View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Anonymous Guest
|
Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2005 2:43 pm GMT +0000 Post subject: What body fat percentage would be to low. |
|
|
From an energy perspective? is 2-4% bad
Also from the joints perspective. (knees)
I know you have glands or something around your joints that are supposed to keep things lubricated with synovial fluid. Does your fat percentage play a role in this. Or will the fluid maintain even if your fat stores are running dry.
I was measured at 2-3% a couple of years ago and my trainer told me to go eat some icecream. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Scott S TMBRA Board Member
Joined: 01 May 2003 Posts: 3090 Location: Houston, TX
|
Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2005 11:26 am GMT +0000 Post subject: |
|
|
2-4%? I'm no expert but that sounds pretty emaciated to me too. My home bodyfat scale has measured only two people with less than 10%, both of them teenagers. The record was 8%, the 16 year old is 5'10" and weighs 132 lbs. Adults are going to be higher, my best was around 14% which is pretty good for a guy in his 40's. Women are also naturally higher, over 20% is not cause for alarm. _________________ Masters 60+;
Rocky Hill and Warda Race Director; TMBRA President |
|
Back to top |
|
|
The Bike Doc 250+
Joined: 08 May 2003 Posts: 1398 Location: Corpus Christi and Warda, Texas
|
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:50 pm GMT +0000 Post subject: |
|
|
Richard:
My apollogies for the delay, I have been extremely busy at work.
For someone of lean body build (Barney Fife) 3-4% body fat is way too low. For someone with a great deal of muscle bulk (AHHrnold Schwartzenegger) 3-4% body fat may not be too out of line, as the far greater amount of muscle mass that makes up the body weight will make the percentage of body fat significantly less and it may not be bad. There is a catch though; if that great deal of muscle bulk was earned with the help of androgenic steroids or their precursors, there can be substantial fat build up in the arteries making the steroid user at great risk for a heart attack. So depending on what your body build is and how you got it that way, the 3-4% body fat may be bad, it may be good or it may be really bad. See a clinical nutritionist to help you sort things out.
Thanks, _________________ Paul K. Nolan, MD
AKA: The Bike Doc |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mtc 100+
Joined: 07 Apr 2004 Posts: 114 Location: Austin
|
Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 8:31 am GMT +0000 Post subject: |
|
|
Oh Doc help me I'm to skinny! Your not making friends here |
|
Back to top |
|
|
The Bike Doc 250+
Joined: 08 May 2003 Posts: 1398 Location: Corpus Christi and Warda, Texas
|
Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:33 am GMT +0000 Post subject: |
|
|
mtc wrote: | Oh Doc help me I'm to skinny! Your not making friends here |
Have you seen my picture? I have been asked to be a Don Knott's stand-in!
Thanks, _________________ Paul K. Nolan, MD
AKA: The Bike Doc |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Anonymous Guest
|
Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2005 3:53 pm GMT +0000 Post subject: |
|
|
Howdy All,
I second all that the Doc has stated above. Your "quantity" of muscle is just as important to your overall %fat as the "quantity" of fat. Afterall, % fat is just a percentage of your total body weight that is fat. The more muscle you have (to a given body weight), the less % fat you have.
OK, from a purely physiological perspective, 2 - 4% is as low as you can go (for a male) and remain anywhere near being "healthy". What I mean by that is that your body requries a specific amount of body fat. Now, do most of us amateur athletes need to worry: not usually. It would be pretty rare for someone to have <4% without some serious exercise, diet, or medical interventions.
Scott, your "home scale" is probably a bio-impedance device (a scale you stand on and it gives you a % fat). These devices work by measuring the resistance to the flow of electricity from point A to point B (ie, foot to foot). What is actually being measured is water. So, be careful in what you're reading on those scales. If you measure yourself at the same time of day (first thing in the am is best), then you can have a fairly reliable measure of your change over time.
Hope this info helps.
Terry Dupler, Ph.D.
Associate Professor in Exercise Physiology
U of H-Clear Lake |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nathan Winkelmann 250+
Joined: 01 May 2003 Posts: 667 Location: Huntsville,TEXAS
|
Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:18 am GMT +0000 Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, Lance is like 3%. If you get down to 1% its unhealthy. Most people are above 10%, unless you live in houston its 30%. _________________ Winkelmann Training Fundamentals-
Get the WTF Experience
whatupthirst@hotmail.com |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MTB-] 100+
Joined: 24 Nov 2004 Posts: 228
|
Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:08 pm GMT +0000 Post subject: |
|
|
Nathan Winkelmann wrote: | Yeah, Lance is like 3%. If you get down to 1% its unhealthy. Most people are above 10%, unless you live in houston its 30%. |
At the end of the tour, not the start.
MTB-) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:29 am GMT +0000 Post subject: |
|
|
YEah, they factor in the non mountain stages and lose weight/fat according to that, so they won't lose too much energy b/f the climbs. Its a delict process that Jan Ullrich hasn't fiqured out yet. This is also how Big Mig lost his 6th, too much weight and couldn't lose it all.-wink |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|