I Am Trying To Figure Out My BF %

Ok, I’ll make the changes.

3 Likes

Best wishes. IMO, all the last few posts are productive suggestions.

I would add a strength metric. I always wanted to know when I was losing muscle, and to adjust accordingly. As heavy as you are the squat would not be the best strength metric, because as you lose fat in your hips and midsection, you will be losing support which had aided in squatting greater weight. A better choice would be the bench press or overhead press. Pick a weight and rep range (not singles, but between 5 and 10 reps) that you want to use as a gauge for loss of strength (muscle). Make that exercise part of your weekly routine. If your strength drops, either weight or reps, consider adding some more carbohydrates (I am assuming that you are eating sufficient fats).

Absolutely, I feel like I’m adding too many variables as i just started TRT and the dieting again will make it difficult to gauge, but if you check out my journal, I am doing as you have said. Im glad you mentioned the squat as I was going to use most of my strength gauge off of that movement.

Edit: i also reduced my carbs to 175 at @blshaw 's advice and reduced my overall calories to 2800

1 Like

Off-topic, but I’ve recently been appreciating BMI as a valid marker more and more.

If an individual is going to have a high BMI, then they better be making sure their waist:hip ratio is under 0.95 (men) or 0.8 (women), and their VO2 max is at least above average. If not, they’re probably too fluffy/fat.

With context, I think BMI is a great marker to look at

2 Likes

Context is important, agreed. I’m overweight at 6’1", 195 pounds and 18% body fat at 58 years old. I have abs, but am overweight.

I would be considered “normal” by BMI at 145 pounds.

With context, it’s clear that with my frame I might be normal, but not healthy at 145, that I am “overweight” but healthy at 195.

I think it’s like most things - we should not use a single measurement as a snap shot of our health.

1 Like

I couldn’t disagree more with this entire approach, especially for someone starting from a higher bodyfat. This is the scenario I see leading to stalls that made me write this up last year; When Your Cut Stalls

As you say yourself, the body adjusts, which contradicts the rest of your advice. If you cut slowly, your body has all the time to adjust. If you do 35 min on elliptical everyday (not sure where you came up with this specific number), guess what…your body adjusts. Then you stall and what? 1hr on elliptical per day? That’s a great way to burn yourself out. The body does like to adjust, but a successful cut is about not letting it…we want recomposition.

1 Like

Too fluffy/fat for what?

This didn’t seem right to me, so i ran the numbers you’ve given through a BMI calculator and it estimated you’d need to lose 6lbs to get into the healthy range. 145lbs would put you right on the borderline of underweight.

If it helps, i ran my numbers through after out of interest and it wasn’t so kind to me.

Excellent point. If a goal is performance-based, then this conversation becomes different.

However, i would say such a person is too fluffy/fat to:

  • A) look the way the majority of lifters probably want to look
  • B) not be at a significantly elevated risk of early death
3 Likes

would you be willing to elaborate on this? Specifically, for my current plans?

I wonder if BMI is only concerned with historical understanding of longevity. I mean, muscle mass is only as good as the body determines it to be. As in, we live in a environment where food is plentiful and there is no such thing as famine, but the body is “unaware” of this and is in constant optimization, more muscle mass means it has more tissue to support which requires more calories and heart performance, so reducing all mass overall would be beneficial for survival. the picture attached is a Selous Scout (famous recon unit) from what was Rhodesia. My guy in the pic just finished a 60 mile ruck in like 2 days. He has little to no muscle mass but is an obviously physically capable body. So long story short, BMI is not applicable in an environment in which food supply is not a concern and building muscle mass is an objective.
scouts

Yes - the range for me is 143-189 I believe. Not exactly specific. I’m over the 189 but with good metrics - bloods are good, BF is lean for age, heart rate, etc… all good, but overweight.

Clearly, at 143 (“Normal” just barely), I would likely not be “healthy.”

I do think I would be “healthier” at 180 and 15% BF, but…

It’s quite a broad range.

1 Like

Interesting theory. I vaguely remember a conversation at a Starting Strength seminar - a cyclist was arguing Rippetoe’s opinion that stronger people are harder to kill and more useful in general. With strength comes mass, mass is a cyclist’s enemy.

The conclusion of a bunch of meatheads and SS Coaches was that there is a point of diminishing returns based on your goals - ever hear that before, “What are your goals?”

So, I guess, if I was a hunter and gatherer tracking animals with stealth over long distances, I am guessing the lower end of the BMI would suit me. Living in a sedentary food rich environment allows me the luxury of more mass.

Interesting.

So, is longevity the objective, or is building muscle mass the objective? Pick your goal, and then figure out if BMI is applicable to said goal.

I just meant I think BMI was created with the goal being longevity as BMI was created in the late 1800’s and then slightly revised in the 1970’s. Obviously it be more advantageous in a fight or war (if well supplied) to have more muscle mass. Idk I was just trying to contribute lol

1 Like

We have a whole thread I believe devoted to nothing but BMI

2 Likes

This seems obvious, but when you look at Special Forces troops, many tend to be more wiry vs jacked.

Primarily because, when you’re humping gear through rough terrain, every pound counts.

3 Likes

Absolutely, I think the only argument may be that the muscle mass at the beginning of a deployment would be a advantageous and then the body will consume the muscle as the warfighter experiences prolonged deficit. Idk I definitely know that guys that weighed 180 no taller than 6” were the most efficient soldiers. The only advantage I had was the ability to fireman carry casualties and was immediately made to carry the Barrett lol

2 Likes

What about RFM?

For what goal?

1 Like