I think that’s for the same reason the ‘lower bf = better insulin sensitivity = better gains’ gets debated. Both have basis in science and anecdotal evidence, but is still just ya know, ‘theory’. [/quote]
Two different concepts completely. We can look at studies of insulin sensitivity that show us that simply being a little leaner does not change this variable by itself to a large degree.
Set points are something that would only be of interest to someone making drastic changes in body weight as a goal…which is pretty much only seen in bodybuilding, powerlifting and related activities. That is why we rely on what is being seen in majority…and yes, I know “set points” exist because like most people who have gained a ton of muscular weight, you experience this along the way.
It is one of the reasons the strategy to work on all out mass is given to a newb if they want to maximize their own results and potential.
I think that’s for the same reason the ‘lower bf = better insulin sensitivity = better gains’ gets debated. Both have basis in science and anecdotal evidence, but is still just ya know, ‘theory’. [/quote]
Two different concepts completely. We can look at studies of insulin sensitivity that show us that simply being a little leaner does not change this variable by itself to a large degree.
Set points are something that would only be of interest to someone making drastic changes in body weight as a goal…which is pretty much only seen in bodybuilding, powerlifting and related activities. That is why we rely on what is being seen in majority…and yes, I know “set points” exist because like most people who have gained a ton of muscular weight, you experience this along the way.
It is one of the reasons the strategy to work on all out mass is given to a newb if they want to maximize their own results and potential.
[/quote]
Well I suppose I’ve just seen enough anecdotal evidence from big guys that show both points hold some merit.
Just to add some personal experience to it, as everyone is different, I will say that
< that lean (ie my avatar) was too lean for me.
I’m not naturally a lean guy, I grew up a chubby gamer, so it’s harder for me to get and stay lean (harder than, say, my brother, who grew up playing lots of sports all the time, and I’ve never seen him without abs). When I got to a few % above that I felt great, and lifts had stayed pretty much where they were. The last 8 pounds or so, some of my lifts, especially my bench, plummeted, and I felt terrible, no energy, no motivation, etc.
I was also very very busy at the time, so life stress probably had something to do with that as well. I do believe I lost some muscle there, and I probably should have stopped it at the 8 pounds or so heavier mark, it wasn’t really worth it for me as I was not dieting for a show or anything, but I did learn some about my body, so there ya go.
Some saying they suffer a loss of strength when dropping bodyfat. What are peoples views on athletes holding a low(ish) bodyfat? I know in rugby, backs are expected to sit around 9% and the forwards are to be below 12-13% and a lot of those guys push big numbers around in the gym. Do you think they have become somewhat accustomed to being at a low percentage?. I know they take in a high amount of carbs for the multiple sessions both in the gym and on the field which would help with energy levels.
This thread just confirms how stupid BF numbers really are. Several posters in here clueless as to what 8, 12, 15, etc really look like, yet they have made a ton of progress just fine. See. Doesn’t matter.
For anyone who thinks 8-10% is maintainable year round, go get the hydrostatic weighing, be humbled, recalibrate, move on.
As has been said, the body doesn’t recognize a specific # bf% as much as your muscles don’t recognize the numbers on the DBs you use at the gym. The best point I think that has been made in this thread though, has been concerning too much bodyfat possibly affecting insulin resistance in some way, and too little bodyfat possibly affecting joint stability in some way.
As to the notion of set points (again); I respect Starnes a lot. He’s written some great pieces but like most ‘experts’, his opinion on set points is simply that, an opinion. More often than not, I undoubtedly agree with the man and I have no intention of disrespecting him in the least. However, when you consider that Shelby has progressed from a Bantamweight (if I’m not mistaken) to lightweight, to middleweight, to light heavyweight competitor in a relatively short (IMO) period of years while competing, you can ponder whether it was due to repetitive periods of ‘holding weight’ and attempting to increase his body’s set point, or simply his intelligent, methodical and I would assume fairly continuous use of certain ,ahem, supplements over such a timespan that allowed his dramatic transformation (Palumbo was very subtle about pointing this out in a video interview when Shelby turned pro).
[I am of course simply guessing based upon my own perception here, I make no claims to have any first hand information of any competitors other than my own approach to training, diet, or anything else. I’m only expressing my own hesitance to buy into the theory of forcing the body to adapt to heavier set points]
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
This thread just confirms how stupid BF numbers really are. Several posters in here clueless as to what 8, 12, 15, etc really look like, yet they have made a ton of progress just fine. See. Doesn’t matter.
For anyone who thinks 8-10% is maintainable year round, go get the hydrostatic weighing, be humbled, recalibrate, move on. [/quote]
Maintaining 10% year round is impossible?
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Damnit spidey you have not been near 15[/quote]
lol I think I’m probably around that now. Maybe I just don’t know Bf% well lol[/quote]
No sir 11-12[/quote]
I find it interesting that the click of people on this board who are so quick to deem ProfessorX 30% body fat (when he clearly isn’t), will then jump at the chance to tell their buddies that they are not even near to 15%.
(This is in no way a criticism of your physique, Spidey. I’ve been following your thread and you have made great progress.)
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Damnit spidey you have not been near 15[/quote]
lol I think I’m probably around that now. Maybe I just don’t know Bf% well lol[/quote]
No sir 11-12[/quote]
I find it interesting that the click of people on this board who are so quick to deem ProfessorX 30% body fat (when he clearly isn’t), will then jump at the chance to tell their buddies that they are not even near to 15%.
(This is in no way a criticism of your physique, Spidey. I’ve been following your thread and you have made great progress.)[/quote]
Easy on the grouping ppl hot I’ve never said x was 30%. And someone with a full 6 pack and spiders separation is not 15%. Especially when their frame is not even close to filled out. No offers e spidey.
