I got to thinking about body composition. How much do you think other factors beyond muscle mass and fat mass come into play? Obviously, we have bones and internal structures. How much of an impact do you think things like this have? I’m thinking these because I’ve seen people of the same height, weight, and bf % (and therefore presumably similar amounts of muscle mass)look fairly different.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
I got to thinking about body composition. How much do you think other factors beyond muscle mass and fat mass come into play? Obviously, we have bones and internal structures. How much of an impact do you think things like this have? I’m thinking these because I’ve seen people of the same height, weight, and bf % (and therefore presumably similar amounts of muscle mass)look fairly different. [/quote]
It all depends on the type of measurement. In all actuality no body fat measurement is accurate but many of the them are precise. There are different models which each body composition measurement is based. Two-component, three-component, and four-component, each giving you different measurements.
The reason I say that none is really accurate is that they are all based off the gold standard of hydrostatic weighing which in and of itself is said to be within 3-4%. The only true way to know your body fat is to disect and chemically analyze your body (which you wouldn’t be around for). In the first half of the 1900s a study compared 3 white males through disection to result in the equations and measurements for body fat composition… you could imagine how accurte this stuff is if we are all compared to 3 white males.
Now… of the many measurements accessible to consumers DEXA is the best option (said to be w/in 3-4%). DEXA uses a three-component model of Lean Body Mass, Fat Mass, and Minerals. I will provide you information on mineral density and can even be separated out to different limbs; although knowing what BF% your arms are probably serves no purpose.
Pretty much anything that the average consumer can take home is the worst choice (Tanita, Calipers, etc.).
Use body fat measurements as progress but do your best to limit the variance in each measure (when you wake up and after you take a piss). I personally would advise against using any home device as your end-all-be-all determinent of health.
If you are going with a Tanita there is no need to go all out with the expenive versions (its the same f-ing equation). If you manage to get one with an “athlete” setting and a “non-athlete” setting measure both and that should give you a “good idea” of the range you sit in.
When doing your body composition it’s important to do things as close to the same as possible each time. That means same person, same time of day, same day of the week, same type of test, etc. If you do that, you can at least track your own progress as acurately as possible. I personally use the method described in Barry Sears’ “Zone Diet”. It uses 3 measurements: Umbilicus, Wrist, and weight. It’s a good gauge. Check out this site: http://www.zoneperfect.com/Site/content/Calculator_Men.asp
As far as why people with similar “Stats” look different, many things come into play. People carry fat differently, people have different “strong” points, etc. So some guy can be your height, weight, and bf and have much bigger arms and chest, but maybe he doesn’t squat so has chicken legs. People are different, so it’s important to visualize what you want to look like, not compare to others.
Thanks Tri. I can see that the different methods would yield different results. I was asking more generally. I’m not particularly concerned about my bodyfat right now. I guess my main question was what else makes up fat free mass other than muscle. You mentioned minerals. I 'm guessing bone and organs and whatever else too. I was just wondering why one person can look a fair degree bigger than another of the same height, weight, and bf %.
I’m guessing that part of it has to do with how much and where you body likes to carry water.
You also have to consider muscular developement. You look at most endurance athletes and there muscles aren’t that “developed” per se but there body fats are usually <10.
Thats where the true flaws come in. The difference between 4% and 8% is much more noticable then 20% and 24%.
It would likely be a combo of mineral density, water weight and locations of fat storage. Seeing as it is a “%” logically any increase of weight that wasn’t fat would lower the %.
In the average individual, the various tissues account for:
Muscles: 20-40% of total bodyweight
Fat: 10-30% of total bodyweight
Bones, skin, intestines: 33% of total bodyweight
Brain, heart, liver, kidneys: 4-5% of total bodyweight
Obviously this is highly variable, but it can give you a broad idea.
Interesting. Thanks guys. Much of my curiosity has been satisfied.
BTW, did you know that at rest, the muscles (22%), brain (20%) and liver (21%) all account for about as much caloric expenditure? Obviously, this changes toward the muscles as activity level increases.
Something you all might find interesting…
Last April 9, I had a DEXA scan (the new gold standard in body composition). I repeated this scan on March 29. In just under a year, I gained 11.26 pounds of lean body mass and lost 5.46 pounds of fat mass.
In addition to this lean body mass gain, I added 131 grams of bone, which is just less than 1/3 of a pound. In this time, my bone mineral density (grams per square centimeter) went from 1.226 to 1.288. In other words, it just goes to show you what a profound impact heavy training can have on bone remodeling. If you train for three years, you could have an extra pound of bone (moreso if the right endocrine factors are present).
Maybe I’ll write this up…
[quote]Eric Cressey wrote:
Something you all might find interesting…
Last April 9, I had a DEXA scan (the new gold standard in body composition). I repeated this scan on March 29. In just under a year, I gained 11.26 pounds of lean body mass and lost 5.46 pounds of fat mass.
In addition to this lean body mass gain, I added 131 grams of bone, which is just less than 1/3 of a pound. In this time, my bone mineral density (grams per square centimeter) went from 1.226 to 1.288. In other words, it just goes to show you what a profound impact heavy training can have on bone remodeling. If you train for three years, you could have an extra pound of bone (moreso if the right endocrine factors are present).
Maybe I’ll write this up…
[/quote]
Yeah but did you get HYOUUUGE?
This goes to show how important strength training can be for injury prevention and could actually be a preventive solution to osteoporosis and the likes.
[quote]
Yeah but did you get HYOUUUGE?[/quote]
Nah, I’m that strange guy who just wants freaky relative strength and couldn’t care less about getting beeeeg.
My body weight only changed 3.5 pounds during that time, but I added a good 150 pounds to my deadlift, 80 pounds to my bench, and 100+ to my squat.
Agreed; these changes are even more profound in untrained subjects.
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
BTW, did you know that at rest, the muscles (22%), brain (20%) and liver (21%) all account for about as much caloric expenditure? Obviously, this changes toward the muscles as activity level increases.[/quote]
Thanks, CT. We actually discussed this in my anthropology class. What’s even more interesting is that a shift from a more vegetarian diet to a more meat-based diet is one important factor that allowed us to evolve and grow large brains. Because the brain of an anatomically modern human accounts for 20% of caloric expenditure at rest, it is a very costly tissue.
Our ancestors had much smaller brains, partly because they didn’t have enough regular access to fuel to supply a larger brain. When we moved from forests to a more grassland habitat with more abundant animals our eating habits changed. The greater influx of calories over millenia acted as a release of the constraint on brain size and development. Sorry for going all nerd. I just found that interesting. Thought some Tmen might as well.
Man … that’s one huge leap in relative strength!!!
BTW, LOVE your “debunking” series!!!
[quote]Eric Cressey wrote:
My body weight only changed 3.5 pounds during that time, but I added a good 150 pounds to my deadlift, 80 pounds to my bench, and 100+ to my squat.
[/quote]
Jesus, Eric. Not bad for 12 months work.
Woah woah, this sounds like people can actually build bone mass through heavy training. I’ve always heard that bone mass can only be maintained.
Sup with that?