or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Health & Body › 6 pack
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

6 pack - Page 6

post #76 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by sartorially senseless
i think i found the site you were referring to: The average American male's percentage of body fat is 15-20%. The average professional athlete's is 7-8%. Jordan's body fat was measured at 4%. i can tell you, jordan may have been measured at 4% using whatever techniques were avaible when this article was written, but keep in mind, the margin of error is probably in the 3% range
I think a common source of disparagement lies with exactly this problem. MOST people when they measure bodyfat use one of those instant scales, handheld monitors, which upon personal use I believe to exclude basal levels of adipose tissue necessary for survival. No doubt this is where the quoted 4% came from, I myself have been down to 4% on these various monitors and I would say that yes, I'd consider myself as having the same definition as Jordan in some pics I've seen, but 4% is not accurate. Though I've never had it professionally monitored via calorimetry in a giant water tank (which is the most accurate way since it doesn't rely on adipose conductance, which is actually quite variable) I'm still quite sure that 4% is not right. As an experiment, measure your bodyfat with one of those handheld sensors, then do 10 jumping jacks and measure it again. You'll find that those jumping jacks have miraculously trimmed a percent or two. You can imagine the difficulty on relying on those types of measurements now...
post #77 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian SD
I disagree from experience. Im the same way as Arethusa. My body fat fluctuates between 6.5 and 8% and I'm not very ripped.

Ditto. I'm at about 9-10% and am very trim, but don't have a lot of definition. And it's not from lack of trying either. I nearly had a 6-pack at one point, but the "maintenance" on it was so insane that I gave it up pretty quickly. I'm still trim, and I can lead a normal life that doesn't revolve around special menus and excessive exercise.
post #78 of 124
as sartorially senseless has stated, how are you guys measuring this body fat? Nobody is just "naturally" 6-8% bodyfat. Honestly you will looked pretty ripped up. You can't rely on those crazy electron handheld devices or the super extreme futuristic scales. The closest practical means would be a body calipers and even then measurements aren't that accurate. I agree that many people here think they are much lower than they actually are.
post #79 of 124
before those scales are completely regarded as garbage, i find they can be semi-useful for tracking progress. say you are measured at 16% at 200 pounds but then 2 weeks later you are 14% at 195%...with a little math you can find out what you actually lost in fat and gained in muscle in a relative sense.

with all bf measuring you should take it with a grain fo salt. for the most accurate type, id head to your local university and get some hydrostatic (i think thats the name). its basically where they submerge you in water...that is the most accurate

anyways, this has now been beated to death

for all you that think you are sub 10 without a 6 pack, get a clue. good day
post #80 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by sartorially senseless
for all you that think you are sub 10 without a 6 pack, get a clue. good day

I agree 100%, but this is a very common misconception. The body fat measuring techniques suck, only autopsy is accurate.

If you want to track your body composition, just get some body fat calipers and record your actual skinfold measurements (in mm, not %) over time. Forget about what your actual total body fat is. It is irrelevant and impossible to know for sure, just something to brag about.
post #81 of 124
Generally speaking is 30 minutes of cardio enough? Or should I really bust out the 45-60 minutes at a clip? And if it is the latter, can I break it up (say 30/30 or 30/15 or 22/23, etc) into different sessions (one morning, one evening) or is it better to do it all at once? I must say though that the thought of an hour on the treadmill (running at like 5am, nowhere near me really to run outdoors at that time), even with a tv in the gym, is not something i would look forward to.
post #82 of 124
seoulfully -- I feel your pain. I try to do at least 30 minutes of cardio when I work out. Any less and I feel I haven't done anything.

But I often mix it up -- treadmill, stationary bike, running outdoors/trails, ergometer; even the elliptical machine sometimes, if I can beat the soccer moms to one. Not only is endless treadmill running boring, it's better to mix up the movement/impact. My current favorite routine is a 10-15 minute run, then 30-45 minutes of rowing (talk about boring, try being on an erg for a couple of hours).

