Body Fat Percentage
131
Member
1076 days
GogglesPizanto posted 51 weeks ago.
I am 6-3 194. I am usually around 8-9% in season and 10-12%off season. I pretty sure I could go even lower and improve my performance. I only do shorter distances though.
Googles, Out.
The Battle does not always go to the stronger or faster man,
Because sooner or later the man that wins
Is the man that thinks he can.
360
Member
939 days
alowrun posted 51 weeks ago.
I'm usually around 10%, 6'1., 165
Depends on the time of season. Right now I ought to be in better shape, but I'm still testing my volume limits.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
-A-Low
I Believe In Cross Country
2863
Member
1263 days
bluebirdbiker posted 51 weeks ago.
kona_expat posted these a while back. Their optimal runner weights:
http://www.trifuel.com/forums/showpost.php?p=27893&postcount=7
BBB
There are no excuses - so don't look for them. As a product of your own choices, you directly determine your life outcomes.
Don't think, just do.
My Blog
417
Member
1179 days
BrianMc posted 51 weeks ago.
The numbers BBB posted seem pretty accurate. I am currently sitting around 11% but I would like to bring it down to 8-9% in time for next season.
427
Member
388 days
Sully800 posted 51 weeks ago.
How are you all measuring your body fat? Accurate tests like calipers or better yet, underwater weighing? Or the simple but less accurate body scan methods?
I have a Tanita Inner Scan body fat scale, and I'm usually about 185 and 5.0%. However 5% is the minimum number it displays because it says that probably 9/10 times and never a decimal lower....once in a while it is a little higher.
Is this scale accurate at all? 5% seems absurdly low, but I take the measurement almost every day so I at least know its been consistent. And I was measured on a different Tanita product at a health service our school hosted and received the same results.
131
Member
1076 days
GogglesPizanto posted 51 weeks ago.
Sully800;82784 wrote:
How are you all measuring your body fat? Accurate tests like calipers or better yet, underwater weighing? Or the simple but less accurate body scan methods?I have a Tanita Inner Scan body fat scale, and I'm usually about 185 and 5.0%. However 5% is the minimum number it displays because it says that probably 9/10 times and never a decimal lower....once in a while it is a little higher.
Is this scale accurate at all? 5% seems absurdly low, but I take the measurement almost every day so I at least know its been consistent. And I was measured on a different Tanita product at a health service our school hosted and received the same results.
I get underwater weighing every couple years or have somebody knowledgeable do the skin calipers. Never had the scan.
5% is pretty low. If it is accurate, I wouldn't want to go any lower.
Googles, Out.
The Battle does not always go to the stronger or faster man,
Because sooner or later the man that wins
Is the man that thinks he can.
92
Member
475 days
Sloswimr posted 51 weeks ago.
I use a Tanita scale also. From your comment, I have nothing to worry about and am actually a fat @$$.
Thanx, I'll work on this reevaluate my goals.
.jpg "jalyon's picture"){kind=avatar}
43
Member
560 days
jalyon posted 51 weeks ago.
For men, 12% is lean enough to be very good. Sorry, don't know what it is for women, it never really concerned me, maybe something like 20%?
Has anyone ever used a BodPod? It is supposed to be even more accurate than hydrostatic weighing, it's based on putting your weight in a fixed volume (the Pod) and finding out how much room you take up (minus the air in your lungs) and gives lean body mass, body fat %, all that good stuff. My university has one, I didn't know if it really is better or if that is just what they say.
1127
Member
934 days
UFTriGator posted 51 weeks ago.
^Our school has one, too. Sometimes you can still hear girls crying when you're inside...
(the bodpod guy here is mean and they don't like the numbers that come up:D)
______________________________________________
-Matt
Not fast enough.
483
Member
1641 days
trainDaBrain posted 51 weeks ago.
I worked as an intern in the human performance lab during college and used both hydrostatic and caliper testing methods.
