Heavy 10's

[old] matteo · Post by **[old] matteo** » June 14th, 2004, 5:05 pm

It wouldnt surprise if rangers body fat is that low. Mine is 4.9%, Im 6' 6" and 97.2kgs last time I weighed myself!

[old] eurofoot13 · Post by **[old] eurofoot13** » June 16th, 2004, 11:01 am

wait - so averaging 155 lbs now as an 18 year old I can still be competetive at a lightweight level when I "grow up"? If so, you've just made my day!

[old] bhutz · Post by **[old] bhutz** » June 16th, 2004, 11:48 am

As much as I dislike responding to anything ranger posts, this last one is just encouraging dangerous behavior (as eurofoot13's reply indicates) and having rowed lightweight for the past 7 years, I seen my share of "shenanigans" and their effects. The comment "I would guess that most heavy lightweights are more like 175 lbs. most of the time. Therefore, if they have 160 lbs. or so of lean body mass, they have more like 9% body fat, not 3.6%." in particular. I don't disagree that many lightweight stay a few pounds over racing weight throughout the year as it is heathier and leads to better recovery(and hence training), but 175 is too far in my opinion. If you want to see the yearly "fluctuation" of weights for lightweights and typical weights for competetive lightweights take a look at the national team testing on the usrowing website. Each athelete submits a weight with each time. So you can see athlete weights from November to April. Even a weight of 170 at ANY time of the year is exceptional much less 175, in fact, few are over 165. So while yes "most heavy lightweights are more like 175" could in fact be a true statement. The problem is that there are few "heavy lightweights" and I would strongly discourage anyone 175 and 9% body fat to row lightweight unless they only ever planned on erging. Especially since if you row in a team boat, the boat average must be 70kg(154.5lbs). IF you are 175 and insist on rowing lightweight, my advice would be to lose some muscle. The "shenanigans" that it takes to make weight will have a worse effect on performance than losing the muscle and making weight more comfortably. Between rowing, wrestling, and boxing there are deaths every year from exactly this. eurofoot13 at 6'5", unless you have already filled out at 155, look towards rowing heavy, you're plenty tall. Ben

