Fitness model/bodybuilder: 8-11%
Extremely lean: 12-15%
Lean: 16-19%
Average female: 20-25%
Poor: 25-29%
Very Poor: 30%+
"
Tom Venuto
"Personally, my set point is about 9-10%. Unless I work hard constantly, I will always creep back up to 9-10% - my body seems to like it there. However, I don’t like how I look at 10%. I prefer to hold it around 7% (that’s “ready for the beach”, but nowhere near contest condition).
For contests, I drop down to 3-4% but thatâ??s a temporary peak condition. The key word is temporary: To maintain my health, I only try to stay that low for a few weeks, and my absolute best peak condition is maintained for perhaps only a few days.
Remember, any condition you can maintain all year round is not a peak condition and a true peak condition is not something you should even try to hold all year round. To be healthy, there must be balance. For every peak, there must be a valley."
Hope any of that helps. If not ah well it expanded my brain on something knew so either way I got something out of it regardless.
It is my understanding that Hydrostatic tends to underestimate bodyfat percentage on athletes and that the new “gold standard” to measure bodyfat is DEXA.
http://www.new-fitness.com/body_fat_analyzing.html
Also, a person’s brain is mostly fat and accounts for about 2% of a lean person’s body weight. Its pretty tough to get to about 1 to 1.5% for the rest of your body, including the layer of fat that protects all the organs.
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html
If you cut out my brain, I’d still need to drop about 50 lbs. of fat to get to 3%.
Hope this info is useful,
Happy Thanksgiving!
[quote]Oleena wrote:
I’m sure most people are going to write me off and call me stupid for posting this,[/quote]
Stupid man, stupid stupid man.
Good news: if you reach 3% you won’t have to worry about the bad news.
Bad news: We will all die in 2012.
the definition in her legs is sick! Orsm.