Calipers are the next best thing to water dunking. There are variations of 3-point and 7-point tests that will provide you the basic info you need.
My electronic scale(with the body comp function) hardly compares to the numbers I get when calipers are used. The electric current methods are not known for their accuracy.
Hope that helps.
133
Member
939 days
oztrigal posted 51 weeks ago.
I like the attchment in that other post.. I'm right on optimal weight for a chick..
5'7, 122...
Bodyfat according to my scales is 19%, but as above, not sure if it's accurate...
542
Member
682 days
Ironmom posted 51 weeks ago.
5'7", 160, 20%
Over the years, I've had calipers, hydrostatic, and the Tanita electrical current.
Blue Skies, -Robin-
http://ironmom.blogspot.com/
417
Member
1179 days
BrianMc posted 51 weeks ago.
Always just had the scan test. I know they are not the most accurate, but I figure as long as you use the same piece of equipment all the time, the numbers relative to each other should be a good indicator, even if not exactly true.
Maybe I am wrong though.
497
Member
506 days
Socket posted 51 weeks ago.
Only time I ever had it done was back in April when I signed up at the gym. Came in at 6', 180, 15% using the scale sensors.
I have no idea how accurate it may be, but I have read that the ones that read the electrical current tend to underestimate the percentage.
1127
Member
934 days
UFTriGator posted 51 weeks ago.
Socket;82887 wrote:
I have read that the ones that read the electrical current tend to underestimate the percentage.
Yeah, I'll say! Last time I tried one, I came up at -1%. I think I was 168 pounds total body mass and 170-something pounds lean weight. Hrm.
______________________________________________
-Matt
Not fast enough.
17
Member
1083 days
stephencassidy posted 51 weeks ago.
Wow that excel worksheet has me worried, I'm 6'2 and 195 but have a large frame but still look really thin. Guess it is time to drop some lbs
98
Member
578 days
durhamj11 posted 51 weeks ago.
118 - 13%
That will probably go up now... i messed my knee up last night at soccer:(
427
Member
388 days
Sully800 posted 51 weeks ago.
What the heck? I'm not THAT skinny!! And all other tri folks on here are 10+%
I know 5% is exceptionally low, and I'm sure its lower than an accurate reading (average for the year is around 5.5% btw) but I figured some other people would be close at least :confused:
1127
Member
934 days
UFTriGator posted 51 weeks ago.
^That's about where I'm at. One of my old roommates used to be around 2%, though. Our school wouldn't let him race anymore unless he brought it up. (stupid 120 lb XC guys!)
______________________________________________
-Matt
Not fast enough.
24
Member
370 days
Akatsuki posted 51 weeks ago.
Any suggestions on the type of electronic scale to use and obtain a good accuracy of the bfp?
21
Member
1070 days
Stringcheese posted 51 weeks ago.
Sloswimr;82762 wrote:
I'm currently 163 and 17% body fat. I'd like to stay about 165 but get my body fat to 15% or get up to 170 and keep the fat at 17%.
I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here. As an endurance athlete, why wouldn't your goals be aligned with achieving the lower body weight AND a lower % body fat.
The less weight (muscle and/or fat) you drag around on the bike and hills, the faster you'll be.
427
Member
388 days
Sully800 posted 51 weeks ago.
Stringcheese;82961 wrote:
I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here. As an endurance athlete, why wouldn't your goals be aligned with achieving the lower body weight AND a lower % body fat.
The less weight (muscle and/or fat) you drag around on the bike and hills, the faster you'll be.
Right!
Shoot for increasing strength, not weight. Heavy, bulky muscles don't directly correspond to strong muscles. Avoid lifting to exhaustion (whether low weight/high rep or high weight/low rep) and you will avoid increasing sarcoplasmic volume when increasing muscle strength. The big consequence of that is smaller strong muscles.
I don't have any sources to quote for that because its been a while since I've read it. But I've found it to be true from personal experience and that is good enough reason for me!