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » June 16th, 2004, 3:13 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (bhutz @ Jun 16 2004, 10:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>As much as I dislike responding to anything ranger posts, this last one is just encouraging dangerous behavior (as eurofoot13's reply indicates) and having rowed lightweight for the past 7 years, I seen my share of "shenanigans" and their effects. The comment "I would guess that most heavy lightweights are more like 175 lbs. most of the time. Therefore, if they have 160 lbs. or so of lean body mass, they have more like 9% body fat, not 3.6%." in particular. I don't disagree that many lightweight stay a few pounds over racing weight throughout the year as it is heathier and leads to better recovery(and hence training), but 175 is too far in my opinion. If you want to see the yearly "fluctuation" of weights for lightweights and typical weights for competetive lightweights take a look at the national team testing on the usrowing website. Each athelete submits a weight with each time. So you can see athlete weights from November to April. Even a weight of 170 at ANY time of the year is exceptional much less 175, in fact, few are over 165. So while yes "most heavy lightweights are more like 175" could in fact be a true statement. The problem is that there are few "heavy lightweights" and I would strongly discourage anyone 175 and 9% body fat to row lightweight unless they only ever planned on erging. Especially since if you row in a team boat, the boat average must be 70kg(154.5lbs). IF you are 175 and insist on rowing lightweight, my advice would be to lose some muscle. The "shenanigans" that it takes to make weight will have a worse effect on performance than losing the muscle and making weight more comfortably. Between rowing, wrestling, and boxing there are deaths every year from exactly this. eurofoot13 at 6'5", unless you have already filled out at 155, look towards rowing heavy, you're plenty tall. Ben </td></tr></table> Ben-- My comments were just about erging, not rowing on the water. I suspect that I will indeed row as a heavyweight when I get competent enough to race my new scull on the water. I don't think that national team members are a proper comparison to make. They are obvious exceptions, given that they might be devoting the greater part of their time and energy to rowing, rather than, say, to their spouses, children, jobs, homes, communities, and so forth, as would be the case for any 53 year old, such as myself. I could also maintain my weight right at 165 lbs. if my life were devoted primarily to rowing. In fact, this is what I have to do for a month or so before the CRASH-Bs each year. When I set the 50s lwt world record in 2003, I raced as a lightweight for 5 consecutive weekends. No problem. I just had to watch my weight carefully for a month or so. My citing of off-season weights for lightweights as high as 175 lbs. comes from what I have heard of others who are directly parallel to me, e.g., other lighweight world record holders on the erg, such as Mike Caviston. I suppose you can argue against the facts, but I am not sure why you would want to. I am not 6'5". I am 5'11". I am also very light-boned. When I ran marathons seriously in my 20s, 30s, and 40s, I was usually around 160 lbs. when I was in top shape and racing. There is nothing dangerous about my being 165 lbs. Before the weigh in when I race, I do sit ups and jump rope to sweat off some water. These activities are hardly dangerous to my health! During racing season I do almost exactly the same routine to warm up for erging each day. What I do to make weight has had no effect whatever on my races. I have one of the most consistent racing records imaginable. My lightweight pb is just .5 seconds over my heavyweight pb. I broke the world record in my division in three out of my last four races, and I won the fourth race (the European Open) by amost 15 seconds, even though I suffered in this case from the wear and tear of the travel, I think, and was a second per 500 slower than I might have been. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » June 16th, 2004, 3:17 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (bhutz @ Jun 16 2004, 10:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>As much as I dislike responding to anything ranger posts, this last one is just encouraging dangerous behavior (as eurofoot13's reply indicates) and having rowed lightweight for the past 7 years, I seen my share of "shenanigans" and their effects. The comment "I would guess that most heavy lightweights are more like 175 lbs. most of the time. Therefore, if they have 160 lbs. or so of lean body mass, they have more like 9% body fat, not 3.6%." in particular. I don't disagree that many lightweight stay a few pounds over racing weight throughout the year as it is heathier and leads to better recovery(and hence training), but 175 is too far in my opinion. If you want to see the yearly "fluctuation" of weights for lightweights and typical weights for competetive lightweights take a look at the national team testing on the usrowing website. Each athelete submits a weight with each time. So you can see athlete weights from November to April. Even a weight of 170 at ANY time of the year is exceptional much less 175, in fact, few are over 165. So while yes "most heavy lightweights are more like 175" could in fact be a true statement. The problem is that there are few "heavy lightweights" and I would strongly discourage anyone 175 and 9% body fat to row lightweight unless they only ever planned on erging. Especially since if you row in a team boat, the boat average must be 70kg(154.5lbs). IF you are 175 and insist on rowing lightweight, my advice would be to lose some muscle. The "shenanigans" that it takes to make weight will have a worse effect on performance than losing the muscle and making weight more comfortably. Between rowing, wrestling, and boxing there are deaths every year from exactly this. eurofoot13 at 6'5", unless you have already filled out at 155, look towards rowing heavy, you're plenty tall. Ben </td></tr></table> Ben-- My comments were just about erging, not rowing on the water. I suspect that I will indeed row as a heavyweight when I get competent enough to race my new scull on the water. I don't think that national team members are a proper comparison to make. They are obvious exceptions, given that they might be devoting the greater part of their time and energy to rowing, rather than, say, to their spouses, children, jobs, homes, communities, and so forth, as would be the case for any 53 year old, such as myself. I could also maintain my weight right at 165 lbs. if my life were devoted primarily to rowing. In fact, this is what I have to do for a month or so before the CRASH-Bs each year. When I set the 50s lwt world record in 2003, I raced as a lightweight for 5 consecutive weekends. No problem. I just had to watch my weight carefully for a month or so. My citing of off-season weights for lightweights as high as 175 lbs. comes from what I have heard of others who are directly parallel to me, e.g., other lighweight world record holders on the erg, such as Mike Caviston. I suppose you can argue against the facts, but I am not sure why you would want to. I am not 6'5". I am 5'11". I am also very light-boned. When I ran marathons seriously in my 20s, 30s, and 40s, I was usually around 160 lbs. when I was in top shape and racing. There is nothing dangerous about my being 165 lbs. Before the weigh in when I race, I do sit ups and jump rope to sweat off some water. These activities are hardly dangerous to my health! During racing season I do almost exactly the same routine to warm up for erging each day. What I do to make weight has had no effect whatever on my races. I have one of the most consistent racing records imaginable. My lightweight pb is just .5 seconds over my heavyweight pb. I broke the world record in my division in three out of my last four races, and I won the fourth race (the European Open) by amost 15 seconds, even though I suffered in this case from the wear and tear of the travel, I think, and was a second per 500 slower than I might have been. ranger

