Body Fat Percentage: point of diminishing return?

Yeah, I hear that. If anyone happens to be in SC, the study I'm a part of is called Energy Balance at the University of SC:

energybalance.sc.edu/

As part of it, I get free blood work every 3 months, DXA every 3 months, this crazy VO2 max test thing on a treadmill with a snorkel you have to breathe through (just once so far), and they make you lie in a bubble hood thing that monitors gas exchange and resting metabolic rate over 45 minutes (3 times so far). You get $500 over the 12 months. But the data you get is worth tons more to me. The last percentage was from that. Now I have no idea whether it's correct or not, but I have every reason to believe it is accurate. I guess I could scan the printouts I've gotten, but that's a bit silly. FWIW, I think I run best when I'm up around 6%.

I wish we could climb here. It hit 109 today.

JLP wrote: Your Wiki link has no citation.

It does have a citation. The citation that's needed is for the claim that personal trainers will suggest bodybuilder achieve 2-4% bodyfat. It doesn't really matter if that's true or not.

Though, I should admit that the study they cite doesn't seem to make that strong a case for the conclusion. At least, to my untrained self reading the abstract.

FWIW, Brian is one obviously one very fit and strong dude. Props to him for putting in the hard work to get in that kind of shape. I am a envious of the shape he is in.

The question I would ask is how much muscle is too much. Do you, Brian, or anyone else out there, see that there could be a point of diminishing returns in muscle mass? At what point is it advised to lay off the weights and concentrate on climbing if you really want to push the grades?

To put it another way, how much do you think all the training you do, which obviously adds a bunch of muscle, helps your climbing?

NC Rock Climber wrote:FWIW, Brian is one obviously one very fit and strong dude. Props to him for putting in the hard work to get in that kind of shape. I am a envious of the shape he is in. The question I would ask is how much muscle is too much. Do you, Brian, or anyone else out there, see that there could be a point of diminishing returns in muscle mass? At what point is it advised to lay off the weights and concentrate on climbing if you really want to push the grades? To put it another way, how much do you think all the training you do, which obviously adds a bunch of muscle, helps your climbing?

For me, the added weight definitely takes away from climbing ability. Above 180, my on-sight ability went down about a full number, from dabbling in 12s to fighting for low 11s.

Here's some of the data from my 4.4% water test. I have no idea what some of the numbers mean. There's random writing at the top from using it as scratch paper a while back. It calls it the "Gold Standard" but I think the DXA is supposed to be better. But this guy is selling his product. I'm supposed to get a full report of all my results from the Energy Balance (DXA) thing when the study is completed by next year. Until then, I don't have anything written.

Here's two more I found:

Thanks for posting that. It definitely calls into question the sources I thought were authorities on the matter.

Eat a fucking sandwich.

Brian, was there ever a period when your deadlift was increasing, but your body weight was unchanging? If so, did you see any benefit to your climbing during this period?

Have you noticed any types of moves getting easier since getting your deadlift up so high, despite the increase in body mass, and ultimate drop in climbing ability?

I used to worry more about fat % but now its for performance bottom line u need some fat especially in the winter I usually lose 5lbs in the summer not even trying its more a body' s way of saying: I don't need that extra layer. Im not very skinny and try not to gain weight by eating salads etc. The problem is when I work out a lot im very hungry so it's a matter of balance. I believe my optimal weight at 5' 5" is 125lbs is when I feel strong, light enough and not always hungry. I also noticed the mire stress the more I eat so I try to get enough sleep and chill much as I can and do relaxing stuff so it helps with keeping the system out of constant fight or fight state.

Once again Elena somehow wrote a paragraph sating nothing. I learned that talent in college. I used to be killer good at writing three pages of nothing.

My contribution? I am fat and happy to climb 5.10. If I have to work to climb then I will quit. I am lazy I know.

Im just happy to have a chill life...not so worried about much. I was pounding 10s at the gyms complaining skin on fingers hurts but after 4 days of gym climbing callus is back and im on some severe overhangs so life is good. That's all I have to say.

diatom wrote:Brian, was there ever a period when your deadlift was increasing, but your body weight was unchanging? If so, did you see any benefit to your climbing during this period? Have you noticed any types of moves getting easier since getting your deadlift up so high, despite the increase in body mass, and ultimate drop in climbing ability?

Sort of. In the 18 months after getting down to 159, my deadlift went from somewhere in the mid to upper 200s up to 365 while my weight went from 159 to 161-163 depending on hydration and if I had taken a crap. Though it took little effort to get down to 159 initially, after I got that low I got very particular about the amount of food I ate. I think that because of all the core work, I found myself able to suddenly do pretty solid front and back levers, so overhanging stuff was definitely easier. I could also do 1 arm pull ups then, which isn't all that important, but it meant that hanging out to place gear felt easier/more confident. Also, I think that because of exercises like lunges and pistols, things like mantling and weird high step toe press moves got easier.

I managed to keep my best climbing ability up until about 170 pounds. Then it started a gradual slide downwards as the weight kept rising.

Right before I got that 4.4% test, I was honestly thinking I was going to be around 12% based on what I had seen and read up until that point. The 4.4 number rocked my world. My body perception changed a ton, because I realized that I had basically no more fat to possibly lose. On the scans I submitted above, you can kind of see the next page underneath as a faint background that the scanner picked up. It's a chart of body fat numbers. The guy highlighted the most upper left box and said I was above that and that I needed to eat more. And I did. Not necessarily to get stronger, but because I realized I didn't need to be so crazy about how little to eat. Within a few months, I gained 15-20 pounds, but it wound up being mostly muscle.

