Ideal Bodyfat Percent?

Training
141

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]akmcsnarfy wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Good post.[/quote]

Are you going to retire from this site once you hit 50k posts?

142

[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).
S[/quote]

I can’t help but agree, and disagree with you at the same time. I agree that every nutritional and dieting book says that, but every biology book and study says fat is the first to go and fat goes in a greater percentage with total weight loss. I agree with the biology books on this. I just think when a person loses a pound of fat, they care much less then when they lose half a pound a muscle so theories like that come out. I think there’s still some propaganda and emotion in dieting and nutritional books.

143

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

[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).
S[/quote]

I can’t help but agree, and disagree with you at the same time. I agree that every nutritional and dieting book says that, but every biology book and study says fat is the first to go and fat goes in a greater percentage with total weight loss. I agree with the biology books on this. I just think when a person loses a pound of fat, they care much less then when they lose half a pound a muscle so theories like that come out. I think there’s still some propaganda and emotion in dieting and nutritional books.[/quote]

Important couple points about that. At higher body fat yes fat will come off first but as the body is pushed farther from homeostasis it will start to eat muscle. Also as calories drop and become in adequate the body will again eat muscle and actualky stop losing fat. The body loves to adapt and survive. It gives no shit about getting lean

144

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

[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).
S[/quote]

I can’t help but agree, and disagree with you at the same time. I agree that every nutritional and dieting book says that, but every biology book and study says fat is the first to go and fat goes in a greater percentage with total weight loss. I agree with the biology books on this. I just think when a person loses a pound of fat, they care much less then when they lose half a pound a muscle so theories like that come out. I think there’s still some propaganda and emotion in dieting and nutritional books.[/quote]

Important couple points about that. At higher body fat yes fat will come off first but as the body is pushed farther from homeostasis it will start to eat muscle. Also as calories drop and become in adequate the body will again eat muscle and actualky stop losing fat. The body loves to adapt and survive. It gives no shit about getting lean[/quote]

I think this summarizes how both ways of seeing this (biology vs nutritionists as you put it) can be right, and also supports the idea that getting stupidly lean while retaining muscle mass is much more difficult than simply dropping a few lbs when you’ve got plenty to spare.
No doubt there’s plenty of propaganda and emotion in the latest BS/Media hyper books, but when you look at the coaches, RDs and Drs who work with more of an athletic population, I think you get more of an attitude that applies to the people reading on this site.

Also, to add, as I’m not going to start quoting, re-quoting, and point by point arguing, uh I mean discussing, back and forth lest anyone repeatedly inquire why I feel the need to stop them from posting their opinions (like such sharing might create a series of catastrophic events):

-I have a difficult time believing that the quicker weight loss experienced by heavier individuals is attributable solely to water weight. There’s just too much info out there talking about how the body adapts to hydration fluctuations very quickly, and easily, and debunks a lot of the BS “I was holding water nonsense” that non-PED users throw out as excuses for extreme weight gain or lack of conditioning (yes it’s possible, but not to the degree some folks think it is).

-I’ve worked with plenty of competitive BBers, and in their severely dieted down states, due to the low levels of bodyfat, fluctuations in weight simply due to water and glycogen storage are very very trackable (I know, I’ve been called the king of spreadsheets, I track everything). They can go up and down several pounds each day, it’s true, (I fluctuate ~4 lbs throughout the day myself) but scale weights taken at the same time each day move only a pound or two at most. Usually (and I’m sure some people on here will attest to this) it is the care free non-tracking eating schedules that set up a dramatic effect once the #s are reigned in a bit, and someone takes a serious look at just what they’ve been doing. I’ve said it before (and I’m not saying this to stir the pot here), but anyone who ‘magically’ drops 5 lbs from missing a meal should take a serious look at their diet, and how much they actually weigh.

Man, how the hell did this thread go from discussing different people’s opinions of ideal bf%s for making gains to the rehashed argument of the possibility/validity set-points?
What I wouldn’t give to get Aceto, Klemszewksi, or Norton on these forums!

