P90X

This is what I originally said: If your essential body fat is 4lbs, then mathematically you can gain enough muscle mass to hit 2% body fat. Chlorine was stating that essential body fat is not a fixed weight, but a function of total weight. This position was not obvious to me from his initial post. It was obvious that Chlorine was more interested in berating me for my stupidity than explaining his point. I don't have any research papers that state one way or another, but Exercise Physiology by McArdle does state that "The low fat levels of marathon runners, which ranges from 1 to 8% of body mass, probably reflect adaption to severe training for distance running." (p. 785) This would lead me to believe that attaining a body fat percentage of 2% is both mathematically and realistically possible. Online debates do have a tendency to get heated :D Chlorine was correct in stating that essential body fat is not a fixed weight. It is a percentage of bodyfat that a human being requires to stay alive. This is commonly acknowledged as a minimum of 2% of your total bodyweight, whatever it may be. The McArdle quote is a pretty common one that you see debated on forums everywhere, as it is widely available on google books preview and is from an old physiology text. Unfortunately, it gets taken out of context as a result. What one would need to look at is the full study in order to see the conditions and methods used to determine bodyfat levels. Currently, there are no methods of measuring body fat in humans that is 100% accurate, short of dissection. For example, the following studies (abstracts available online): Costill, Bowers, et al (1970) coetzer et al (1993) Pollock, Gettman, et al Body composition of elite class distance runners (1977) Body composition of elite American athletes. Steven J. Fleck, PhD (1983) All measured marathon runners at between 3.5%-7%. A far cry from McArdles findings. Errors in body fat estimation are also addressed in the studies: Validity of "generalized" equations for body composition analysis in male athletes--SINNING, WAYNE E.; DOLNY, DENNIS G.; LITTLE, KATHLEEN D.; CUNNINGHAM, LEE N.; RACANIELLO, ANNETTE; SICONOLFI, STEVEN F.; SHOLES, JANET L. Effects of skin thickness and skinfold compressibility on skinfold thickness measurement: A. D. Martin 1, D. T. Drinkwater 2, J. P. Clarys 3, M. Daniel 4, W. D. Ross 4 Furthermore, I highly recommend any study by Ancel Keys, et al as well as the "Minnesota Starvation Experiment", also run by Ancel Keys. (If you are interested in this dry sort of stuff that is :D) I think the important thing that all of these studies prove in the end, is that when someone comes to a forum and claims they have hit 2% body fat, the chances are great that they really didn't. If not for the fact that it can cause serious health issues, then at the very least because it is really damn hard and has not been recorded with any certainty even by an elite athlete in a controlled study.

This is what I originally said: If your essential body fat is 4lbs, then mathematically you can gain enough muscle mass to hit 2% body fat. Chlorine was stating that essential body fat is not a fixed weight, but a function of total weight. This position was not obvious to me from his initial post. It was obvious that Chlorine was more interested in berating me for my stupidity than explaining his point. I don't have any research papers that state one way or another, but Exercise Physiology by McArdle does state that "The low fat levels of marathon runners, which ranges from 1 to 8% of body mass, probably reflect adaption to severe training for distance running." (p. 785) This would lead me to believe that attaining a body fat percentage of 2% is both mathematically and realistically possible. Online debates do have a tendency to get heated :D Chlorine was correct in stating that essential body fat is not a fixed weight. It is a percentage of bodyfat that a human being requires to stay alive. This is commonly acknowledged as a minimum of 2% of your total bodyweight, whatever it may be. The McArdle quote is a pretty common one that you see debated on forums everywhere, as it is widely available on google books preview and is from an old physiology text. Unfortunately, it gets taken out of context as a result. What one would need to look at is the full study in order to see the conditions and methods used to determine bodyfat levels. Currently, there are no methods of measuring body fat in humans that is 100% accurate, short of dissection. For example, the following studies (abstracts available online): Costill, Bowers, et al (1970) coetzer et al (1993) Pollock, Gettman, et al Body composition of elite class distance runners (1977) Body composition of elite American athletes. Steven J. Fleck, PhD (1983) All measured marathon runners at between 3.5%-7%. A far cry from McArdles findings. Errors in body fat estimation are also addressed in the studies: Validity of "generalized" equations for body composition analysis in male athletes--SINNING, WAYNE E.; DOLNY, DENNIS G.; LITTLE, KATHLEEN D.; CUNNINGHAM, LEE N.; RACANIELLO, ANNETTE; SICONOLFI, STEVEN F.; SHOLES, JANET L. Effects of skin thickness and skinfold compressibility on skinfold thickness measurement: A. D. Martin 1, D. T. Drinkwater 2, J. P. Clarys 3, M. Daniel 4, W. D. Ross 4 Furthermore, I highly recommend any study by Ancel Keys, et al as well as the "Minnesota Starvation Experiment", also run by Ancel Keys. (If you are interested in this dry sort of stuff that is :D) I think the important thing that all of these studies prove in the end, is that when someone comes to a forum and claims they have hit 2% body fat, the chances are great that they really didn't. If not for the fact that it can cause serious health issues, then at the very least because it is really damn hard and has not been recorded with any certainty even by an elite athlete in a controlled study.