Exercise more for weight loss

[johnlvs2run]

he is not too fat as his total Body Fat is in the healthy range of 18% for a man

The widely quoted <10% Total body Fat for endurance atheltes is a myth

Medical school is a waste.

[hjs]

The widely quoted <10% Total body Fat for endurance atheltes is a myth

http://www.brianmac.co.uk/fatcent.htm

Baseball 12-15% 12-18%
Basketball 6-12% 20-27%
Canoe/Kayak 6-12% 10-16%
Cycling 5-15% 15-20%
Field & Ice Hockey 8-15% 12-18%
Gymnastics 5-12% 10-16%
Rowing 6-14% 12-18%
Swimming 9-12% 14-24%
Tennis 12-16% 16-24%
Track - Runners 8-10% 12-20%
Track - Jumpers 7-12% 10-18%
Track - Throwers 14-20% 20-28%
Triathlon 5-12% 10-15%
Volleyball 11-14% 16-25%


Those numbers are not for 86 years ols, but to say that 10% bodyfat is a myth ??.
Skinfoldmethodes use a rough guide, 50% of our stored fat is just below the skin. If you see 10% or lower % athlete is easy to see there is not much room for . 18% shows very obvious some stored fat reserves.

[Tinus]

10% may be unfortunately chosen as it is close to the average. To state that 'most (top) endurance athletes have a body fat rate above 10%' may be a little bit opportunistic (a statement using the boundary 7-8% would be much stronger supported). It is still strange why this 10% boundary would mean someone at 18% couldn't opt for a different diet. It is less strange to state that 'it may not be necessary to be below (or close to) 10% body fat'. Which of the two is what is stated? Also, it makes a big difference when comparing competitive athletes or recreational athletes.Who are we talking about?

A critical article about the 'being thin in order to be fit' paradigm (or dogma) was placed in a Dutch newspaper recently (De obsessie om te winnen door niet te eten - The obsession to win by means of not eating). It was stated that while many sports men and women have low weight it is not clear whether or not this is really necessary. Also many sports women and some men develop eating disorders. (An interesting piece of work: http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/handle/1871/15724 Thin is going to win? Phd thesis by Karin de Bruin)

[drkcgoh]

Guess you just have to go back to the basics of how Total Body Fat is accurately measured, & textbooks will give you the baiscs of the various methods available. The popular method of BIA (passing an electric current thru your body) gives the widely held assumption that some <10% TBF is so common among athletes, though it has been ranked a lowly 6 among all the available methods. There are also some good charts showing this among Olympic athletes in the various disciplines. Underwater weighing is the Gold standard among all these, though DEXA is the research tool used nowadays, but it is said to be expensive at USD$165 per session. Formal learning takes us thru all this.
Once this basic tool is understood, then go for the proper charts documenting the TBF found in Olympic athletes, & the academic reasons why the various sports see the different TBF in each of them. Meanwhile, the common person achieves his health advantages continuing his Exercise, & stops poring thru the papers documenting its advantages.
It is always good to have the basic education to understand these basics & the cutting edge papers in this field.
Once you have learned this, then apply it to yourself, & conduct some stastical reasearch on it.
Dr.K.C.Goh

[Citroen]

... though DEXA is the research tool used nowadays ...

So you're calculating fat/soft tissue density by subtracting bone density (which is what DEXA measures).

[johnlvs2run]

I was measured at 5% with uww, and a muscular hurdler got minus 1 percent, not an uncommon reading, due to the fact that uww does not account well for muscular mass. This is the same reason that heavily muscled gymnasts get inaccurate low body fat readings. However, it is preposterous to suggest that world class athletes would be 18% body fat, nor that such a body fat percentage would be desirable for any male athlete.