[old] eurofoot13 · Post by **[old] eurofoot13** » June 16th, 2004, 4:20 pm

so, I should concentrate on going heavy? I was really concerned about the transition, due to the fact that I feel I may lose speed while bulking up. I may gain power, but I'll lose the aerobic conditioning - certianl;y in the time it takes to put n 10 - 15 lbs of weight. (even more eventually). I certainly wish to stay competitiive in my weight class - I don't relish being the 170lb heavyweight. However, I do think that you are right - being 18/155/ and relatively low body fat % ( 5-10%) I think becoming a heavy is something I might need to do

[old] drkcgoh · Post by **[old] drkcgoh** » June 16th, 2004, 7:03 pm

Body fat measurement has been loosely thrown about without much thought as to its accuracy. The commonly used Bioelectric Impedance Assessment (BIA) has been ranked <5 among other methods, where DEXA is ranked 1-3 in a recent paper delivered at the American Society of Clinical Nutrition by Saltzman & Roubenoff. In that paper, even Underwater Weighing, the Gold Standard for Body Fat measurement is ranked 3, while Anthropometry (including skinfold caliper measurement is ranked 5-10. That is why BIA is not used in Sports Medicine to track Body Fat improvement among athletes. What is used is Sum of Skin Folds which is not converted into Body Fat percentage. This figure does not depend on one of the many formulae such as the Siri equation used to calculate Body Fat. These equations depend on age, sex and ethnic groups, and can give widely ranging results if used on the wrong group, or on groups that have not been studied. Body Fat measurement by BIA is notoriously dependent on how much water you drink before measurement, and how expensive the equipment used to measure it is. The budget priced combination bathroom scale is totally unreliable, and gives false results not worth talking aobut. Caliper measurement also depends on the quality & calibration of equipment used besides the training of the person using it. It is much higher immediately after exercise because of skin turgor, and generally gives unrealistically low readings when not properly taken. Coming back to the figures thrown about in this thread, these are some of the conversions for Bodyweight, Body Fat & Lean Body Mass. Weight BF% LBM 175 9% 159.25 175 3.6% 168.7 175 6.0% 164.5 213.84 4.9% 203.37 165 3.6% 159.06 If a person can function normally at 3.6% Body Fat, then one has to take a closer look at the method used to measure Body Fat, and use more reliable methods to measure it again. Among the methods used to make weight, the sudden loss of body fluids that results is widely reported to cause loss of performance. There is no denying that any loss of body fluids results in a loss of performance that correlates very well with the percentage of body weight loss that has resulted. KC62.

