P90X

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. Is this what you are claiming: - person has an essential body fat X (in lbs, not %) - person gains weight - person's essential body fat increases from X to X + Y - person looses weight - person's essential body fat stays X + Y 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: Costill, Bowers, et al (1970) coetzer et al (1993) Pollock, Gettman, et al Body composition of elite class distance runners (1977) All measured marathon runners at between 3.5%-7%. A far cry from McArdles findings. Furthermore, I highly recommend any study by Ancel Keys, et al as well as the "Minnesota Starvation Experiment", also run by Ancel Keys as they give brilliant insight into what happens to the body as it starves. People tend to forget, that what we see as dieting, the body still sees as starvation and will react accordingly, based on the severity. So the last study was a real opener to the scientific community over 60 years ago. This statement really irks me: "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." I quoted a source that is easily accessible and published 2 years ago, then you criticize it for being easily accessible, claim it is old, and then cite articles that are no newer than 15 yeas old to refute it. The most recent citation was "Superior fatigue resistance of elite black South African distance runners" wasn't a study about body fat. 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. I am not trying to prove or disprove funkyfish's statement. I just asked if it was mathematically have a 2% body fat, with the assumption that the person is still alive.

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. Is this what you are claiming: - person has an essential body fat X (in lbs, not %) - person gains weight - person's essential body fat increases from X to X + Y - person looses weight - person's essential body fat stays X + Y 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: Costill, Bowers, et al (1970) coetzer et al (1993) Pollock, Gettman, et al Body composition of elite class distance runners (1977) All measured marathon runners at between 3.5%-7%. A far cry from McArdles findings. Furthermore, I highly recommend any study by Ancel Keys, et al as well as the "Minnesota Starvation Experiment", also run by Ancel Keys as they give brilliant insight into what happens to the body as it starves. People tend to forget, that what we see as dieting, the body still sees as starvation and will react accordingly, based on the severity. So the last study was a real opener to the scientific community over 60 years ago. This statement really irks me: "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." I quoted a source that is easily accessible and published 2 years ago, then you criticize it for being easily accessible, claim it is old, and then cite articles that are no newer than 15 yeas old to refute it. The most recent citation was "Superior fatigue resistance of elite black South African distance runners" wasn't a study about body fat. 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. I am not trying to prove or disprove funkyfish's statement. I just asked if it was mathematically have a 2% body fat, with the assumption that the person is still alive.