Originally Posted by Impulse155
thanks guys, youve all been a great help, freakseem, n e way you can find %fat for a soccer player(that would be me) or swimmer thx
also, how can i figure out my % body fat?
thtx guys, love you :P
I wrote this a while ago and delayed posting, but now figure, whatever...
It's long. I'm open to criticisms, etc. It's really just a train of thought. Everybody's different.
OK, I've done some more googling and reading. I should state that I'm not an expert (as if you already didn't know! :P), so take this for whatever positives you choose and can possibly derive. I do keep a toe in the pond for information and do put into practice, read, maintain an interest, etc. to the subject, with base requirements being that it makes sense, has worked for me or others I know, doesn't support the idea of there being a "quick fix", doesn't require drugs, and doesn't require too much thought. You know, that it not be stupid and absurd. In return for these, I accept that it takes determination, perseverance, time, patience, a healthy attitude (not obsessive, etc.), perhaps some luck, and that there will be successes and failures, triumphs and setbacks. Such is life, but being able to keep things simple is something I'm into.
I don't believe there is a magic number for any particular sport. There may be a more narrow range for a particular sport in comparison to other sports. However, I'd think a fair range for soccer would be similar to that of basketball, as indicated in the above chart (6-12% men, 20-27% women), variations depending not just on age, gender, body frame, etc., but also in part to position. A keeper is probably going to have a higher body fat % than a sweeper, for example. So, maybe bump up the % to, say, 6-15%. And, note, these ranges apply to regular-to-elite athletic participation, not the "weekend warrior" type. That said, there is nothing that says one can't be a good soccer player with a BF % of, say, 22%, perhaps higher, too. Body fat % isn't the be-all end-all. It's also about aerobic capacity. I saw a video of Diego Maradona performing ball skills. Clips spanned from when he was in probably an ideal, world-class shape to the later years, when he had packed on some weight.
There are many proposed ways to measure % body fat. All have their issues. Calipers used to measure skinfolds and the data then input to a choice of formulas are subject to, among other things, the level of expertise of those performing the measurements (accuracy of location, for example) and large variations in results due to different factors that constitute the formula. There's another test that involves measurements taken submerged under water. There are bathroom scales. Also, there are a few formulas that simply estimate based on height and weight or height, wrist, forearm, waist, etc. measurements. Seriously, it's not about numbers. If one is eating healthy and exercising, a mirror may be a highly useful tool. On the other hand, one may appear fit and trim, but in actuality not be all-that-healthy.
Another thing to consider is the difference between certain body fat % on the lower and upper end of the scale and how that can change. For example, consider that getting from 8% BF to 6% BF is often much more difficult than moving from 28% BF to 26%, or , say, 30+ % to a 2% drop. If one is carrying a significant amount of excess weight and starts a weight loss, conditioning, etc. program, the first 10 lbs frequently drop off more quickly than at other stages along the way to the goal. If one is going for an "ideal" (which <should>, more sanely, be "one's ideal") and one isn't in that "ideal" neighborhood yet, the idea of "lifestyle change" should not be glossed over. I could be wrong, but I think that people frequently don't realize that it's a real change and necessary changes that bring the results they are seeking. Winks-and-nods at 'cheating' shouldn't fool anyone, especially oneself. Anyway, introduce regular exercise and better nutrition to a body that has not experienced either for a while, you're going to see some results, more times than not. No surprise. Ah, but this is where some limitations may come into play, and they aren't necessarily of the psychological variety.
On the extreme side of things, cutting calories "too low" will lead, at some point, to the body shutting down to some degree, to conserve what energy stores are available. The body also seems to adjust to regular cycles of exercise, something which can be frustrating in that, while one is eating fine and exercising, one reaches an impasse and doesn't know why their weight remains the same or the body fat % doesn't move. It's natural. So, one probably wants a good idea of what calories they ideally, actually require in their lifestyle. Exclude a donut here and there, cut out a beer or two, and the caloric and carb intake drops dramatically. Beer and sugar are obvious examples, so one might instead look at portions. Eat too much, even of healthy foods, you're still getting upped calories. Here's an extreme example: Michael Phelps, olympic swimmer in his 20s, during training consumes 8000 calories per day. His workouts are frequent and intense. Now take that and scale back to one's typical calories/day and exerted energy. tsloop is "cutting at the moment and [he] still ha[s] to eat 3200 calories to stay healthy."
Two things suggested to do when this happens is not just switching up the time of day of workouts, but the exercises done on those days, and to switch up the foods you're eating. Still eat more calories from healthy foods in the early part of the day, but from different groups. Yes, I've had chicken for breakfast before. One can also ramp-up their workouts, daily routine, etc., of course. That's all well and good, but, just speaking for myself, my "goal" has been to pursue whatever in a natural, ultimately internalized way. It's a full-on change you're going through, right? I don't believe in diets beyond, say, a kick-start level and in recognition that common sense and balance, not pure numbers, yield the optimum long-term results. Counting calories or carbs, etc. is fine and useful, but just to the point of understanding your body's requirements. That is, they are good to know and can help to guage your requirements and to get a sense of how your diet and exercise affect your body. Ultimately, however, living by numbers, again, is not necessary. Exception: you are working toward another goal, say, a marathon, and you aren't "there" yet. But when you reach a level of fitness with which you are comfortable, you should have a pretty good grasp on what you need and what you need to do in order to maintain. Then again, some persons will never be happy with their body image. Ideally, reaching one's optimum fit level <should> feel natural, as presumably one has changed their lifestyle, at least in terms of diet and exercise. Think of your less-fit times and the degree of thought or lack of thought in regards to what you ate and how you exercised. I could be wrong, but I believe the priority given to conscious concern over diet and exercise once one has reached their goal(s), shouldn't dominate one's life. How fit is one, when one is obsessed? That diet and exercise shouldn't dominate the day-to-day thing is something that I just consider balanced. It's one's new norm. It's one's natural behavior, done without a second thought. Yeah, you'll have the choice of oreos or a carrot and, the fact is, you may prefer the carrot, but there's nothing to stop you from having the oreo, because you have internalized or are just more aware of how your body and lifestyle, etc. are working and you have reached your level of fitness and in the course of doing that have an understanding of yourself and what it takes.
You know, sleep goes a long way towards overall health, too. Better posture (it's not just a problem if one sits a lot, but rather if they sit leaning-in, with relaxed abs. Over time, to some extent, these muscles get used to or trained in this position) and stress reduction can help.
With changes in diet and exercise, metabolism adjusts over time, too. Also, it slows down with age. IMO, this is alright, too, and manageable, since we don't require as much food as we age. FWIW, but not to be overused, at an impasse, I've found that a "no-holds barred day" can kind of jump start a seemingly stalled metabolism or stagnant weight loss. If you're in shape and have maintained for a while, I'd probably say once a week eat whatever you want, but don't be absurd about it. If you're not in shape, it doesn't seem, IMO, to have the same effect. Maybe once a month, 'cause it's not about denial, you know.
Question for Joseph Casazza: Generally speaking, do you believe that as one ages, one requires less calories?
Question for crisis: Can you share any other particular insights you took from the obesity and genetics course?