[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
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”
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. [/quote]
I “believe” you’re right… I don’t “believe” it to be possible, but I prefer to see it proved with science, not belief. And, as a long time lurker, I trust your opinion more than most, but I still need to find some proof.
[quote]shaunar25 wrote:
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.[/quote]
[quote]BeefyBoy wrote:
shaunar25 wrote:
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.
[quote]debraD wrote:
BeefyBoy wrote:
shaunar25 wrote:
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.
Here you go!
Look! It’s another one of Oleena’s identities!
Something else to research: ‘burden of proof.’[/quote]
Every decent tread deserves at least one Oleena reference!
[quote]debraD wrote:
BeefyBoy wrote:
shaunar25 wrote:
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.
Here you go!
Look! It’s another one of Oleena’s identities!
Something else to research: ‘burden of proof.’[/quote]
semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit
So if you claim that it’s not possible to reach that level of leanness, the Burden lies on you. Unfortunately, Burden of Proof is a weapon in rhetoric and does not lead to truth.
So if you claim that it’s not possible to reach that level of leanness, the Burden lies on you. Unfortunately, Burden of Proof is a weapon in rhetoric and does not lead to truth.
[/quote]
I don’t believe the claim is that 3% can’t be reached. The claim is that this specific girl did not. I think there are a few arguments going on here, all valid, but in this respect, the debate is whether THIS girl is 3%.
Clearly getting another test done for the sake of this thread is not likely, so let’s trust our common sense. For the sake of debate, the overwhelming consensus is that 3% is an outrageous claim. Therefore, the “con” side of the argument is find proof; not only of a woman that is 3% but, again, that THIS woman is 3%.
So if you claim that it’s not possible to reach that level of leanness, the Burden lies on you. Unfortunately, Burden of Proof is a weapon in rhetoric and does not lead to truth.
I don’t believe the claim is that 3% can’t be reached. The claim is that this specific girl did not. I think there are a few arguments going on here, all valid, but in this respect, the debate is whether THIS girl is 3%.
Clearly getting another test done for the sake of this thread is not likely, so let’s trust our common sense. For the sake of debate, the overwhelming consensus is that 3% is an outrageous claim. Therefore, the “con” side of the argument is find proof; not only of a woman that is 3% but, again, that THIS woman is 3%.
[/quote]
Agreed… On the issue of THIS woman being 3%, it’s best to stick with Occam’s razor. It’s most likely the test at fault here.
[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
“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]
And the study you’re referencing is what exactly? You need to cite an actual scientific study. That reference in Wikipedia that you got it from is hardly a scientific study. I could create a webpage, edit those stats on Wikipedia, and reference the webpage in minutes.
Pro female bodybuilders walk on stage with a MINIMUM 6% bodyfat. Most land around 8%.
Now go away.
[/quote]
Congrats… you know how to use Google.
I’m embarrassed for you… And here I thought these forums were for the elite of bodybuilding. You guys have shown that you have no capacity to cite actual scientific studies nor do you understand the need to do so. Have you ever paid attention to the articles that routinely site their references at the bottom of the article?
Pro female bodybuilders walk on stage with a MINIMUM 6% bodyfat. Most land around 8%.
Now go away.
Congrats… you know how to use Google.
I’m embarrassed for you… And here I thought these forums were for the elite of bodybuilding. You guys have shown that you have no capacity to cite actual scientific studies nor do you understand the need to do so. Have you ever paid attention to the articles that routinely cite their references at the bottom of the article?
[/quote]
That’s exactly the point. It took 30 seconds to pull it up on google. Meaning it’s not new information that can only be found in scientific journals. Everyone who has even an inkling of knowledge of body composition knows these general guidelines.
These forums are not for the elite of bodybuilding. They’ll let anyone sign up, ergo, you see keyboard warriors standing defiant against professionals in the field and demanding ‘scientific studies’. If you think a professional is going to take the time to pull up research you are sorely mistaken. Shut your pie hole and take 5 years out of your life to read and get under the bar, then come back and see how frustrated you are at the newbie shit that is slung around on these forums by people like yourself.
I’m embarrassed for you… And here I thought these forums were for the elite of bodybuilding. You guys have shown that you have no capacity to cite actual scientific studies nor do you understand the need to do so. Have you ever paid attention to the articles that routinely cite their references at the bottom of the article?
[/quote]
Well honestly, rcfromdb has done more for this argument than you have.
And I believe the answer to your question is that no one NEEDS to go do a few hours of research on a database flipping through scholarly journals to prove something that is visually obvious. I would absolutely encourage you though, to go and find these articles and references that you are so embarrassed no one else could find…or would bother with such a ridiculous task to find.
No offense, but you are becoming the example of your criticism.
That’s exactly the point. It took 30 seconds to pull it up on google. Meaning it’s not new information that can only be found in scientific journals. Everyone who has even an inkling of knowledge of body composition knows these general guidelines.
These forums are not for the elite of bodybuilding. They’ll let anyone sign up, ergo, you see keyboard warriors standing defiant against professionals in the field and demanding ‘scientific studies’. If you think a professional is going to take the time to pull up research you are sorely mistaken. Shut your pie hole and take 5 years out of your life to read and get under the bar, then come back and see how frustrated you are at the newbie shit that is slung around on these forums by people like yourself.[/quote]
