LOfuckingL at 3.1%
Oleena, the criticism you are getting is not due to your mentioning of 3.1% bodyfat. It comes from you not knowing that that number is pure bullshit. You (as someone who works out for a better than average physique, strength, performance, etc) should know that women cannot reach that level of leanness without either being dead or hospitalized on their way to dying.
There are plenty of factors that can throw this number off… not expelling all the air in your lungs, using the wrong formula, getting a poor weight measurement while underwater. Yes hydrostatic weighing is one of the more accurate methods, but it still has its limitations. I have seen personal trainers at my gym who cannot even find a person’s pulse, and I am not joking. I would rather see a DEXA scan.
who cares?
:shrugs:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Oleena, the criticism you are getting is not due to your mentioning of 3.1% bodyfat. It comes from you not knowing that that number is pure bullshit.[/quote] I understand that. [quote] You (as someone who works out for a better than average physique, strength, performance, etc) should know that women cannot reach that level of leanness without either being dead or hospitalized on their way to dying. [/quote] Has this happened before? Have other women reached around 3% going for a competition and ended up in the hospital? I really don’t care what people think of it, I’m going to express some curiousity here. [quote]
There are plenty of factors that can throw this number off… not expelling all the air in your lungs,[/quote] This would actually make the test end up on the higher side of bf%, since the air would make you lighter in water. [quote] using the wrong formula, getting a poor weight measurement while underwater.[/quote] The interesting thing about her case is that she’d been taking the tests for 6 months, so any mistake would have been blatant next to the other weekly measurements. [quote] Yes hydrostatic weighing is one of the more accurate methods, but it still has its limitations. I have seen personal trainers at my gym who cannot even find a person’s pulse, and I am not joking. I would rather see a DEXA scan. [/quote] I agree.
All I see here are a bunch of people stating that 3% is impossible without proving their claims. Just stating something is true because “you know it is” does not make it fact. I’d like to see some references to back up your claims.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
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.
[/quote]
LOL! Punch her trainer in the face please. I really like how when people are confronted with a question they don’t know the answer to, just decide to spew out a crock of shit because they are too arrogant to say they are either wrong or don’t know.
[quote]BeefyBoy wrote:
All I see here are a bunch of people stating that 3% is impossible without proving their claims. Just stating something is true because “you know it is” does not make it fact. I’d like to see some references to back up your claims.[/quote]
How about you go do your own research. Anyone with half a brain knows it is EXTREMELY unlikely, if not impossible, for a woman to be at 3% BF and live. Let alone be dancing around on stage.
Several IFBB pro male bodybuilders have died trying to get into extreme condition, ala 2-3% BF, and you think some random (drug free I’m assuming) woman can do that on a whim? Get a clue.
[quote]BeefyBoy wrote:
All I see here are a bunch of people stating that 3% is impossible without proving their claims. Just stating something is true because “you know it is” does not make it fact. I’d like to see some references to back up your claims.[/quote]
Well if it’s possible, find us a female who has 3.1% BF.
Oleena, look at some of the pictures in that thread. Most of those guys are significantly leaner and drier than your friend/coworker.
If she’s 3.1%, then they’re in the negative numbers.
For fucks sake.
this is pretty easy to clear up if she’s willing to commit to an autopsy.
[quote]BeefyBoy wrote:
All I see here are a bunch of people stating that 3% is impossible without proving their claims. Just stating something is true because “you know it is” does not make it fact. I’d like to see some references to back up your claims.[/quote]
I’d like to see you shut your piehole
I’m afraid I have to agree with the others, there is no chance that this girl is 3.1% bodyfat. Her glutes and legs alone are carrying enough fat to prevent to bring her around about 10%, there is absolutely no definition there. Her back, chest and abs however do indeed look under 10%.
[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
I really like how when people are confronted with a question they don’t know the answer to, just decide to spew out a crock of shit because they are too arrogant to say they are either wrong or don’t know.[/quote]
QFT
[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
BeefyBoy wrote:
All I see here are a bunch of people stating that 3% is impossible without proving their claims. Just stating something is true because “you know it is” does not make it fact. I’d like to see some references to back up your claims.
How about you go do your own research. Anyone with half a brain knows it is EXTREMELY unlikely, if not impossible, for a woman to be at 3% BF and live. Let alone be dancing around on stage.