[old] drkcgoh · Post by **[old] drkcgoh** » June 16th, 2004, 7:21 pm

Body fat measurement has been loosely thrown about without much thought as to its accuracy. The commonly used Bioelectric Impedance Assessment (BIA) has been ranked <5 among other methods, where DEXA is ranked 1-3 in a recent paper delivered at the American Society of Clinical Nutrition by Saltzman & Roubenoff. In that paper, even Underwater Weighing, the Gold Standard for Body Fat measurement is ranked 3, while Anthropometry (including skinfold caliper measurement is ranked 5-10. That is why BIA is not used in Sports Medicine to track Body Fat improvement among athletes. What is used is Sum of Skin Folds which is not converted into Body Fat percentage. This figure does not depend on one of the many formulae such as the Siri equation used to calculate Body Fat. These equations depend on age, sex and ethnic groups, and can give widely ranging results if used on the wrong group, or on groups that have not been studied. Body Fat measurement by BIA is notoriously dependent on how much water you drink before measurement, and how expensive the equipment used to measure it is. The budget priced combination bathroom scale is totally unreliable, and gives false results not worth talking aobut. Caliper measurement also depends on the quality & calibration of equipment used besides the training of the person using it. It is much higher immediately after exercise because of skin turgor, and generally gives unrealistically low readings when not properly taken. Coming back to the figures thrown about in this thread, these are some of the conversions for Bodyweight, Body Fat & Lean Body Mass. Weight BF% LBM 175 9% 159.25 175 3.6% 168.7 175 6.0% 164.5 213.84 4.9% 203.37 165 3.6% 159.06 If a person can function normally at 3.6% Body Fat, then one has to take a closer look at the method used to measure Body Fat, and use more reliable methods to measure it again. Among the methods used to make weight, the sudden loss of body fluids that results is widely reported to cause loss of performance. There is no denying that any loss of body fluids results in a loss of performance that correlates very well with the percentage of body weight loss that has resulted. KC62.

[old] bhutz · Post by **[old] bhutz** » June 16th, 2004, 8:06 pm

eurofoot13, I actually think you should just let what happens happen. Choose your training program to make you the fastest rower you can possibly be. If you are lacking in basic strength, then get some, but don't lift weights just to be heavier. If after 3 or 4 years you find yourself still 6'5" 165 or so, then row lightweight. However, if you find yourself 6'5" 175 then don't row light. Yes, I mean years. Rowing is mostly an endurance sport and the changes come slowly. However, they come consistantly, so just be patient and watch where your training takes you. I'm guessing the "bulking up" you are talking about involves lots of eating and much time in a weight room. I suggest you go back and have a look at what jjpisano has been experimenting with in this thread and others, a fair amount of research literature believes he is on the right track. While I agree that a certain level of strength is necessary for rowing and injury prevention and is perhaps best done in the weight room, once a good base is accomplished it is the specific strength/power that is what needs to be focused on as jim is doing. This may be a wrong, but it sounds like you are interested in on the water rowing. In which case. there is nothing wrong with being a 170lb heavyweight if you are 6'5". Granted, don't expect to win any hammers at crash-b's, but if 170 is your optimum build, then you'll move the boat just fine. Ben

[old] donm79 · Post by **[old] donm79** » June 17th, 2004, 5:25 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (matteo @ Jun 14 2004, 04:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> It wouldnt surprise if rangers body fat is that low. Mine is 4.9%, Im 6' 6" and 97.2kgs last time I weighed myself!  </td></tr></table> Forgive my scepticism, but I doubt your BF is actually that low. At 6'6", 98kg and <5% BF you would look like a bodybuilder on-stage at a contest. Do you look like an anatomy chart? Do people comment on your "freakish" physique? Do people gasp in awe when you take off your shirt? If not, then you're probably not 4.9%, which is extremely rare. If so, then more power to you! As KC mentioned, BF measurement is notoriously inaccurate and depends on the method used. How was your BF measured? Just for reference, it's generally accepted that the abs become fully visible at around 10% BF. At 8%-9% people would probably say you're extremely lean and ripped. Any lower and you're getting into some very uncommon territory. I don't doubt that Ranger could be around 9%, though that is very rare for a 53 year-old. I do doubt that he's anywhere near 3.6%, and he's already confirmed that he's not! Cheers, Don.

[old] matteo · Post by **[old] matteo** » June 17th, 2004, 4:24 pm

The 4.9% body fat came from when I took part in a study of tall men. I was a little over 14 stone then. Although Ive gained roughly a stone I very much doubt any of it is fat, so the 5% measurement wouldnt be to far out today! Yes I am very toned, and when i do take me top off ppl do stare! Top on just another tall person!

Concept2 Forum

Heavy 10's

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training