Re: Bodyfat Measuring?

December 9, 2000

(was Optimal range for mass...)

Let me raise one point. The bodyfats I am quoted by bodybuilders - such as

the one quoted by ms. miller - what, in reality, is the truth/factual basis

behind a bodyfat so low? How on earth can a person state with certainty

bodyfat of an individual in a range under 10% - particularly a female? or

the 4% and under for some males? Hershel 's quoted 2%?

I too would like to know how anyone realistically measures - on any given

day, isn't a person " fatter " or " leaner " . Does not composition and it's

measuring depend on digestive contents, water intake, etc.? A certain

measure of dehydration as practiced by some athletes prior to measuring?

One doesn't see these alleged " 7% wonders " with an error range - merely

presented as if this were in truth the entirety of bodyfat for the

individual. Does this account for visceral fat?

It is my recollection ms. miller's bodyweight was around 100 lbs. If so, at

7% - how can this be so? Would not functioning of major organs be adversely

affected? Hair, nails, and skin?

I place this question for discussion as it seems to be something people are

obsessing about - and I would like to know what the consensus of the

esteemed group is. <I do not trust a Tanita for realistic results, sorry>

Also the consensus preference for measurement - in the field, Dexa is

expensive - which of the more available methods would work best to

approximate - since a realistic accuracy appears to be in question based on

comments below?

Thanks,

the Phantom

-----Original Message-----

From: <andreamiller@...>

>> works best for you. " I also gave an example of my quads responding best

>>to a 5-6 rep range, chest and back at 6-10, and calves somewhat higher.

From: Krieger <jkrieger@...>

>Have you actually done carefully controlled " trials " on yourself, trying

>different rep ranges for *long* periods of time, keeping everything else

>(diet, etc.) the same to really see? I tend to favor lower reps in my

>training but I can't honestly say because it works " best " for me...I've

>never done reps, say in the 10-12 range, for long enough periods of time to

>get a good grasp.

>

>Not only that, but there are so many combinations of repetitions and sets.

>For example, let's say that you believe that you get more hypertrophy out

>of sets of 10 rather sets of 5. So, to you, 3 sets of 10 is better than 3

>sets of 5. But what if you did 6 or 7 sets of 5 instead? The results you see

>might be very different.

Krieger:

>One might say that sets of 3 RM are no good for really getting good

>hypertrophy, or at least you might say " It doesn't work for me. " But what

>if you did something like 10 sets of 3 RM? Again, maybe your results would

>be different. Which is why I don't believe in statements like, " I respond

>best to x repetition range. " You can say things like, " I have used x

>repetition range and experienced gains in strength and/or size " , but you

>can't say that it's necessarily the best method. No matter how experienced

>you are, you have not tried everything.

>

>> I said that I train abs at higher reps as I want them defined... i.e..

>>not overly muscular. I am not talking about bodyfat.

Krieger:

>But muscular definition is a function of how much body fat is covering it.

>>I competed this year at 7.43% and am aiming for 6% next summer.

Krieger:

>By what measurement technique was this assessed? If it wasn't DEXA or

>hydrostatic weighing, then your body fat is not that low. This is below the

>8% essential fat for women. At 6% you'd likely be dead. And you might as

>well forget putting decimals on the end of your percentages (like 7.43%)

>because even methods like hydrostatic weighing have a +/-2% error

>rate...and skinfolds and BIA are much higher than that. In a *skilled*

>technician's hands, skinfolds have a +/-3.7% error rate (Pollock et al.). And

>this is on average. The error rate may be even higher on an individual basis,

>and in unskilled hands the error rate can become huge. One also has to

consider

>the accuracy of the prediction equation used. Unless the prediction

>equation developed was done off of a large group of female bodybuilders of

>your race, then the equation will likely underpredict your body fat.

>>You simply cannot train with reps for regional bodyfat loss.

Krieger:

>Then give me a physiological rationale for why high reps makes your abs

more " defined. "

>> I mentioned general ranges in use for specific purposes... the ranges

that are " typicially " considered best for the purpose indicated.

Krieger:

>But just because something is " typically " used doesn't make it the best

>way,especially if there is no scientific rationale to support it. Thousands of

>years ago it was " typical " for people to believe the earth was flat. But

>that didn't mean it was.

>> I've read, over the years. The principal of " training to failure " for

>> maximal growth was a foundation in both my Sport Science education and in

>> the human performance lab.

Krieger:

>Why do you blindly accept what has been taught to you as gospel? True

>scientists and people interested in learning always question and challenge

>what is taught to them.

>>It's in a number of exercise physiology and biomechanics textbooks.

Krieger:

>Not in any of mine.