I also don't think its as effective to split it up to two workouts a day if you're doing under an hour, total. 20 minutes of cardio barely gets you going.
post #83 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by shoreman1782
seoulfully -- I feel your pain. I try to do at least 30 minutes of cardio when I work out. Any less and I feel I haven't done anything. But I often mix it up -- treadmill, stationary bike, running outdoors/trails, ergometer; even the elliptical machine sometimes, if I can beat the soccer moms to one. Not only is endless treadmill running boring, it's better to mix up the movement/impact. My current favorite routine is a 10-15 minute run, then 30-45 minutes of rowing (talk about boring, try being on an erg for a couple of hours). I also don't think its as effective to split it up to two workouts a day if you're doing under an hour, total. 20 minutes of cardio barely gets you going.
i usually mix it up every few days, but even with longer times unless i just run, i usually don't feel like i really worked out. but with mixed in with regular running, i run intervals, sometimes i do this simulated hill walk (my own, not the stupid treadmil profile). this morning i ran for 30 minutes and then did the hill walk for 15. it wasn't too bad, but by the end of the 30 minutes i'm so burned on running mentally. my condo's gym only has treadmills, elipticals, bikes. maybe i'll try running in combination with something else tomorrow. haha, but based on your times, i see it's a minimum of 40 minutes up to an hour? damn... (= hopefully the changing movements will help bc that's beyond my limits for interest in the gym, unless i'm lifting. edit 4/20/06 - been doing the hour this week (well monday i did 45 minutes). yesterday i did 30/15/15 (run/eliptical/bike) today i did 30/30 (run/elip). it definately helps to change movements to combat boredom. hopefully upping the time and changing movements will kickstart my ass into getting into better summer shape (haha, oh the vanity!)
post #84 of 124
Thread Starter 
question: how does the bodyfat ratio work on a instant scale anyway, cant aperson be more fat then it says or less fat then it says due to working out? isnt it just giving the most common ratio to that specific weight?
post #85 of 124
I have a quick question.
I'm currently around 70 kiloes take or give a few and around 170cm tall.

I believe my bodyfat is around 13% because i can see the outline of my abs and i'm in a decent aerobic shape, i ran 2800 meters in 12 minutes.

My maximum bench press is 105kg, my max squat 155 and my max deadlift (will try this nearer to summer) i'm hoping to lift 180kg.


the thing is, should i cut down for the summer now and bulk slowly in the winter or continue my bulking through out for the next year?

I'm also 16 years.
post #86 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Impulse155
question: how does the bodyfat ratio work on a instant scale anyway, cant aperson be more fat then it says or less fat then it says due to working out? isnt it just giving the most common ratio to that specific weight?

are you asking about those scales you step on (barefoot) and they give you a body fat %? they read (however accurately, or inaccurately as the case may be) electric conductivity through your body. something like fat isn't as condusive or something, so based on how quickly the current travels or some magic like that it spits out a number. not the most reliable of things.
post #87 of 124
Thread Starter 
yea that is wut i mean, the scales u step on bare foot, electronic. thx i also found out mines a piece of shit :0 its 1 lb off lol (says im 1lb over wut i shud be lol)
post #88 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by seoulfully
are you asking about those scales you step on (barefoot) and they give you a body fat %? they read (however accurately, or inaccurately as the case may be) electric conductivity through your body. something like fat isn't as condusive or something, so based on how quickly the current travels or some magic like that it spits out a number. not the most reliable of things.

and if your body holds water naturally, as athletes tend to be more hydrated, the measure is off.

if you want to see how wacky they are, go on it, then drink water for th enext coupel hours and step on it again
post #89 of 124
Thread Starter 
thanks alot guys, uve rly helped, 20 lbs so far
post #90 of 124
Thread Starter 
down bout 22 lbs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Health & Body
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Health & Body › 6 pack