Ideal Bodyfat Percent?

Professor_X · July 16, 2013, 11:18pm

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

My point is holding that high weight and high fat composition will make that cut very hrd that is all I said.[/quote]

You don’t know this. That would depend on how lean someone is trying to get and their personal metabolism among other things.

You can not make a blanket statement that it makes it harder to lose body fat.

[/quote]

Now you aren’t agreeing with your own quote you confidently edited out [/quote]

Ease of losing body fat has more to do with your metabolic rate and the amount of muscle you carry.

I would recommend that if someone were much heavier that they maintain a dieted down weight for a while to create a new set point if more prone to fat gain.

ryanbCXG · July 16, 2013, 11:30pm

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

My point is holding that high weight and high fat composition will make that cut very hrd that is all I said.[/quote]

You don’t know this. That would depend on how lean someone is trying to get and their personal metabolism among other things.

You can not make a blanket statement that it makes it harder to lose body fat.

[/quote]

Now you aren’t agreeing with your own quote you confidently edited out [/quote]

Ease of losing body fat has more to do with your metabolic rate and the amount of muscle you carry.

I would recommend that if someone were much heavier that they maintain a dieted down weight for a while to create a new set point if more prone to fat gain.

[/quote]

I agree with the second statment certainly

The first statment contradicts your statment about the body finding homeostasis which inherently means the body will fight to hold that condition.

Professor_X · July 16, 2013, 11:48pm

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

The first statment contradicts your statment about the body finding homeostasis which inherently means the body will fight to hold that condition.
[/quote]

Your body will fight to hold ANY condition…which is why we speak of SET POINTS.

It doesn’t mean fat is harder to lose. It could mean that fat will be regained faster during a rebound. It does NOT mean that fat becomes hard to lose at all.

If anything, guys like Bauber and myself noticed the opposite and fat was very easy to lose.

We are not discussing bodybuilding contest dieting here.

That is why you hold the lighter weight for a while, to avoid gaining fat back easier, not because fat is so hard to lose.

Nothing written by me contradicts this.

WhiteFlash · July 17, 2013, 5:29am

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

My point is holding that high weight and high fat composition will make that cut very hrd that is all I said.[/quote]

You don’t know this. That would depend on how lean someone is trying to get and their personal metabolism among other things.

You can not make a blanket statement that it makes it harder to lose body fat.

[/quote]

Now you aren’t agreeing with your own quote you confidently edited out [/quote]

Ease of losing body fat has more to do with your metabolic rate and the amount of muscle you carry.

I would recommend that if someone were much heavier that they maintain a dieted down weight for a while to create a new set point if more prone to fat gain.

[/quote]

You don’t know this. The majority of people who reach their mythical idealized holy grail scale weight are way fatter and carrying considerably less muscle than they believe. I’d be willing to wager that every reasonably logical poster here agrees with that.

akmcsnarfy · July 17, 2013, 6:09am

[quote]CMdad wrote:
So what do you guys/girls think the ideal bf % is to walk around at?[/quote]

The leanest you can be without sacrificing strength or conditioning. There is no # answer to this. It would be like someone asking what are good lifts for (insert BW and age here). The way to get the answer for yourself is to try to slowly lose weight while maintining your strength in the lifts (whichever you do) and see how low you can get.

The_Mighty_Stu · July 17, 2013, 11:58am

[quote]LoRez wrote:
Wouldn’t the body also have a set point for maintaining a certain level of bodyfat? If not a percent, an absolute quantity. That way there’s always a known amount of reserve fat to be used in times of perceived starvation.

That seems more useful in a biological/evolutionary sense than having a set point based purely on bodyweight.[/quote]

I still think it’s always going to come back to this. One constant I’ve seen in every single Nutritional and dieting text I’ve read is that when the human body isn’t getting adequate calories, the first thing that it gets rid of is muscle tissue (which in turn will slow your metabolic rate). We’ve all heard that “muscle is costly”, and yes I realize that the training response does indeed alter the ability to maintain muscle as well as affect insulin sensitivity, BUT you can’t argue that the human body has a greater desire in terms of self preservation to hold onto fat than muscle.

