Muscles coming on, chub not coming off?

[rtalencar]

I think the point is that, from a general health perspective, maintaining 10% BF isn't spectacularly different from 15% BF. If I had a choice, between 10% BF in my teens and twenties and 15% BF through clear to my forties, I'd pick 15% in a heartbeat (obviously 10% throughout would be ideal, but that kind of BF% gets exponentially harder as you get older). Shooting for an extremely low BF, while admirable and indicative of immense work and sacrifice (particularly in the kitchen), has more to do with personal desire than general health. That desire could stem from aesthetics, ie wanting to look good as luthor mentioned, or from career/hobby necessity, ie getting ripped for a tournament/game/etc.

Also I definitely think powerlifters are fit. The neuromuscular response/conditioning necessary to lift that kind of iron is absolutely amazing.

[chairohkey]

It's not a hyperbole. Powerlifters (in general) are not fit. They can't run a 5K. Marathon runners likewise, perhaps. I don't know what their strength levels are at, but I bet I could beat one in a wrestling match.

This is somewhat myopic. Fitness isn't defined by one factor (in this case cardiorespiratory endurance), instead its a combination of factors. These include the forementioned cardiorespiratory endurance, muscle strength, muscle endurance, body composition, flexability, etc. So its not about how much you can lift or how far you can run because these take to account only one factor. In my experience most powerlifters, especially sub 120 kg, are good to great in 4 of those 5 areas whith muscle strength at the top and cardio endurance at the bottom.

[Waldo]

This is somewhat myopic. Fitness isn't defined by one factor (in this case cardiorespiratory endurance), instead its a combination of factors. These include the forementioned cardiorespiratory endurance, muscle strength, muscle endurance, body composition, flexability, etc. So its not about how much you can lift or how far you can run because these take to account only one factor. In my experience most powerlifters, especially sub 120 kg, are good to great in 4 of those 5 areas whith muscle strength at the top and cardio endurance at the bottom.

I framed it from the exercise paradox perspective, and powerlifters very much fit the bill. Most high level powerlifters would not have a hard time dropping down to sub 10% BF; the calorie burning capacity is there, they have to eat to support their powerlifting, stop eating to support it and the fat will melt off.

[161803398874989]

This is somewhat myopic. Fitness isn't defined by one factor (in this case cardiorespiratory endurance), instead its a combination of factors. These include the forementioned cardiorespiratory endurance, muscle strength, muscle endurance, body composition, flexability, etc. So its not about how much you can lift or how far you can run because these take to account only one factor. In my experience most powerlifters, especially sub 120 kg, are good to great in 4 of those 5 areas whith muscle strength at the top and cardio endurance at the bottom.

I think you missed the point where I wondered where marathon runners' strength levels were at. Strength is an integral component of fitness. So is flexibility. Power, etc. etc.

[chairohkey]

I think you missed the point where I wondered where marathon runners' strength levels were at. Strength is an integral component of fitness. So is flexibility. Power, etc. etc.

No I caught that. But once again you're basing your assesment of fitness on one component.

[azsf]

It all depends on what you actually do and what you consider fitness

hit the nail on the head here. this seems to be the root of this debate, and it's starting to sound like the ol' "wolverine could totally beat up superman" argument. at the same time, when it comes to high level athletic ability, it's a completely different ballgame to the "average person". even among olympic athletes, who i don't think anyone would call unfit, body types and aesthetics differ. source: http://ninamatsumoto.wordpress.com/2010/12/18/athletic-body-diversity-reference-for-artists/

[pikespeach]

My weight is going down, but the flab I have around my waist see (There's one on the upper right that comes and goes; I've named her Molly).

DoogieT

Seriously snorted when I read this! Nice! I thought I was the only one who did this!

[Luthorcrow]

Counter point: run a lap, sprint, whatever, then do it again with a ten lb vest. It makes a difference. Those guys that Waldo used as an example; all about 6'1", 6'2", and 190ish lbs with 10% BF max. It's just the optimal size for the role they play. I would hardly call them 'idle rich' either; how many all-star football players come from rich neighborhoods? The motivation isn't there...

Come one now, don't straw-man my argument. I said the young or idle rich. You can't compare a college student on a college football team with an adult with real responsibilities, a family, a job, etc. Suggesting that is just a matter of motivation is disingenuous. Just on a pure time commitment level it is not a level playing field and even less so when you factor in the extra challenges of age.

