What % body fat can be maintained without drugs?

[Le breton]

.....
You are loosing height because your bone mass declines........

Bone mass loss had crossed my mind before but I had dismissed it. It's just now, reading your response, that I became aware that it could be a factor in my overall weight loss.
I had not before realized that bones could make up 15 % of the total body weight (I thought it was much less). Since I have low bone density, it could in fact account for a non negligible part of my total weight reduction.

So, thanks for your interest and for your answer.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Bone mass loss had crossed my mind before but I had dismissed it. It's just now, reading your response, that I became aware that it could be a factor in my overall weight loss.
I had not before realized that bones could make up 15 % of the total body weight (I thought it was much less). Since I have low bone density, it could in fact account for a non negligible part of my total weight reduction.

So, thanks for your interest and for your answer.

As you probably already know, cycling is not helpful for bone density, as it's low impact.

Walking and other body weight exercises as part of the exercise program would help, I believe. It's certainly something I am incorporating into my ongoing fitness plan.

 

[Le breton]

As you probably already know, cycling is not helpful for bone density, as it's low impact.

Walking and other body weight exercises as part of the exercise program would help, I believe. It's certainly something I am incorporating into my ongoing fitness plan.

Yes, for a number of years now I have been doing more walking than just the normal everyday type of walking. (Unfortunately it's not advisable for me to run (except uphill) as a consequence of a car accident in 1997).

Guess I should also go to the gym.

Thanks Dear Wiggo

 

[silverrocket]

People who exercise do not want to look like a cyclist.

This is a spectacularly inaccurate overgeneralization about why people exercise, what cyclists look like, what people want to look like, and even the nature of cycling.

 

[Briant_Gumble]

This is a spectacularly inaccurate overgeneralization about why people exercise, what cyclists look like, what people want to look like, and even the nature of cycling.

Agreed since when has exercising been 100% about how you look? Absurdly shallow.

Moreover, there's a lot of people in the ultimate physique category who have ironically suffered an early death because its so easily obscures by drugs.

 

[alitogata]

Bone mass loss had crossed my mind before but I had dismissed it. It's just now, reading your response, that I became aware that it could be a factor in my overall weight loss.
I had not before realized that bones could make up 15 % of the total body weight (I thought it was much less). Since I have low bone density, it could in fact account for a non negligible part of my total weight reduction.

So, thanks for your interest and for your answer.

Yes but your declining bone mass can't be the main reason of loosing weight, or at least is not something that you can easily notice when you count your weight. In any case if you suspect that you are loosing rapidly bone mass, something that is not very probable by the time you are training, you have to ask a professional about what to do. Perhaps you'll have to change your diet and add some supplements that will help you retain the bone mass that you have and not loose more.

Have in mind that any physical activity is good for osteropenia, ( osteoporossis it the worst stage of loosing bone mass) because oxygen intake and strong muscles help keep the bone mass and the good condition of bones and joints. Cycling is a low impact exercise too, so is one of the best workouts for such things.

In any case there is nothing to be scared of. Do a bone density measurement scan to know where you are, keep on cycling, don't stop your activities in any case, eat well and think positive because positive thoughts protect our health more than any other possible factor.

We all grow older my friend.. nobody is excluded. So the trick is to live well and with the best way we can with what we have. And we live, if you think a little about it, to a very privileged era.. just think that people in past decades didn't have all this advanced technology and they were supposed as old from a younger age than we do now. ( if they ever reached their seventies or so).

Everything will be fine. Don't let yourself worry..Be active and think positive and everything will be fine.

 

[alitogata]

This is a spectacularly inaccurate overgeneralization about why people exercise, what cyclists look like, what people want to look like, and even the nature of cycling.

Agreed since when has exercising been 100% about how you look? Absurdly shallow.

Moreover, there's a lot of people in the ultimate physique category who have ironically suffered an early death because its so easily obscures by drugs.

I said the same.. people don't exercise in order to get a specific look. At least not all. It is obvious that fitness industry uses vanity as a good reason for selling fitness services and products but people exercise mainly for being healthy and not for being beautiful or have "the look".