That’s why you will hear quite often from people who have gotten a bit “too heavy” that it was harder to lose the weight, and that they wished they’d had stayed leaner. We’ve seen in in countless threads of people ‘finally’ getting their asses in shape just on this site alone over the years.

In fact, IMO the reason the scale moves so quickly when a considerably heavy person first starts losing weight (or accidentally misses a few meals) is because their body doesn’t actually need the calories they’re constantly ingesting. There is no new set point, they’ve just gotten into a daily habit of overeating out of a perception that they either need it, or that it is somehow helping them. If this were true, the weight wouldn’t drop so fast from the onset of a slight deficit.

Just my opinions, so no need for anyone to get bent out of shape. This thread has already turned the typical TN/Deja Vu angle.

S

Waittz · July 17, 2013, 1:16pm

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

You confused me with how you phrased things.

But if I understood you right, basically you’re saying that if you want to be 260 with visible abs, you first have to get to the point where you’re 260 with visible abs… and then find a way to stay there for awhile so that your body can establish homeostasis at that weight and conditioning.

And if you don’t give it enough time, forcing it to maintain the new state, your body will revert to a previous state, both in terms of bodyfat and bodyweight.

Did I understand that correctly?[/quote]

Get rid of the specific numbers and for the most part yes, this is about LONG TERM progress and how the body adapts OVER TIME.[/quote]

Can I ask what you are basing that statement on? As in what information are you using to formulate that opinion. [/quote]

Personal experience and clinical education in biology.

I have seen it happen in myself and others and what I know of the human body supports this until I see something that refutes it.

That is what science is.

Do you ask Starnes the same question?

[/quote]

I ask a simple question and you get defensive, hostile and snarky.

Interesting.

Thank you for explaining to me that the definition of science is your personal opinion and anecdotal experience combined with you not being convinced of the opposite. I must have had it all wrong.

[/quote]

There was nothing defensive, hostile or “snarky” in that response.

I answered your question and asked one…which you refused to answer.[/quote]

All kinds of passive agressive ‘do not challenge my knowledge’ snark there buddy.

What does Starnes have to do with my question? I dont even know who he is outside of the name dropping in this forum nore do I care. I clicked on this thread, skipped to last page, was interested in your opinion so I asked you how you formed it to understand it better.

Pull the protein bar out of your butt and calm down. You and Ryan were made for eachother.

ryanbCXG · July 17, 2013, 2:02pm

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

You confused me with how you phrased things.

But if I understood you right, basically you’re saying that if you want to be 260 with visible abs, you first have to get to the point where you’re 260 with visible abs… and then find a way to stay there for awhile so that your body can establish homeostasis at that weight and conditioning.

And if you don’t give it enough time, forcing it to maintain the new state, your body will revert to a previous state, both in terms of bodyfat and bodyweight.

Did I understand that correctly?[/quote]

Get rid of the specific numbers and for the most part yes, this is about LONG TERM progress and how the body adapts OVER TIME.[/quote]

Can I ask what you are basing that statement on? As in what information are you using to formulate that opinion. [/quote]

Personal experience and clinical education in biology.

I have seen it happen in myself and others and what I know of the human body supports this until I see something that refutes it.

That is what science is.

Do you ask Starnes the same question?

[/quote]

I ask a simple question and you get defensive, hostile and snarky.

Interesting.

Thank you for explaining to me that the definition of science is your personal opinion and anecdotal experience combined with you not being convinced of the opposite. I must have had it all wrong.

[/quote]

There was nothing defensive, hostile or “snarky” in that response.

I answered your question and asked one…which you refused to answer.[/quote]

All kinds of passive agressive ‘do not challenge my knowledge’ snark there buddy.

What does Starnes have to do with my question? I dont even know who he is outside of the name dropping in this forum nore do I care. I clicked on this thread, skipped to last page, was interested in your opinion so I asked you how you formed it to understand it better.