S

145

I’d say it was a good discussion and I actually like the deviation the OP all it comes to is what makes you happy and is conducive to your goals. Just my opinion

146

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
all it comes to is what makes you happy and is conducive to your goals. Just my opinion[/quote]

I’ve always said that an important factor is how you feel comfortable walking around every day. If it weren’t such an issue, you wouldn’t have so many young kids fearful of losing their “hawt abz”

S

147

Also gotta say I enjoy your well thought out articulate posts as always stu

148

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
all it comes to is what makes you happy and is conducive to your goals. Just my opinion[/quote]

I’ve always said that an important factor is how you feel comfortable walking around every day. If it weren’t such an issue, you wouldn’t have so many young kids fearful of losing their “hawt abz”

S[/quote]

But everybody won’t love me if I don’t have abs :frowning:

149

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

[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).
S[/quote]

I can’t help but agree, and disagree with you at the same time. I agree that every nutritional and dieting book says that, but every biology book and study says fat is the first to go and fat goes in a greater percentage with total weight loss. I agree with the biology books on this. I just think when a person loses a pound of fat, they care much less then when they lose half a pound a muscle so theories like that come out. I think there’s still some propaganda and emotion in dieting and nutritional books.[/quote]

Important couple points about that. At higher body fat yes fat will come off first but as the body is pushed farther from homeostasis it will start to eat muscle. Also as calories drop and become in adequate the body will again eat muscle and actualky stop losing fat. The body loves to adapt and survive. It gives no shit about getting lean[/quote]

I think this summarizes how both ways of seeing this (biology vs nutritionists as you put it) can be right, and also supports the idea that getting stupidly lean while retaining muscle mass is much more difficult than simply dropping a few lbs when you’ve got plenty to spare.
No doubt there’s plenty of propaganda and emotion in the latest BS/Media hyper books, but when you look at the coaches, RDs and Drs who work with more of an athletic population, I think you get more of an attitude that applies to the people reading on this site.

Also, to add, as I’m not going to start quoting, re-quoting, and point by point arguing, uh I mean discussing, back and forth lest anyone repeatedly inquire why I feel the need to stop them from posting their opinions (like such sharing might create a series of catastrophic events):

-I have a difficult time believing that the quicker weight loss experienced by heavier individuals is attributable solely to water weight. There’s just too much info out there talking about how the body adapts to hydration fluctuations very quickly, and easily, and debunks a lot of the BS “I was holding water nonsense” that non-PED users throw out as excuses for extreme weight gain or lack of conditioning (yes it’s possible, but not to the degree some folks think it is).

-I’ve worked with plenty of competitive BBers, and in their severely dieted down states, due to the low levels of bodyfat, fluctuations in weight simply due to water and glycogen storage are very very trackable (I know, I’ve been called the king of spreadsheets, I track everything). They can go up and down several pounds each day, it’s true, (I fluctuate ~4 lbs throughout the day myself) but scale weights taken at the same time each day move only a pound or two at most. Usually (and I’m sure some people on here will attest to this) it is the care free non-tracking eating schedules that set up a dramatic effect once the #s are reigned in a bit, and someone takes a serious look at just what they’ve been doing. I’ve said it before (and I’m not saying this to stir the pot here), but anyone who ‘magically’ drops 5 lbs from missing a meal should take a serious look at their diet, and how much they actually weigh.

Man, how the hell did this thread go from discussing different people’s opinions of ideal bf%s for making gains to the rehashed argument of the possibility/validity set-points?
What I wouldn’t give to get Aceto, Klemszewksi, or Norton on these forums!

S[/quote]

I can fluctuate anywhere from 5-10 lbs on a given day due to how much I sweat or drink.

But for PED users water retention can definitely be high haha.

150

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

-I have a difficult time believing that the quicker weight loss experienced by heavier individuals is attributable solely to water weight. There’s just too much info out there talking about how the body adapts to hydration fluctuations very quickly, and easily, and debunks a lot of the BS “I was holding water nonsense” that non-PED users throw out as excuses for extreme weight gain or lack of conditioning (yes it’s possible, but not to the degree some folks think it is).
S[/quote]

This isn’t BS. The more muscle someone has the more water gets lost through out the day.

the average NFL lineman can lose up to 10-15lbs in one game. This is well documented. I didn’t expect to have an argument about this considering how well known it is.

Yes, taking in more testosterone can cause more water weight gain.

151

I have always fluctuated 5-10 lbs even when I was 180

152

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
-I’ve worked with plenty of competitive BBers, and in their severely dieted down states, due to the low levels of bodyfat, fluctuations in weight simply due to water and glycogen storage are very very trackable (I know, I’ve been called the king of spreadsheets, I track everything). They can go up and down several pounds each day, it’s true, (I fluctuate ~4 lbs throughout the day myself) but scale weights taken at the same time each day move only a pound or two at most. Usually (and I’m sure some people on here will attest to this) it is the care free non-tracking eating schedules that set up a dramatic effect once the #s are reigned in a bit, and someone takes a serious look at just what they’ve been doing. I’ve said it before (and I’m not saying this to stir the pot here), but anyone who ‘magically’ drops 5 lbs from missing a meal should take a serious look at their diet, and how much they actually weigh.
S[/quote]

Perfectly agree on this one.
If you track your intake long enough in a sensible way, it should be easy to learn how your body reacts to different food intake in the short term.
It is annoying what ridiculous claims some of those non-tracking people come up with.

