How many of you consider yourself low BF%?

[timg]

Simple question really, what is the general makeup of everyone on the forum.

Didn't want to post this in nutrition as that sub-forum scares me.

Are you ripped, skinny or a bit flabby?

I am overweight and quite flabby.

[Vagabond]

I'm fairly lean, last time I got my BF% taken it was at 5.9%. I used to have less than 4%, but that was when I was training over 40 hours a week like a retard.

[Kyle Devlin]

I happen to be quite lean also. 5'11" At ~148lbs. I haven't tested my BF% in a while actually. Less than 10% but i couldn't give a very precise answer.

Maybe i'll go get it tested... I'm definite curious.

[igalk474]

i'm at 7.76 BF%

46kg

1.56m

age 24

bmi 18.9

which i think is optimal for me

i heard that usually 10-6 BF%

is found usually in elite athleths

below 6%

is usually for bodyduilders,

but i think it can be not healthy for long period

[Quick Start Test Smith]

... as that subforum scares me

LOL!

@Vagabond, you are NOT "fairly" lean at 5.9% my friend...

I'm down to 14% and 179 lbs which isn't lean at all. My goal is about 8 percent at 170 or 165 lbs.

[Erik Sjolin]

I'd say that I am.

I haven't had it measured in a while and can't remember the exact numbers, but when Jeff measured it at the seminar last May, it was a crazy low number.

[FREDERIC DUPONT]

Could you guys please add how your BF% was measured?

- What method?

- Who did it?

[Joshua Naterman]

6.92 according to calipers, but right now closer to 9%.

Once you get lean, calipers are no longer accurate. They let you track subcutaneous fat loss, but not true body fat. Only a DEXA gives you a truly accurate picture of that, though the newest revision of the Bod Pods are fairly accurate. Apparently they have a 3% error, which is pretty amazing and enormously more affordable than DEXA.

[igalk474]

accumeasure fitness 3000 caliper

and this formula:

(this is in mm, tested 3 times and did an average of the 3)

ABS 18 18 18

TRICEPS 10 12 10

CHEST 12 14 12

MIDAXILLARY(UPPER SIDE) 10 10 12

SUBCAPULAR(BACK) 12 12 12

SUPRALIAC(LOWER SIDE) 12 12 10

THIGHS 12 12 12

avg

18 = ABS 18.6%F

10.66666666666667 = TRICEPS 11.6%F

12.66666666666667 = CHEST 13.6%F

10.66666666666667 = MIDAXILLARY(UPPER SIDE) 11.6%F

12 = SUBCAPULAR(BACK) 13.6%F

11.33333333333333 = SUPRALIAC(LOWER SIDE) 11.6%F

12 = THIGHS 13.6%F

sum7

75.33333333333334

body density

1.112 - (0.00043499 * 75.33333333333334)+(0.00000055*(75.33333333333334*75.33333333333334))- (0.00028826 *24)

1.112 - (0.0327692466666667)+(0.00000055*(5675.111111111112))- (0.00691824)

1.112 - 0.0358905577777778 - 0.00691824

1.112 - 0.0289723177777778

=

1.083027682222222

body fat %

((4.57/1.083027682222222)-4.142)*100

(4.219652068932344-4.142)*100

(4.219652068932344-4.142)*100

0.077652068932344*100=7.7652068932344% fat

fat mass

(44.7*7.7652068932344)/100=3.471047481275777 kg

lean mass

44.7-3.471047481275777= 41.22895251872422 kg

i heard very good stuff about the bod pod:

FoGHJAj32W4

http://www.cosmed.com/bodpodgs

but i still not sure it's perfect:

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=175

[Banzas]

i'm at 7.76 BF%

46kg

1.56m

age 24

bmi 18.9

which i think is optimal for me

Optimal? I thought you wanted to be a rings specialist...

Chen Yibing:

- 68kg

- 1.60m

Where's your muscle? You need something to protect your joints you know?