92
Member
475 days
Sloswimr posted 51 weeks ago.
Stringcheese;82961 wrote:
I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here. As an endurance athlete, why wouldn't your goals be aligned with achieving the lower body weight AND a lower % body fat.
The less weight (muscle and/or fat) you drag around on the bike and hills, the faster you'll be.
A couple of years ago, I was 185 and 19% body fat. I figure that if I put a little meat on than the weight will go up unless I can drop more fat. I was (wrongly) assuming that 15% was getting too low. So I was figuring a balance of weight loss and muscle gain.
I have learned here that I should strive to do both, loss fat and gain muscle.
21
Member
1070 days
Stringcheese posted 51 weeks ago.
Sloswimr;82990 wrote:
A couple of years ago, I was 185 and 19% body fat. I figure that if I put a little meat on than the weight will go up unless I can drop more fat. I was (wrongly) assuming that 15% was getting too low. So I was figuring a balance of weight loss and muscle gain.I have learned here that I should strive to do both, loss fat and gain muscle.
Based on your current wt and % body fat, stength doesn't appear to be an issue.
So, I'm not sure why you think gaining more muscle will help the endurance aspect of your fitness.
If it's about "looking buff", then I understand your reasoning.
If it's about getting faster (losing weight and % body fat), then I fear you will never be as fast as you could be.
668
Member
1102 days
deepbluex posted 50 weeks ago.
I took a test using the electric resistance sensor thing similar to those scales and I'm at 14% at 5'9 and 146 lbs. I've been eating a lot more since the end of my season (for the past month and a half) and gained about 5-7 pounds. At my leanest, I'm about 135lbs and try not to go below that.
35
Member
850 days
TriSig posted 50 weeks ago.
I have had the caliper testing and stay around 7%, i feel like i could go a little leaner though and benefit from it. I'm 5' 10" and 155.
92
Member
475 days
Sloswimr posted 49 weeks ago.
Stringcheese;83096 wrote:
Based on your current wt and % body fat, stength doesn't appear to be an issue.So, I'm not sure why you think gaining more muscle will help the endurance aspect of your fitness.
If it's about "looking buff", then I understand your reasoning.
If it's about getting faster (losing weight and % body fat), then I fear you will never be as fast as you could be.
Its nots so much "looking buff" as not wanting to get too skinny and effecting other aspects of my life/career in the Army. Using the tables, I should shot for 12-15% as long as I can maintain the stregnth needed for the Army.
131
Member
1076 days
GogglesPizanto posted 49 weeks ago.
Sloswimr;83818 wrote:
Its nots so much "looking buff" as not wanting to get too skinny and effecting other aspects of my life/career in the Army. Using the tables, I should shot for 12-15% as long as I can maintain the stregnth needed for the Army.
I think you can get down below 10% if you wanted and still be fine with you Army gig. I was Airborne for 4 years, probably 7-9% (oh to be 20 again)and never had any problems.
Googles, Out.
The Battle does not always go to the stronger or faster man,
Because sooner or later the man that wins
Is the man that thinks he can.
1127
Member
934 days
UFTriGator posted 49 weeks ago.
What do you need to do for the army?
I was the skinniest guy at my PRT last week for the Navy and I was the only one to get a 300. I expected to beat the big guys on the run, but I beat them on the push-ups pretty badly, too, which I definitely didn't expect to do.
______________________________________________
-Matt
Not fast enough.
92
Member
475 days
Sloswimr posted 49 weeks ago.
UFTriGator;83890 wrote:
What do you need to do for the army?I was the skinniest guy at my PRT last week for the Navy and I was the only one to get a 300. I expected to beat the big guys on the run, but I beat them on the push-ups pretty badly, too, which I definitely didn't expect to do.
The APFT isn't an issue. Just took mine this morning and scored over 300. Its the being ready to go to the box and doing your job with a bunch of young studs. You can't lead from the back. The Helmet, weapon, body armor, and ruck all weight the same no matter how much I weigh.