[drkcgoh]

DEXA does not measure Bone Density alone, and the good Prof. Philip S. from Sydney U was the pioneer in this field. However, there is not much publicity to poularize this facet of DEXA, because of its high cost, though I managed to claim all the USD$165 from Medicare, and the Turn Around Time was as low as 9 days when we got paid.
Under water weighing, or Hydrodensitometry is only ranked #3, while BIA is <#5, and DEXA is 1-3 in the table given by "Nutriition Review" Vol49,no.6, page 166, & reproduced by Reubin in San Francisco.
Hydrodensitometry done at the University of Lacrosse, Wisconsin is on a computer balance calibrated to 5gm, whereas at the Univerity of Florida, Gainesville & in many other places, the subject just sits on a spring balance before he is immersed in a pool of water (where the temperature is measured accurately to give you its proper SG up to several decimal places); and you can imagine how accurate this device can be. Besides this, whether you use the Siri, Ortez or other equations depends on the ethnicity & age of the subject, and again, gives a wide variation in the final result. I know because I used to do this serially on myself & on my many subjects. We used to calibrate our DEXA devices every morning before measurement. So it is important to state how you measure the Total Body Fat when you quote from their charts, & <6% is too extreme a figure for any athlete, as theorists claim that a certain amount of fat is essential fro good health & proper functioning of the nervous system. As I have mentionned before, the Total Body Fat can vary from 6% to >20% in the same subject, depending on which method you use to measure it, and there is confusion as to which method to use.
We must understand Total Body Fat properly before any claims can be made about how high or low we need to aim for.
Dr.K.C.Goh

[Tinus]

What do these same textbooks, which tell the basics about measurements, tell about the body fat percentage in athletes?

Rolfes et al. state in 'In Understanding normal and clinical nutrition, 8th edition, p 262':

For some athletes, then, ideal body fat might be 5 to 10 percent for men and 15 to 20 percent for women.

This is the non-US version so maybe the same textbook in the US might mention different (higher ) values.

This study (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/conten ... a713776308), using DXA, measures 11% as an average for athletes (but the deviation makes values below 10% not uncommon).

[johnlvs2run]

Underwater weighing is the Gold standard among all these

Under water weighing, or Hydrodensitometry is only ranked #3

So much for consistency.

<6% is too extreme a figure for any athlete, as theorists claim

Theoretical BS.

As I have mentionned before, the Total Body Fat can vary from 6% to >20% in the same subject, depending on which method you use to measure it, and there is confusion as to which method to use.

Well then don't use it any more.

We must understand Total Body Fat properly before any claims can be made

The idea that people should stuff themselves with poor food choices just because they exercise mildly now and then is total rubbish. Though both are important, one's food choices are even more important then exercise.

[drkcgoh]

Sounds Greek to the non professional. doesn't it. The easiest reponse is to say "it is all Rubbish", & stick to your own beliefs. If some people think that DIET is all important. & mild exercise is all they can do, then go for it. No one is trying to persuade them to change course, as there is no point in trying to convince anyone who thinks he alone knows best.
Dr.K.C.Goh

[johnlvs2run]

No, it sounds like worthless babble to someone with a brain.

Mild exercise and eating whatever you want, transfats, plutonium, benzene, food coloring, aspartame, msg, and sitting on your butt at church picnics is not a cure all for anything.

Yes, indeed, it is quite easy to say that rubbish is rubbish, because rubbish is, after all, rubbish.

[hjs]

the Total Body Fat can vary from 6% to >20% in the same subject, depending on which method you use to measure it, and there is confusion as to which method to use.

Dr.K.C.Goh

The fact is simple, at a given moment out bodyfat % is a given percentage. So the figurs you get are wrong. If you would use the skinfold technique you will never get very wrong outcomes. The way you put is is wrong, the bodyfat can not vary in a subject at a given time.

BMI. You where taking about a bmi 27 man. 18% fat. If I take an av height say 1.80 that would mean 88 kg. I dare you to find any endurance athlete with that weight who is any good. This man is A to fat and B had to much useless muscle to carry around. Strenght is not much needed for a triathlon.

[drkcgoh]

It's useless talking to non professionals who think they are the only ones with a brain.
Show it with your credentials or useful posts
No more wasting of time here. It's not worth looking here anymore.
Dr.K.C.Goh

[hjs]

It's useless talking to non professionals who think they are the only ones with a brain.
Show it with your credentials or useful posts
No more wasting of time here. It's not worth looking here anymore.
Dr.K.C.Goh

If you are the standard for a professional it's very logic that 50% of the us is morbidly obese.

[Tinus]

I think this whole thread is a big misunderstanding.