153

I’m not denying water lost throughout the day, heck, I’ve done nutritional work for a number of professional athletes (not bodybuilders, actual athletes), and hydration is always a concern. Water weight lost, as any physique competitor who is right on the cusp of two weight classes on contest day will attest, can be easily and relatively quickly regained. If we’re eating a healthy diet, even with regular daily sweat inducing exercise, how much glycogen can a person lose in a day, or even a week if they’re replenishing lost glycogen, and thus lost water, throughout the day with a sensible diet?

It’s like I said previously, scale weight throughout the day will fluctuate for everyone (especially for larger individuals), even more so if PEDs are involved (thanks for agreeing Bauber -lol), but as you were saying earlier, the body adapts. Klemszewski, Norton, all of the ‘really really smart guys’ that physique athletes work with (and all with Doctorates as well as personal accomplishments in the competitive side of things) cite the same studies about sodium and water. Apparently we can screw with things all we want, but not only will blood levels of sodium remain constant despite people messing with their diets (excreted sodium is a different story), but net water balance will remain fairly constant as well (Berardi touches on this in his PN text). That, along with personal experience with clients (competitive and non-competitive) as well as myself leads me to my statement about average daily scale weights being subject to only minor movement on a day to day basis.

(No, I’m not attempting to lecture X with information I’m sure is already known, but for everyone else, just take a moment and reread the information I just laid out. It explains a hell of a lot when you’re actually arguing with your scale during a diet, or having to listen to a co-worker as they express confusion over their own progress.)

S

154

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
I’m not denying water lost throughout the day, heck, I’ve done nutritional work for a number of professional athletes (not bodybuilders, actual athletes), and hydration is always a concern. Water weight lost, as any physique competitor who is right on the cusp of two weight classes on contest day will attest, can be easily and relatively quickly regained. If we’re eating a healthy diet, even with regular daily sweat inducing exercise, how much glycogen can a person lose in a day, or even a week if they’re replenishing lost glycogen, and thus lost water, throughout the day with a sensible diet?

It’s like I said previously, scale weight throughout the day will fluctuate for everyone (especially for larger individuals), even more so if PEDs are involved (thanks for agreeing Bauber -lol), but as you were saying earlier, the body adapts. Klemszewski, Norton, all of the ‘really really smart guys’ that physique athletes work with (and all with Doctorates as well as personal accomplishments in the competitive side of things) cite the same studies about sodium and water. Apparently we can screw with things all we want, but not only will blood levels of sodium remain constant despite people messing with their diets (excreted sodium is a different story), but net water balance will remain fairly constant as well (Berardi touches on this in his PN text). That, along with personal experience with clients (competitive and non-competitive) as well as myself leads me to my statement about average daily scale weights being subject to only minor movement on a day to day basis.

(No, I’m not attempting to lecture X with information I’m sure is already known, but for everyone else, just take a moment and reread the information I just laid out. It explains a hell of a lot when you’re actually arguing with your scale during a diet, or having to listen to a co-worker as they express confusion over their own progress.)

S[/quote]

Oh I agree I was just agreeing witht he daily fluctuations and mine always being quite large but also very predictable based on activity and carb intake.

155

why even count anything or try to predict any of this - the body is way too complex for stuff like that. You gonna hit your macros after an apocalypse?

Stu thanks for your posts as always - what are your thoughts on peak week manipulations then? It seems like people are going simpler and simpler with this

156

[quote]browndisaster wrote:
Stu thanks for your posts as always - what are your thoughts on peak week manipulations then? It seems like people are going simpler and simpler with this[/quote]

I think that when your body is as insanely lean as pre-contest BBers are, subtle little things do have the possibility to make a difference visually. BUT, while you can’t really “fool your body” to the degree some people like to imagine, you can get some effect out of certain manipulations for short durations. It’s probably safe to say that the extent to which different coaches agree with this statement will vary, yet all have been able to bring people to the winner’s circle, so IMO it simple reinforces the notion of individuality.

S

157

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]browndisaster wrote:
Stu thanks for your posts as always - what are your thoughts on peak week manipulations then? It seems like people are going simpler and simpler with this[/quote]

I think that when your body is as insanely lean as pre-contest BBers are, subtle little things do have the possibility to make a difference visually. BUT, while you can’t really “fool your body” to the degree some people like to imagine, you can get some effect out of certain manipulations for short durations. It’s probably safe to say that the extent to which different coaches agree with this statement will vary, yet all have been able to bring people to the winner’s circle, so IMO it simple reinforces the notion of individuality.

S[/quote]
thanks. Now that I’m not so fat I’m actually seeing how big a difference holding water or being carbed up can make.