131
Member
1076 days
GogglesPizanto posted 49 weeks ago.
UFTriGator;83890 wrote:
What do you need to do for the army?I was the skinniest guy at my PRT last week for the Navy and I was the only one to get a 300. I expected to beat the big guys on the run, but I beat them on the push-ups pretty badly, too, which I definitely didn't expect to do.
I think back then it was 82 push-ups, 92 sit-ups, and 12:10 for the 2 mile run to max. I always thought the sit-ups were the toughest part, not doing 92 sit-ups, but to do 92 in 2 minutes. We a quite a few guys who would max. We had a pool where guys put in $100, if you didn't max everybody who did got a cut of your $.
Googles, Out.
The Battle does not always go to the stronger or faster man,
Because sooner or later the man that wins
Is the man that thinks he can.
1127
Member
934 days
UFTriGator posted 49 weeks ago.
Sloswimr;83936 wrote:
The APFT isn't an issue. Just took mine this morning and scored over 300. Its the being ready to go to the box and doing your job with a bunch of young studs. You can't lead from the back. The Helmet, weapon, body armor, and ruck all weight the same no matter how much I weigh.
The pen, notebook, and cover that I'll be carrying around the ship are pretty heavy, too. Wuss. :D
______________________________________________
-Matt
Not fast enough.
727
Member
486 days
theShiba posted 49 weeks ago.
UFTriGator;82824 wrote:
^Our school has one, too. Sometimes you can still hear girls crying when you're inside...(the bodpod guy here is mean and they don't like the numbers that come up:D)
Sounds like my kind of test! :D Damn, I'm cold hearted...
56
Member
410 days
tbs_craig posted 49 weeks ago.
im 6'4 185 and i have no idea what my % is. im not sure why it matters, anyone explain?
1127
Member
934 days
UFTriGator posted 49 weeks ago.
tbs_craig;84146 wrote:
im 6'4 185 and i have no idea what my % is. im not sure why it matters, anyone explain?
Beyond the essential fat between organs and whatnot, fat is just extra weight that slows you down. It makes the biggest difference on the run.
______________________________________________
-Matt
Not fast enough.
427
Member
388 days
Sully800 posted 49 weeks ago.
UFTriGator;84148 wrote:
Beyond the essential fat between organs and whatnot, fat is just extra weight that slows you down. It makes the biggest difference on the run.
Or a hilly bike leg!
92
Member
475 days
Sloswimr posted 49 weeks ago.
Sully800;84154 wrote:
Or a hilly bike leg!
It also adds bouyancy and fuels muscle. Distance swimmer seem to have a little extra fat (not ripped like sprinters) and elite Ultra runners seem to have more fat than elite marathoners.
When it comes to strength, it take mass to move mass. So there is a balance per person and activity. IMHO
1127
Member
934 days
UFTriGator posted 49 weeks ago.
The time you would gain in swimming from the buoyancy would be lost tenfold on the run from the extra weight. Plus the amount of fat that your muscles burn for fuel is nowhere near enough to justify carrying the extra weight. In triathlon, just about every circumstance would suggest that having lower body fat helps.
______________________________________________
-Matt
Not fast enough.
435
Member
455 days
stewarba posted 49 weeks ago.
UFTriGator;83992 wrote:
The pen, notebook, and cover that I'll be carrying around the ship are pretty heavy, too. Wuss. :D
LOL, we'll see how well that small frame helps next time your underway during a MASCONFLAG drill and you have to carry a 250lb sailor down a couple of stairwells to the nearest Corpman. Trust me, its a hoot no matter how strong you are.
:D
Pain is the sensation of weakness leaving the body!
I'm currently 163 and 17% body fat. I'd like to stay about 165 but get my body fat to 15% or get up to 170 and keep the fat at 17%.
What is a healthy amountof body for a Triathlete? When is too little getting dangerous? Body Mass Index is useless since it only considers height and weight.