[igalk474]

thanks!

i'll think i'll get too heavy

and that it's all about ratio between strength,weight & height

and keeping it balanced

also

there is an other way to get stronger beside increasing the size of the muscle fibers,

you can do it also by improving the muscle contruction and recruit more motor units for the contraction,

and also to do the skill itself in a more optimal way with the correct mechanics, and correct usage of muscle groups, shorter paths actions & variables between skills, and you do it in a way that you still succeed the skill but you less need to exert yourself for doing it, and you have more energy for the next skill, also because if you work on it a lot the body adapts, and it gets easier for it to do it again the next time

i usually try to balance between those 3 for strength:

1) hyperthrophy(myofibrillated mainly) to increase muscle fibers size,

2) teaching my body / arms to contract harder and utilize more precentage of my current muscles potential while still in it's current size

3) optimizing the skill, so it's gets easier for you with your current size/strength

don't get me wrong i do work on hypertrophy,

i was really really skinny at first, like only bones, now i increased the size alot,

but usually i preffer to work on maximal strength and skills

like if this is the months in the year, i usually do something like this:

1: hyperthrophy

2: maximal strength and skills

3: maximal strength and skills

4: hyperthrophy

5: maximal strength and skills

6: maximal strength and skills

7: hyperthrophy

8: maximal strength and skills

9: maximal strength and skills

10: hyperthrophy

11: maximal strength and skills

12: maximal strength and skills

anyway i don't feel my joints working too hard,

mainly because now when i learn a skill,

i begin with learning it with arms bent,

and then when i have the muscle for it,

i lock it, so that still the muscles will do most of the work,

and not just use the joints to do that

so i do work on hyperthropy,

it's just depeneds to what you compare it, it's all relative,

i'm a lot bigger then what i used to be 3 years ago

also i think that in a certain point being too big,

for example, like yuri van gelder or brandon wynn,

can be counterproductive because muscles are heavier than fat,

and it will be harder for you to do the same skills,

they are hugh, but they overcome it because they are also a great athletes

thanks!

i really appriciate your concerns

[RatioFitness]

thanks!

also i think that in a certain point being too big,

for example, like yuri van gelder or brandon wynn,

can be counterproductive because muscles are heavier than fat,

and it will be harder for you to do the same skills,

they are hugh, but they overcome it because they are also a great athletes

Why would they get that big if it hurt their performance on the rings?

[Rik de Kort]

for example, like yuri van gelder or brandon wynn,

can be counterproductive because muscles are heavier than fat,

and it will be harder for you to do the same skills,

they are hugh, but they overcome it because they are also a great athletes

A pound of muscle mass has more than enough strength to overcome its own mass. It is not limiting in any way. Now leg muscle in high-level ring elements is another matter entirely, but we're talking upper body here. Yes, you can train neural strength to a great extent, but to really get to the upper levels, you're going to need a lot of mass as well, 46kg is definitely not optimal. That's a BMI of 18. Now BMI isn't everything, but your bodyfat is also very low. So you're pretty much clinically underweight. Seriously, dude, eat more. It'll benefit your overall performance in the long run.

[igalk474]

A pound of muscle mass has more than enough strength to overcome its own mass.

wow , didn't know it, learned something new!

you can train neural strength to a great extent, but to really get to the upper levels, you're going to need a lot of mass as well

didn't know it was called neural strength, thanks!

i have now found many sites & research documents about it

really interesting

here is some of them:

http://skinnybulkup.com/neural-adaptati ... -training/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_adaptation

http://physiotherapy.curtin.edu.au/reso ... neural.cfm

http://www.training4cyclists.com/streng ... dy-mass-3/

maybe i had some limiting belife about gaining mass being counterproductive for ring training

Why would they get that big if it hurt their performance on the rings?

i don't know?

i actually never understood why they did that

Seriously, dude, eat more. It'll benefit your overall performance in the long run.

i actually worked really hard this year , and gained 4 kg, which was super hard for me,

as something like 10 years straight i was at the same weight 42kg & i was underweight,

so those 4 kg helped a lot,

i'll try to eat more, and work more on gaining lean mass

maybe i'll try to get to 60 kg in the next 2-3 years

also check out this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9156

i'm searching for the perfect protein powder

thanks!