When extremely low body fat is a by product of fitness, bravo but for most adults it is more likely the game of the fork and has little reflection on actual performance. So, yes I think a six pack for the sake of a six pack is pure vanity not performance.

...it's starting to sound like the ol' "wolverine could totally beat up superman" argument...

Of course Wolverine could rip up Superman because know one cares about Superman anymore.

[161803398874989]

No I caught that. But once again you're basing your assesment of fitness on one component.

You're misunderstanding. Fitness is both strength and cardio (and more). I mentioned this as 'Strength is an integral component of fitness. So is flexibility. Power, etc. etc."

So I implicitly stated that marathon runners wouldn't be fit at all.

Unless you mean that I'm chalking up someone as 'not fit' because they don't have one of the components. And that's how I see it. You can be strong and powerful and have stamina, but if you're very tight, you're not fit.

[aj_rock]

Come one now, don't straw-man my argument. I said the young or idle rich. You can't compare a college student on a college football team with an adult with real responsibilities, a family, a job, etc. Suggesting that is just a matter of motivation is disingenuous. Just on a pure time commitment level it is not a level playing field and even less so when you factor in the extra challenges of age.

When extremely low body fat is a by product of fitness, bravo but for most adults it is more likely the game of the fork and has little reflection on actual performance. So, yes I think a six pack for the sake of a six pack is pure vanity not performance.

I don't think we're arguing the same thing anymore. My first point was simply that in a lot of sports, lower BF% is advantageous to performance in said sport. You were also very unclear on the young vs idle rich part, especially since for ANY college sport outside the US where student athletes are actually expected to maintain their GPA in somewhat difficult courses while keeping up their athletic commitments, the argument does not stand.

Really, what it comes down to is prioritization. Regardless of your age, I bet ANYONE could find an hour or two every day in which time could be spent training. Sure, it may come down to picking training over a hobby or another, but its a) a lifestyle choice, and potentially a hobby in and of itself. I don't plan on being a professional athlete any time soon, but I can still see a distinct advantage for my sport by keeping my BF% as low as possible.

[rtalencar]

I don't think we're arguing the same thing anymore. My first point was simply that in a lot of sports, lower BF% is advantageous to performance in said sport. You were also very unclear on the young vs idle rich part, especially since for ANY college sport outside the US where student athletes are actually expected to maintain their GPA in somewhat difficult courses while keeping up their athletic commitments, the argument does not stand.

Really, what it comes down to is prioritization. Regardless of your age, I bet ANYONE could find an hour or two every day in which time could be spent training. Sure, it may come down to picking training over a hobby or another, but its a) a lifestyle choice, and potentially a hobby in and of itself. I don't plan on being a professional athlete any time soon, but I can still see a distinct advantage for my sport by keeping my BF% as low as possible.

But that all comes back to Luthor's original point regarding the 'necessity' of it. If achieving a high level of physical fitness and putting in the dietary work to get to ultra-low BF% is your goal (lifestyle/hobby as you said) then more power to you. However you could live a perfectly fulfilling and healthy life holding a moderately higher BF%. This is particularly true as you get older since holding that low BF% gets exponetionally more difficult with age. Luthor's point was that for all but elite level athletes (moreso with age, since such fitness is easier to achieve at a young age as I mentioned), that effort becomes more about vanity than practical use. I can definitely agree that being super fit would be beneficial to your sport (I don't know what it is, but it makes sense that it would be), but would your life necessarily be ruined if you had a higher BF% and weren't *quite* as good? Even in Judo in high school/college, the only sport I've ever cut weight for, if I were heavier I would've ended up in a higher weight class and wouldn't have done quite as well as I did (or would have done more poorly, depending on how critical you're being of me) but that wouldn't have drastically affected my life or happiness in any way.

And the assumption that anyone could find an hour a day is a bit inaccurate in my opinion. An hour or two per day is a lot. And even then, it's still primarily about your diet.

[azsf]

A lot of people have been talking about what things constitute fitness in this thread, and "visible abs" wasn't one of them. hence we could say that the general idea is that BF% doesn't define someones fitness as much as their strength, speed, mobility, flexibility etc. definitely a result of peak fitness, definitely likely to increase performance, but it's more of a symptom than a measure.

basically, judge the play not the player.