Anyway..perhaps Galic Ho meant something different and we misunderstood what he meant.

 

[hiero2]

Percentage of fat is not something standart for everyone. It depents on your gender, high, body type, ( ectomorph, mesomorph or endomorph ), race and other factors.

9% t is not high at all. And if you are a woman it is low. The percentage of fat that you get with medical tests is the fat that exists inside your body between your organs too, not only this that you can easily see in the shape of your body. So if you want to know what is the % of body fat that is better for you, you have to do some tests to a doctor and not making coclusions from other people's cases.

I've been maintaining 22% without any drugs, diet or exercise whatsoever.

ROFLMAO!!!! Good one, DW!!!

Damn. I've been training, and I am way higher than that.

The minimum percent body fat considered safe and acceptable for good health is 5% for males and 12% for females. However, the average adult body fat is closer to 15%-18% for men and 22%-25% for women

Dave.

Other ppl have got this answered now, I just want to validate what they said. 9%, male or female, is low. For a female that is VERY low, perhaps dangerously so. Some people are naturally that low, but those folks are few and far between. I grew up pre-steroids, and I remember discussing what body fat (BF) % was needed for a body-builder to "show". It was 9% or less (males only back then). 5-6% was desired, but difficult to hit, and unhealthy to maintain. It CAN be maintained by diet, but your body will begin to cannibalize and shut down. When Wiggo says he is that low (5%) in a TdF, I have to believe him. The weight loss and stress of a GT are known from way back. For most guys, 12-14% will be as lean as they will ever be able to get in a healthy fashion. Past that, and the body will respond with fatigue and/or ravenous hunger.

I enjoyed the photo display of female BF% - that was pretty good graphics of each category.

 

[Galic Ho]

I'm not going to flame you.

I maintained 8% for 4 years training 2 hours per day (not cycling) and went to 12% for some of that time, but could easily have gone lower if I wanted. No drugs involved. Just good exercise and great nutrition.

That's a while ago now and I'm nowhere near that, but I don't see it as a problem for athletes.

I just wondering how you measured you body fat % and what was the frequency of measurements?

As I said, based on my measurements, height and weight I've been told I was @ 6%. Truth be told I thought I was between 12 and 15%, because I could have afforded to lose more body fat to get more ripped.

 

[Galic Ho]

What I was getting at is that, in 2009, Wiggins said he couldn't hold that low body fat for long, as it would be very unhealthy. He was at 72 kg and 5% body fat, according to him, and that's why he could climb the way he did.

In 2012, Wiggins said to be at 69-70 kg for the Tour, and he was close to his top level pretty much from February to early August.

Something doesn't add up. If his weight and body fat figures are right, then he was holding unnaturally low figures for half a year. But Eric Boyer said Wiggins was already close to 5% body fat in top shape at Cofidis, weighing what, ~77 kg? When the figures being mentioned don't make any sense, it's only fair to wonder if we're witnessing some weight shenanigans of the sort Armstrong was so fond of.

Maybe he's just trying to hide ridiculous watt figures on top of all the AICAR.

Bingo. That's the problem I always found with the talk about Wiggins. He couldn't afford to drop his supposed weight loss in body fat because it was already at a low level given he was an Olympic Gold medallist. For his body fat to have been higher, he'd have been inefficient and for a pro cyclist, yes he would have been called fat. It's a given that his body fat was already very low. So what did he lose in weight? What I've said all along, functional muscle mass and that isn't something you can point a finger at and go boom, presto chango for a specific body part. Body fat yes, muscle mass, no. It's very hard.

Lets not kid ourselves here. We know cyclists take drugs to lose wait or maintain roid cycles. Contador was caught doing it. There are two reasons you take Clenbuterol and I'm going with the obvious one. To lose excess weight. Losing weight is easy enough for some, but when you're already lean and can't afford to go to far, otherwise you drop power...enter the illegal drugs. It's what I thought Contador did and the left over traces from an earlier cycle in the season were caught in his blood bag.

