P90X

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 No need to make it so complicated. It is what I said it was: a percentage of your total bodyweight. So 2% of whatever you weigh. 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. Sorry you feel I was attacking the age of the study, that really wasn't the case (although just to correct you, the book you quoted is about 15 years old. It's a reprint). I am simply stating that a random grab from a book you found online is not irrefutable evidence to support your stance and that there are studies which show otherwise. I also provided ample studies for you to research if you like, but apparently that isn't enough? The study on fatigue resistance in South African runners actually goes into detail on bodyfat percentages and such. I can't help you if you don't have access beyond the abstract, that is something you will have to pay for. I also find it funny how you make no mention of any of the other studies and just zero in on one you disagree with. 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.You did more than ask. You pretty much claimed that it was possible and provided zero evidence beyond a quote from one book quoting one study. By all means, if you have more to back up your statements, feel free to post them. I am not afraid of being proven wrong..I just like cold hard facts.

No need to make it so complicated. It is what I said it was: a percentage of your total bodyweight. So 2% of whatever you weigh. OK, thank you. We have different definitions of essential.

OK, thank you. We have different definitions of essential. Hey no prob. See you around the forum. :)

I was just reading through the thread and this caught my attention. Could you please explain to me how you figure a 300 lb man with only 2% bodyfat would be considered obese? 2% essential body fat. There is fat in the body, like bone marrow, that you cannot live without. When you start using it for energy, you die. The 300 obese man might have a 60% body fat, 58% of that could be used for energy safely, 2% is necessary for his body to work, thus essential.

2% essential body fat. There is fat in the body, like bone marrow, that you cannot live without. When you start using it for energy, you die. The 300 obese man might have a 60% body fat, 58% of that could be used for energy safely, 2% is necessary for his body to work, thus essential. I know what essential bodyfat is. I just don't understand what your point has to do with the debate you were having? Unless I am wrong, you were both debating whether it is possible to reach 2% bodyfat (the scientifically defined minimum amount of fat a human needs to survive) without any health issues. So if a 300 lb man lost enough bodyfat to reach 2% bodyfat, would he survive without any serious injury to his health. The same question would apply to a person of any weight for that matter...would hitting 2% bodyfat hurt that person, perhaps even kill them. You said it was possible to do safely, which goes against anything I have ever read. So I have to ask: do you have research papers to support that claim? A link to anything for that matter that is outside your personal opinion? Or are you now agreeing with the original debate that hitting 2% can cause issues? Because what you just said seems to fall in line with: Yep, that caliper reading was way off. A reading of 1.9% is plain ridiculous and as already pointed out, reserved for dead people. Errr... With 1.9% body fat you'd be practically dead. Which I admit reads a bit dramatic, but seems to get the point across that I have read elsewhere, that such low level of body fat can cause serious injury and even death, since it is, you know, essential.

Me. Weight lifting is more effective for weight control than swimming for me. Although the combination of both, is fabulous. Plus I enjoy both, and I work-out because I enjoy it, otherwise I would not. I found adding a weight lifting routine to my swim workout has really helped me hold onto more of my muscle mass as I lose fat. Besides, having some muscle is important to good health, especially the older we get! Sigh...old age is creeping up :afraid:

I know what essential bodyfat is. I just don't understand what your point has to do with the debate you were having? Unless I am wrong, you were both debating whether it is possible to reach 2% bodyfat (the scientifically defined minimum amount of fat a human needs to survive) without any health issues. So if a 300 lb man lost enough bodyfat to reach 2% bodyfat, would he survive without any serious injury to his health. The same question would apply to a person of any weight for that matter...would hitting 2% bodyfat hurt that person, perhaps even kill them. You said it was possible to do safely, which goes against anything I have ever read. So I have to ask: do you have research papers to support that claim? A link to anything for that matter that is outside your personal opinion? Or are you now agreeing with the original debate that hitting 2% can cause issues? This is what I originally said: Mathematically it seems possible to have a 2% bodyfat. 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.

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.

Ande, I have looked more into P90X after you brought it up. I think the workout program would burn less calories than what you burn now, assuming you are working out with 6x/week in the pool and 3x/week in the gym, which I think is typical for you. The P90X diet is very strict and your diet is pretty lax, so that portion would be beneficial. The benefit of the P90X diet is that it has several cookie cutter meals and a guide on how to put them together. Other than that, the diet itself is just a healthy, high protein, low calorie diet. Any healthy diet that runs a calorie deficit would work in place of the P90X diet. P90X is probably not the program for you. Have you thought about working with a nutritionist?

I recently purchased and started P90X and was curious if anyone who has been doing it has noticed any improvement in their swimming, or improvement they've seen generally. I've read a p90x blog that suggested not following the 90 day program but rather do 3 p90x workouts a week in addition to swim training to prevent yourself from burning out. Any thoughts on this? Right now, I'm just sore, everywhere.