[igalk474]

after reading these

http://physiotherapy.curtin.edu.au/reso ... neural.cfm

few definitions i liked:

Strength

"The greatest amount of force that muscles can produce in a single maximal effort"

Neural mechanisms

"motor unit activation (recruitment, discharge rate), synchronization, and cross education"

amd another interesting thing i have found

Muscle Strength

Significant gains in muscle strength have been shown following short periods of resistance training, which are generally regarded as being too short to elicit morphological changes in the muscle (Moritani and deVries, 1979). It would therefore seem that this strength increase is due to an ability to better activate the muscle. Over time the muscle activation plateaus and CSA increases, suggesting that after a time, hypertrophy is the more significant factor in increased strength. Various suggestions regarding these two factors are explored below...

appereantly increased lean muscle mass and hyperthropy is more important

also this is interesting too:

http://skinnybulkup.com/neural-adaptati ... -training/

[RatioFitness]

Take a look at a number of relative strength/power athletes.

Gymnasts, sprinters, high jumpers, ect.

None of them are really skinny like you. Shouldn't that tell you something? Why would all these athletes sacrifice performance by putting on muscle?

[Nic Branson]

Between 5-9% typically here. 5'6" bit closer to 9 now as I need to put a bit of muscle on again now that I have healed more. Not a great example though as even 9 means I am having dessert twice a week at least.

[Ian Legrow]

I am 6'0, i weight 136lbs. My BMI im not entirely sure but i did a test once and it said iw as at 18%. It was the internet though. I do know for certian that I am 6% body fat, so i guess you could say i am rather lean. I don't consider myself muscular, but latley a lot of people i knwo have been saying i am. One way or another, i think i am relitivley fit!

[igalk474]

thanks, in understood the importance of muscle mass,

i'm working on it now...

[Scott Fischer]

So I'm curious, for those of you who say you're very lean (let's say <10%) - did you make weight loss a priority until you reached you target % or did your body composition change just occur as a side-effect of training (without significant weight loss)?

If it was a conscious choice, how did it affect your performance?

[igalk474]

yeah, it was a priority to get to around 8%

to loss fat while increasing lean muscle mass

[Banzas]

So I'm curious, for those of you who say you're very lean (let's say <10%) - did you make weight loss a priority until you reached you target % or did your body composition change just occur as a side-effect of training (without significant weight loss)?

If it was a conscious choice, how did it affect your performance?

For me it was a priority, I'm not quite in 10%, I think I'm around 11-12% but about 2-3 months ago I was around 13-15% so I'm happy about my progress. I'm not insane about my nutrition but I have it under control most of the time and I do some cardio/HIIT training and of course bodyweight exercises. My goal wasn't weight loss even though I lost about 3/4 kg these months but maybe I'll regain them (with lean mass) when I reach my %BF goal (around 8-10%).

I'm also doing some hypertrophy work 2 times a week but I'm in a "cut phase" so it's hard to notice gains but since I started worrying with my diet (thanks to a college teacher ) my performance increased definitely. Of course lowering %BF is awesome to impress the ladies with great abs but I'm always thinking about performance too.

[Nic Branson]

Not a priority for me. I actually fight to keep my weight up.

[Joshua Naterman]

So I'm curious, for those of you who say you're very lean (let's say <10%) - did you make weight loss a priority until you reached you target % or did your body composition change just occur as a side-effect of training (without significant weight loss)?

If it was a conscious choice, how did it affect your performance?

I've done it a few different ways.

In the Navy I used exercise to create a calorie deficit and ate the best meals I could, and had protein all the time. It was difficult but worked, and my strength plateaued but did not drop when adjusting for the lost bodyweight to account for being able to do the same reps of weighted pull ups with 15 more extra lbs. I was an endurance machine back then, and that didn't change but I didn't see much of any performance increase.

A year ago or so I took a modified energy balance approach where I consumed substrates at the exact time I needed them. This was very effective and I continued to get stronger, but was kind of a pain. If I messed up by not having my sippy drink for two hours I really felt it.

Now I'm just working out and maintaining energy balance, and getting all the carbs I need. Body is recomposing fairly quickly since I am actually able to train full body again for the first time in forever because I'm increasing insulin sensitivity from head to toe. Gaining skills, gaining muscle, losing fat, gaining endurance, no problems, feels very easy. We will know "final" results in September. Currently 213 lbs @ 8-9%. I gained back a bit of fat during finals "week" due to crap eating habits, and took a bit of a break from much of any training beyond some basic neural repatterning and didn't make my diet much better so my body didn't change much. Now it's changing more rapidly than it did at the beginning of the year. Interesting to see the difference resistance training makes so clearly!