 

[Galic Ho]

ell you tomorrow what is my opinion about the things you said.

Have a nice day ( or night ) and I wish you the best

I wrote out a length reply to each section of your comment. Then realised I was wasting my time and discarded it.

I talked about body fat and what I believe is normal. I also tried to contrast fitness professionals versus pro athletes. If you didn't read that, I don't care. Your time is your time, mine is mine. I'm not going to write a two line generic comment that touches on jack sqaut. So you can wish, I don't care. I don't control the inter webs and cyber space and who ever should find this thread, let alone website.

BTW, not being mean, but being the first to reply doesn't give you kudos or special privilege points.

 

[Galic Ho]

Maybe he lost more muscle?

JV reckons Dekker is going to lose 4kg this year - 2kg muscle, 2kg of fat, and boost his absolute power. ... ...

Well seeing how crap he's been off the epo, he needs to lose the weight.

Did JV say this in one of the two threads dedicated to him?

Is he on the Tommy D special? The gluten free or the Inuit tailored diet? Do remember, Dekker hadn't been racing for three years. It's natural to expect him to have to lose some weight somewhere along the line.

 

[Galic Ho]

I have 5% body fat but I sure don't look like the guy in the picture on page 1

How was it measured? There are two exact methods that are accurate. The rest are sheer guidelines and are variants of Anthropometric measuring. They simply use equations and punch in measurements, height and weight and give you a relative body fat %.

You want to use Hydrostatic Weighing or DEXA these days. They are the most accurate. Skin folds are the other alternative. The most accurate besides Hydrostatic Weighing and Dexa without the price impracticality.

If a male has 5% body fat, you can see it in every muscle group. Every muscle group, especially their arms, chest, trunk and abdomen. In my experience, most people who are told they are 5-8% who are male are actually in the 12-15% range. They think they're lower because they don't see a lot of body fat in key body regions. If you don't look like those pictures (excuse the muscle mass on those really ripped guys), then you're really not 5%. But you're still very healthy no doubt. Honestly, 10% is low for a man, and borderline dangerous for a female. Only a naturally skinny person can stay at 5-6% for a long time, ie; a lifelong ectomorph.

 

[alitogata]

I wrote out a length reply to each section of your comment. Then realised I was wasting my time and discarded it.

I talked about body fat and what I believe is normal. I also tried to contrast fitness professionals versus pro athletes. If you didn't read that, I don't care. Your time is your time, mine is mine. I'm not going to write a two line generic comment that touches on jack sqaut. So you can wish, I don't care. I don't control the inter webs and cyber space and who ever should find this thread, let alone website.

BTW, not being mean, but being the first to reply doesn't give you kudos or special privilege points.

My reply is in the post no 70. It seems that you miss posts due to momentum.

 

[S2Sturges]

As with any complex biological trait there is no magic cut off number really that you can apply to populations. 9% for a guy is low, but especially in the population of cyclists that are selected to have low body fat, there are certainly some that hover around there. There's also the fact that you can just starve yourself to less than that for short periods of time to dip below your body's preferred status with self discipline.

TL;DR: There's no way to just say you can't be that skinny naturally, some guys are just skinny.

I remember reading that Hinault, in his day, claimed 3% body fat.... he sure didn't look like figure A....Mind you, I'm not going to challenge either of them to their face....

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Well seeing how crap he's been off the epo, he needs to lose the weight.

Did JV say this in one of the two threads dedicated to him?

Is he on the Tommy D special? The gluten free or the Inuit tailored diet? Do remember, Dekker hadn't been racing for three years. It's natural to expect him to have to lose some weight somewhere along the line.

Yeah JV said that in his thread. I even reiterated the absolute vs relative power question, coz it seemed a tad optimistic.

He raced all year, and finished the Vuelta. You don't do that too fat. And he's not much of a meso.

I think I also did some quick calcs based on % muscle in the avg male and it looked all kinds of weird.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

It's interesting seeing a core strength / abdominal ultrasound, and realising there's a bunch of fat you don't see. The image with all the bodies is great, but it's very visible fat comparisons there.