Pull the protein bar out of your butt and calm down. You and Ryan were made for eachother. [/quote]

Thanks for thinking of me big guy. Not sure what I have done to get all this attention from you but thank you

ryanbCXG · July 17, 2013, 2:04pm

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
Wouldn’t the body also have a set point for maintaining a certain level of bodyfat? If not a percent, an absolute quantity. That way there’s always a known amount of reserve fat to be used in times of perceived starvation.

That seems more useful in a biological/evolutionary sense than having a set point based purely on bodyweight.[/quote]

I still think it’s always going to come back to this. One constant I’ve seen in every single Nutritional and dieting text I’ve read is that when the human body isn’t getting adequate calories, the first thing that it gets rid of is muscle tissue (which in turn will slow your metabolic rate). We’ve all heard that “muscle is costly”, and yes I realize that the training response does indeed alter the ability to maintain muscle as well as affect insulin sensitivity, BUT you can’t argue that the human body has a greater desire in terms of self preservation to hold onto fat than muscle.

That’s why you will hear quite often from people who have gotten a bit “too heavy” that it was harder to lose the weight, and that they wished they’d had stayed leaner. We’ve seen in in countless threads of people ‘finally’ getting their asses in shape just on this site alone over the years.

In fact, IMO the reason the scale moves so quickly when a considerably heavy person first starts losing weight (or accidentally misses a few meals) is because their body doesn’t actually need the calories they’re constantly ingesting. There is no new set point, they’ve just gotten into a daily habit of overeating out of a perception that they either need it, or that it is somehow helping them. If this were true, the weight wouldn’t drop so fast from the onset of a slight deficit.

Just my opinions, so no need for anyone to get bent out of shape. This thread has already turned the typical TN/Deja Vu angle.

S[/quote]

Got to agree

Also I think the body starts to become inflamed and will start holding even more water than normal so missing a meal or cals will flush some of that extra water creating the illusion of dropping fat or weight really fast

Waittz · July 17, 2013, 2:06pm

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

You confused me with how you phrased things.

But if I understood you right, basically you’re saying that if you want to be 260 with visible abs, you first have to get to the point where you’re 260 with visible abs… and then find a way to stay there for awhile so that your body can establish homeostasis at that weight and conditioning.

And if you don’t give it enough time, forcing it to maintain the new state, your body will revert to a previous state, both in terms of bodyfat and bodyweight.

Did I understand that correctly?[/quote]

Get rid of the specific numbers and for the most part yes, this is about LONG TERM progress and how the body adapts OVER TIME.[/quote]

Can I ask what you are basing that statement on? As in what information are you using to formulate that opinion. [/quote]

Personal experience and clinical education in biology.

I have seen it happen in myself and others and what I know of the human body supports this until I see something that refutes it.

That is what science is.

Do you ask Starnes the same question?

[/quote]

I ask a simple question and you get defensive, hostile and snarky.

Interesting.

Thank you for explaining to me that the definition of science is your personal opinion and anecdotal experience combined with you not being convinced of the opposite. I must have had it all wrong.

[/quote]

There was nothing defensive, hostile or “snarky” in that response.

I answered your question and asked one…which you refused to answer.[/quote]

All kinds of passive agressive ‘do not challenge my knowledge’ snark there buddy.

What does Starnes have to do with my question? I dont even know who he is outside of the name dropping in this forum nore do I care. I clicked on this thread, skipped to last page, was interested in your opinion so I asked you how you formed it to understand it better.

Pull the protein bar out of your butt and calm down. You and Ryan were made for eachother. [/quote]

Thanks for thinking of me big guy. Not sure what I have done to get all this attention from you but thank you[/quote]

I am medium. You both like to argue for the sake of arguing with eachother.

ryanbCXG · July 17, 2013, 2:22pm

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

You confused me with how you phrased things.

But if I understood you right, basically you’re saying that if you want to be 260 with visible abs, you first have to get to the point where you’re 260 with visible abs… and then find a way to stay there for awhile so that your body can establish homeostasis at that weight and conditioning.

And if you don’t give it enough time, forcing it to maintain the new state, your body will revert to a previous state, both in terms of bodyfat and bodyweight.