Several IFBB pro male bodybuilders have died trying to get into extreme condition, ala 2-3% BF, and you think some random (drug free I’m assuming) woman can do that on a whim? Get a clue.[/quote]
I know several women with 1.5%-2.5% body fat. My wife hits 1.7% body fat while she’s on her period.
It’s funny how just making a claim doesn’t make it true…
You don’t just go around making claims and then tell people, “if you don’t believe me, go do your research, it’s all there to back me up”
I would question the accuracy of one or more components in that test (scales, operator, computer program).
Also, remember that even if a piece of equipment is SUPPOSED to have a certain accuracy, the PROCESS of making the measurement can make it less accurate. That process includes the operator reading and entering data correctly, the scales, environmental fluctuations and in this case, even the test subject. Not to mention, I believe there are assumptions about bone and muscle density that may not apply to the entire population.
See Gauge R&R in the six sigma world:
[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
Oleena wrote:
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.
LOL! Punch her trainer in the face please. I really like how when people are confronted with a question they don’t know the answer to, just decide to spew out a crock of shit because they are too arrogant to say they are either wrong or don’t know.[/quote]
Exactly my point… Why should I believe what one person says above another unless they anchor it with a reference to some actual science?
Belief can alter observations; those with a particular belief will often see things as reinforcing their belief, even if to another observer they would appear not to do so. Even researchers admit that the first observation may have been a little imprecise, whereas the second and third were “adjusted to the facts,” until tradition, education, and familiarity produce a readiness for new perception.
See Fleck, Ludwik (1975), Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, Univ. of Chicago, ISBN 0-226-25325-2
[quote]BeefyBoy wrote:
waylanderxx wrote:
BeefyBoy wrote:
All I see here are a bunch of people stating that 3% is impossible without proving their claims. Just stating something is true because “you know it is” does not make it fact. I’d like to see some references to back up your claims.
How about you go do your own research. Anyone with half a brain knows it is EXTREMELY unlikely, if not impossible, for a woman to be at 3% BF and live. Let alone be dancing around on stage.
Several IFBB pro male bodybuilders have died trying to get into extreme condition, ala 2-3% BF, and you think some random (drug free I’m assuming) woman can do that on a whim? Get a clue.
I know several women with 1.5%-2.5% body fat. My wife hits 1.7% body fat while she’s on her period.
It’s funny how just making a claim doesn’t make it true…
You don’t just go around making claims and then tell people, “if you don’t believe me, go do your research, it’s all there to back me up”
[/quote]
Have you ever heard of Andreas Munzer, or any of the other guys from the early 90’s who either died or got severely fucked up because of organ failure from getting into extremely lean/water depleted condition?
I’m amazed that you think a FIRST TIME FEMALE COMPETITOR can achieve an equal or lower body fat percentage than PROFESSIONAL MALE BODYBUILDERS.
“Essential fat is that amount of fat necessary for maintenance of life and reproductive functions. The percentage for women is greater than that for men, due to the demands of childbearing and other hormonal functions. Essential fat is 3-5% in men, and 8-12% in women”
And that’s just the first hit. Just because you are not aware of how the human body works does not mean I’m responsible for looking up research studies for you.
[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
I’m amazed that you think a FIRST TIME FEMALE COMPETITOR can achieve an equal or lower body fat percentage than PROFESSIONAL MALE BODYBUILDERS. [/quote]
you’re just jealous that oleenaman can train a woman into better competition shape than you could achieve with professional coaching and gear.
I think the point is that if you LOOK at any single bodybuilder or the like who has gotten down to such an extreme BF%, what do you see?
you see EXTREME definition
you see EXTREME striations
you see EXTREME muscle fibers popping beneath the skin
This is not evident on this females physique, at least not her lower body. Her lower body has fat. Enough fat to still see an ass (not a bad thing on anyone:)). Enough fat to cover her thighs and not truly see a quad-ham division, not to mention any further definition.
I do not believe there is question to the fact that she got lean. The fact is it is not that low.
And moreover, it speaks volumes that trainers think this is correct.
And I would like to see a picture of BeefyBoys wife at 1.7%…I’m thinking a skeleton with some bologna hanging off the shoulders.