 

[alitogata]

I remember reading that Hinault, in his day, claimed 3% body fat.... he sure didn't look like figure A....Mind you, I'm not going to challenge either of them to their face....

The images you quoted give and indication of the % of body fat but are not the rule. Someone with 5% of BF doesn't mean that he will look like the guy in the picture because this depends on the muscle mass that someone has as well. What you miss in body fat is not what you gain in muscles and the opposite.
I know personally people with 30% of BF and equal % in MM ( a little "beastly" like but ...anyway ).

 

[alitogata]

It's interesting seeing a core strength / abdominal ultrasound, and realising there's a bunch of fat you don't see. The image with all the bodies is great, but it's very visible fat comparisons there.

Of course there is fat that we can't see. Is the fat that exists around our vital organs. That is the reason why the external measurements of BF are not accurate. Someone who is measured with ultrasound or other test having BF under 10% is someone who is risking his health. That's the reason I don't believe Wiggins claims that his % of BF was 3% on 2009.
If indeed had this BF he wouldn't be able to run, he would be "dead".

 

[Le breton]

I remember reading that Hinault, in his day, claimed 3% body fat.... he sure didn't look like figure A....Mind you, I'm not going to challenge either of them to their face....

Hinault was probably quoting a skin fold measurement.

A colleague of mine had it estimated at 1% using that method ( against 10.7% for myself at the same place)

 

[D-Queued]

Hinault was probably quoting a notoriously unreliable skin fold measurement.

A colleague of mine had it estimated at 1% using that method ( against 10.7% for myself at the same place)

Improved that, as I believe this is in line with your meaning.

Dave.

 

[northstar]

That's the reason I don't believe Wiggins claims that his % of BF was 3% on 2009.
If indeed had this BF he wouldn't be able to run, he would be "dead".

Just to clarify, Wiggins claimed his BF was 4% (not 3%) at 2009 TdF. http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2009/jul/19/bradley-wiggins-tour-de-france

But whatever figure Wiggins claims (3%, 4%, 5%), it’s probably all bullsh!t as he likes to spin the truth.

 

[DirtyWorks]

You guys realize the point behind taking Clenbuterol is to lose fat and gain muscle, right? I haven't trolled the body building forums for a dope routine that leans out the human body, but I'm sure there is one that you could start within a week if you are willing to be ignorant and actively pursuing health-risking behaviour. I'm sure it's as complicated and expensive as the strength building stacks too.

The point for a cyclist is that even marginal weight loss dramatically impacts the holy Watts/Kilo ratio. In 2012 the dopers seem to have perfected losing quite a bit of weight and retaining power. IMHO, that's newer doping. Again, what was once previously restricted to a genetic gift is now available thanks to modern chemistry.

Couple a fantastic W/K ratio achieved with doping to the doping done to sustain power over a Grand Tour and you have a Ryder/Bradley podium winner.

 

[Galic Ho]

This is a spectacularly inaccurate overgeneralization about why people exercise, what cyclists look like, what people want to look like, and even the nature of cycling.

Deal with it champ. It's true. Ever heard of the phrase "Do you even lift?"

Most guys who workout want to have upper body strength. What do cyclists lack? Upper body strength. This is your issue and not mine. Not my problem. But for the average person, yes it is true. Especially young men.

 

[Galic Ho]

Agreed since when has exercising been 100% about how you look? Absurdly shallow.

Moreover, there's a lot of people in the ultimate physique category who have ironically suffered an early death because its so easily obscures by drugs.

This is why. Tons of people exercise to look good naked. Wake the FRAK up and get with the times man. Sure it may be vain to you to that person it is about self image and improvement. Not your body so why do you care? Why do you care about a stereotypical ideal imposed on a larger portion of society? So what if most people don't want to look like cyclists, big whoop! If you want to be one more power to you. But what I said stands. Today's trend is to lift.

Now if you mentioned guys from Lemond and Hinault's era...their builds are better. Oh but that was before the super lightweights who microdose and transfuse their own blood. My bad