As a side note, during those few months when I went from 160 to 180 I felt incredible. Just tons and tons of energy. I set a lot of exercise personal bests during that time that still stand, despite my increase in experience. I've actually half-jokingly flirted with the idea of my own sort of periodization where I starve myself and then binge.

When my weight got over 180, the only big benefit I found was that long, heavy approaches were much easier. That would be a combination of all the training and the additional leg muscles. But the actual climbing definitely suffered. Skiing was better, though.

JLP wrote:I'm sure you guys realize this isn't how people train to climb in the 'teens. Generally, climbers want to avoid gaining mass in muscles that don't get used for rock climbing - especially 20+ lbs of it.

Yeah, that's pretty much the gist of what I've found. In the past year, I've been trail running more and my weight is down about 10 pounds. My climbing has definitely gotten stronger. I'd say that if someone is struggling to get up to 5.10 or so, some general fitness or overall muscle mass might be good for them. But above that, my experience has shown a definite point of diminishing return. Of course, there are folks with more muscle than I have who climb harder than I do. It just doesn't work for me. If your goal is 5.13, being super light regardless of strength is probably an easier path than just putting on more muscle.

lol on gaming the test.

This thread made me curious about my own body fat percentage. Today I got a DXA scan performed. Frankly, the results surprised me, and to those who followed this thread, it adds further evidence that visual determination of body fat percentage is a low accuracy method.

First, a picture:

I assumed I was somewhere in the 10-12% range. I'm 6'4" and 161 pounds, so there cant be TOO much fat, right?

16% body fat. That's almost 26 POUNDS of fat. Subtract out essential (visceral) fat, and we have 20 pounds of storage fat. WOW!

You need to get your money back on that dxa

RandyR wrote: Frankly, the results surprised me, and to those who followed this thread, it adds further evidence that visual determination of body fat percentage is a low accuracy method. I assumed I was somewhere in the 10-12% range. I'm 6'4" and 161 pounds, so there cant be TOO much fat, right?

I'd disagree. You're skinny yeah, but you don't have much muscle. Your picture and lack of muscle separation is pretty comparable to the 15% body fat images that Diatom presented earlier in the thread.

diatom wrote:Guide to what people look like at different BF%: Men: thisiswhyyourejacked.com/a-…

So I used to help perform these tests, both resistance and the "dunk tank" method. I know that someone can have a rocking 6 pack and still register in the 16s. The reason has already been stated, we all store body fat differently. For me it is my thighs, they are like tree trunks. When I was testing I got down to 8%, I was a twig then. That was a lot of swimming and Pilates and body sculpting classes. Now I would guess I am near 22-26%. aka FAT! but I have as much definition as some of these pictures of 16%. The reason is that I have fat thighs. I do have fat on my stomach, but much more on my thighs. That makes me 5'11" 205lbs.

RyanJ wrote: I'd disagree. You're skinny yeah, but you don't have much muscle. Your picture and lack of muscle separation is pretty comparable to the 15% body fat images that Diatom presented earlier in the thread.

RandyR wrote:you've got to be kidding

Once again, look at the size of the other guy. He has substantially more muscle than you do, thus he looks huge. Instead of his being fixated on his size, look at the muscle definition.

The barest outline of abs. Lack of muscle separation in the upper arms. Lack of definition in the chest.

Your picture is comparable.

Check the other link that Diatom posted. It's perfect for skinny guys like you.

diatom wrote:http://www.leighpeele.com/body-fat-pictures-and-percentages

RyanJ wrote: Once again, look at the size of the other guy. He has substantially more muscle than you do, thus he looks huge. Instead of his being fixated on his size, look at the muscle definition. The barest outline of abs. Lack of muscle separation in the upper arms. Lack of definition in the chest. Your picture is comparable. Check the other link that Diatom posted. It's perfect for skinny guys like you. You're certainly not like the first and have more fat than the second. Welcome to 15% it's not a bad place to be.

Starting with:

RyanJ wrote:Your picture and lack of muscle separation is pretty comparable to the 15% body fat images that Diatom presented earlier in the thread.

You absolutely can't compare some bulky guy to a skinny guy because his muscles are going to stretch the skin, further confusing the visual estimate. But if you were going to try, notice that I have full separation in my Serratus Anterior, and much greater abdominal definition.

Also, note that what you're seeing in my picture is trunk and arms. If you look again at my DXA results, those are in the low 13% range. PLUS, the trunk is the location of the vast majority of visceral fat. My legs and butt are where the majority of my fat is located (over HALF of my body fat is there). Lower body ~ 20%, Upper body ~ 13%.

I don't have a problem with 16% BF. It's 97th percentile in my age category, so, pretty damn good. The point I was trying to make, is that our body fat distribution makes visual determination a terrible method for estimating % of body fat. Case in point: Brian's 4.4% picture. No way does that look like sub 5%, let alone even close to 4.4%

OK, so this is me a few days ago after sending one of my summer projects at Independence Pass:

I use a bathroom scale that does Bio-electrical impedence to measure body fat. I've never trusted its accuracy, but it is very precise...the measurements are very repeatable, and I always measure at the same time of day (in the morning after I do my morning business and before eating or drinking anything). It had me at 6.4% around the time I took that photo, so for me, it seems pretty consistent with the body building website.

Now I'm going to have a piece of cake....