>>And I use it with every bodybuilder I train.

Krieger:

>And since you use it with every bodybuilder you train, that makes it a

>correct principle?

>

>>It's been discussed in a number of professional journals I've read as well,

>such as the NSCA Journal, and BioMechanics.

Krieger:

>It's been " discussed. " But that doesn't make it a true and correct

>principle.

>> 1) Berger conducted a specific study using all possible combinations of

>> one, two, and three sets with two, six, and 10 repetitions per set. His

>> results indicated that three sets of six repetitions most effectively

>> developed strength in the 1-RM bench press.

Krieger:

>It most effectively developed " strength. " But that doesn't mean that reps

>around 10 are best for " hypertrophy. "

>

>Let's say one of the groups did 10 sets of 2 rather than only 3? Do you

>think the results would have been the same? The study by Berger doesn't

>indicate much other than that when you use 3 or less sets, sets of 6 will

>likely give you the best strength gains.

>> 2) Fleck & Schutt also determined that the use of heavier weights with

>> lower repetitions may optimize strength and power.

Krieger:

>You say " Fleck and Schutt " here but then you referenced Fleck and Kraemer's

>book...which is not a study.

>> 3) Another study by Fleck & Shutt indicated that " termination of the

>> exercise before concentric muscular failure may not elicit the maximum

>> benefit possible, because intensity of effort is the primary stimulus for

>> the physiologic adaptations associated with resistance training. "

Krieger:

>This reference you give is *not* a study. It is a review article simply

>stating the *opinions* of the authors based on their interpretations of

>whatever available research there was.

>> I will add that in bodybuilding, there is a common belief that increased

>> blood flow may result from higher rep training, which may bring out

>> vascularity and enhance definition and hardness,

Krieger:

>And many years ago there was a common belief that the earth was flat.

>> has worked for them, myself included. I mentioned that many bodybuilders

>> used a higher rep range for what is called " definition training. " It's

>>not based upon a scientific finding, but a theory that seems to have merit.

Krieger:

>It's not a theory, at least not in the scientific sense. A theory is a

>formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain

>observed phenomena which has been verified to some extent.

Krieger:

> " Definition training " is simply conjecture...a guess.

>> I just pointed it out as one reason the training range is regularly used.

Krieger:

>That may be the reason people use it but that doesn't make it a valid

>reason. It just means people who do that are wasting their time.

>>But, in my own experience,

>> I'll add, I did become more vascular using this training approach, and

>> appeared harder, even when my bf levels remained constant. The striations

>> in my chest and quads were also more noticeable.

Krieger:

>But if you believe that " definition training " works, then you are likely to

>notice things that may actually have been there before but you didn't pay

>much attention to. It is the power of suggestion.

>

>Let's say you are having problem with migraine headaches. I give you a

>pill that I tell you will get rid of your headache. I tell you, " I can't tell

>you how it works, but it definitely works! " You take the pill and your

>headache goes away. I then tell you it was just a sugar pill. Hence, the

>placebo effect...the power of suggestion. You believed it was going to get

>rid of your headache and thus it did. But it was your own bias and

>expectations that got rid of the headache...not the pill.

>

>Let's say I give someone a dietary supplement and I tell them it's going to

>increase their muscle strength and size. It's a placebo, but I don't tell

>them that. After weeks of training the person tells me how wonderful the

>supplement worked and how they got stronger and bigger. But it obviously

>wasn't the pill. Simply by their own expectation of the supplement

>working,they got stronger. Also, they more than likely began to pay more

>attention to their diet and training since they probably wanted to maximize the

>effects of the supplement. And, thus they get greater gains because of

>their own personal bias to what they are paying attention to.

>

>I saw a TV show a long time ago where a professor gave his class a pill and

>he told them it was going to help them sleep better. The next day he asked

>the class if the pill helped them sleep better. The *majority* of the

>class said yes, they slept so much better and slept great. Only two people in

>the class of about 30 said the pill didn't work. And it was just a placebo.

>There is no physiological rationale for " definition training " to increase

>muscular definition. There may be a psychological rationale, but not a

>physiological one.

>> Thanks for your interest. And, good luck on your research, btw. I hope it

>> proves successful.

>Thank you very much. Best wishes to you.

December 10, 2000

>From: " Schaefer " <thephantom198@...>

>I place this question for discussion as it seems to be something people are

>obsessing about - and I would like to know what the consensus of the

>esteemed group is.

Alden:

The only ones obsessing about " bodyfat " or its measurements are the BB

themnselves. And shoud we be surprised?

Obsession with self is a prerequisite to bodybuilding.

Joe Alden

Atlanta USA

________________________________________________________________________________\