Okay, losing body fat is obviously increases w/kg and somewhat w/CDA(probably) , but what are and how significant the matabolic, cardiovascular and other benefits from going for example from 20% to 12% body fat?
Top of the benefits list would be the sounds your partner makes when they see you without a shirt on.
Maybe some health ones too but mostly the sounds
20 Likes
Visible abs.
1 Like
Idk theres no sounds, only a judgmental look ever since he found out the price tag of my new sir velo
3 Likes
You can see the impact on climbing with a simple calculator here:The Broleur Hill Climb Calculator
The calculator (in my opinion) shows watts a bit low, but the comparison can be helpful.
-
Baseline at current 183lb, it takes me 235w avg to do this climb in 10 min.
-
If I lose 10lb, it takes me 10 less watts to cover the this climb in the same time.
-
OR at the same 235w, i complete the climb in roughly 23 less seconds.
Depending on body composition, I think if you’re %20+ bf or have a bit of extra weight (myself) you’d benefit greatly from losing body fat as performance likely wont take much of a hit during that process.
Once you get to a relatively lean weight and start to try to get lighter, performance will tank. We see lots of TDF riders increasing weight in favor of putting down more power, as the w/k calc just works out better.
3 Likes
I knew it… Well played you stuck in there for a few weeks before the spam started. It was a little obvious bumping years old threads that only had only to do with nutrition.
Kudos, now bye
4 Likes
20% is right in the middle of the healthy BMI range for men. 12% is not in the healthy range - take that however you want.
I think that once one is in the healthy range, diet and lifestyle matter way more than a few percent of body fat either way.
If one is chronically under nourished to maintain 12% then it’s not going to be healthy.
1 Like
BMI does not in anyway take body fat into account.
If I am 12% body fat I am still overweight, I’m not even down into healthy.
3 Likes
As they say, your mileage may vary. 20% is still in range.
Google:
For men
Body fat: 20% body fat falls within the “acceptable” range for men (18-25%). It is considered a healthy and fit physique, though muscle definition may not be as pronounced as in a leaner man.
BMI: A BMI in the healthy range (18.5-24.9) is possible with 20% body fat, but it is not a guarantee
I still stand by what I said. At a certain point, diet and lifestyle is probably more important to health than percentage of fat. You can have someone with 20% body fat who exercises and eats a healthy whole food diet while you can have a person with 12% who smokes, drinks, and has a diet of cheetos and soda.
20% and I’m still obese, avg US male body fat is like 28% and someone could be considered normal or overweight being that high.
I’m fully aware that I am an outlier. But Body fat is still not an actual factor in calculating BMI, which is a huge problem with how BMI is frequently used in healthcare.
I’m not disagreeing with any of that. I still think lifestyle and diet and whether you exercise is more important than 8 percentage points which was the original question asked.
But I am still disagreeing with you making blanket statements regarding Body fat percent and BMI because body fat is not in anyway used in the calculation of BMI.
1 Like
This was interesting:
5 Likes
Happened to watch that video over the weekend.
2 Likes
What’s crazy is that most top cyclists come in at or below 10% body fat, even without all that upper body muscle to help push the number down.
Yes cyclists have little upper body muscle, but they also are proportionally less total weight/mass as well. The average pro cyclist weights 150 lbs, average male 190-200 (depending on country) and the average Olympic weightlifter is around 190 (depending on class). This is why 10% body fat can look so different.
And less bone as well. Was looking at the literature recently and BMD for cyclists is about at the level of a sedentary person, sometimes less.
I doubt I’ve ever hit 12%, but I’ll swing between high teens/low 20’s in the winter and down into the mid teens when I’m really fit during the season. That’s based dexa scan numbers and it’s been a few years since I did one (and I’m getting into my late 50’s, so maybe not getting quite as lean as I used to). Obviously, there is the power to weight benefit of not carrying extra dead weight around, but I also see my best raw power numbers when my body fat is the lowest. I always wondered if maybe fat carried a metabolic load or reduced aerobic efficiency, but I researched a bit at one point and couldn’t find anything material. Every pound of fat does carry a small metabolic load (just maintaining the fat actually consumes some calories every day), but I couldn’t find anything saying fat reduces aerobic output on an absolute basis. So, carrying extra fat will reduce your VO2Max (because it’s a function of body weight), but will not reduce your maximal O2 uptake. My conclusion is that the correlation between my lowest body fat % and my highest raw power output is primarily a byproduct of those things both happening at the peak of my training during the season (duh).
Anyway, that’s what I found in my research, but I only did some basic googling. I was surprised that I couldn’t find much showing the benefits of body comp beyond having a better power to weight ratio. I mean, if you were carrying a bunch of fat, I’d think you’d at least have cooling challenges that would reduce aerobic output, but I didn’t find any studies saying that. Seems like common sense to me, but maybe it’s just bro science. I know I ride better in the heat when I’m leaner, but again this is typically happening at the peak of my season (and a hot part of the year) , so maybe the BF has little to do with it.
1 Like
Ability to shed heat. When I was lean (it’s bean a long while, but I remember :-)), I was able to perform even in high temperatures. Now that I’m porky, I overheat quite a bit easier. I suppose 50 pounds of extra mass, mostly fat, will do that do a person :-).
3 Likes