Did I understand that correctly?[/quote]

Get rid of the specific numbers and for the most part yes, this is about LONG TERM progress and how the body adapts OVER TIME.[/quote]

Can I ask what you are basing that statement on? As in what information are you using to formulate that opinion. [/quote]

Personal experience and clinical education in biology.

I have seen it happen in myself and others and what I know of the human body supports this until I see something that refutes it.

That is what science is.

Do you ask Starnes the same question?

[/quote]

I ask a simple question and you get defensive, hostile and snarky.

Interesting.

Thank you for explaining to me that the definition of science is your personal opinion and anecdotal experience combined with you not being convinced of the opposite. I must have had it all wrong.

[/quote]

There was nothing defensive, hostile or “snarky” in that response.

I answered your question and asked one…which you refused to answer.[/quote]

All kinds of passive agressive ‘do not challenge my knowledge’ snark there buddy.

What does Starnes have to do with my question? I dont even know who he is outside of the name dropping in this forum nore do I care. I clicked on this thread, skipped to last page, was interested in your opinion so I asked you how you formed it to understand it better.

Pull the protein bar out of your butt and calm down. You and Ryan were made for eachother. [/quote]

Thanks for thinking of me big guy. Not sure what I have done to get all this attention from you but thank you[/quote]

I am medium. You both like to argue for the sake of arguing with eachother. [/quote]

I’m sorry I thought the whole point of forums was to discuss things. Damn I am a moron

punnyguy · July 17, 2013, 3:31pm

I think TNation needs to have “official” authors post articles with some points of view on this topic since there is obviously good interest in it. Maybe then there could be an actual dialogue between the two sides, a point and then counterpoint article(s). (assuming there are two legitimate sides)

And interested members could get some facts and make up their own minds w/o the endless circular ramblings and so on…

Bauber · July 17, 2013, 3:36pm

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

You confused me with how you phrased things.

But if I understood you right, basically you’re saying that if you want to be 260 with visible abs, you first have to get to the point where you’re 260 with visible abs… and then find a way to stay there for awhile so that your body can establish homeostasis at that weight and conditioning.

And if you don’t give it enough time, forcing it to maintain the new state, your body will revert to a previous state, both in terms of bodyfat and bodyweight.

Did I understand that correctly?[/quote]

Get rid of the specific numbers and for the most part yes, this is about LONG TERM progress and how the body adapts OVER TIME.[/quote]

Can I ask what you are basing that statement on? As in what information are you using to formulate that opinion. [/quote]

Personal experience and clinical education in biology.

I have seen it happen in myself and others and what I know of the human body supports this until I see something that refutes it.

That is what science is.

Do you ask Starnes the same question?

[/quote]

I ask a simple question and you get defensive, hostile and snarky.

Interesting.

Thank you for explaining to me that the definition of science is your personal opinion and anecdotal experience combined with you not being convinced of the opposite. I must have had it all wrong.

[/quote]

There was nothing defensive, hostile or “snarky” in that response.

I answered your question and asked one…which you refused to answer.[/quote]

All kinds of passive agressive ‘do not challenge my knowledge’ snark there buddy.

What does Starnes have to do with my question? I dont even know who he is outside of the name dropping in this forum nore do I care. I clicked on this thread, skipped to last page, was interested in your opinion so I asked you how you formed it to understand it better.

Pull the protein bar out of your butt and calm down. You and Ryan were made for eachother. [/quote]

Thanks for thinking of me big guy. Not sure what I have done to get all this attention from you but thank you[/quote]

I am medium. You both like to argue for the sake of arguing with eachother. [/quote]

I’m sorry I thought the whole point of forums was to discuss things. Damn I am a moron :([/quote]

Wrong! It is to post funny pictures and talk about how huge I am. Duh!

Smashingweights · July 17, 2013, 3:54pm

New research shows that holding higher body weights with unfavorable amounts of bodyfat contribute to increased heart disease risk.
If you hold that weight for considerable time then you are creating a new “CVD Set Point”.
Plus an averaged height natural can only gain 50 pounds of muscle from training so you have to take that into account with regards to “set points”
If you don’t have abs all the time you can’t accurately gauge progress

ryanbCXG · July 17, 2013, 3:54pm

[quote]Bauber wrote: