Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 35 of 35
  1. #26
    7-speed doomsday prepper ThermionicScott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    CID
    My Bikes
    1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX
    Posts
    8,513
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What, no Reg Park?
    Quote Originally Posted by chandltp View Post
    There's no such thing as too far.. just lack of time
    RUSA #7498

  2. #27
    just another gosling Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Everett, WA
    My Bikes
    CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
    Posts
    8,178
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hamster View Post
    Using the same principle as BMI, you can calculate a number called "fat-free mass index". That's simply your fat free mass divided by height squared. If you have BMI of 25 and 6% body fat, your FFMI is 25*0.94=23.5.

    An average untrained and sedentary adult might have FFMI on the order of 19-20 if it's a male or 16-17 if it's a female (slowly decreasing with age). Endurance sports do not increase FFMI beyond these levels and, in fact, may even lower it slightly. The only way to raise it is through weight training. A male college baseball player might be at 20-22, a football player might be at 24, and Mr. Olympia bodybuilders from the pre-steroid era averaged 25.4. It is thought that you can't raise FFMI much above 25 without steroids.

    Having naturally wide bones might move you up a point or two at the most. Your reference to being at 6% body fat and overweight suggests to me that you were seriously hitting the weights at the time.

    Conversely, a FFMI below ~18 for a male is a sign of malnutrition (starvation or a protein-deficient diet) and it is generally neither healthy nor sustainable. You rarely see people below 17-18 in the developed world except for cases of extreme dieting.

    This all gives you a natural way to look at the BMI and the effect of training. At 10% body fat, BMI 19 = FFMI 17.1 (starvation), BMI 22 = FFMI 19.8 (normal for a skinny untrained person), BMI 25 = FFMI 22.5, BMI 30 = FFMI 27 (not happening without steroids). At 20% body fat, BMI 19 = FFMI 15.2 (not happening unless it's a formerly morbidly obese person in the middle of a poor-quality extreme diet), BMI 22 = FFMI 17.6 (ditto), BMI 25 = FFMI 20 (average for a sedentary and borderline overweight person), BMI 30 = FFMI 24 (college football player in a defensive position), BMI 34 = FFMI 27.2 (steroid-bulked national-level football player).



    That would put your FFMI at the time at 21.8. Somewhat high for an average person but healthy.
    Very interesting. My current FFMI is 21.7, which puts me, at 68, firmly in the 95th+ percentile. Which means what? I'd like to get down to an FFMI of 21, but certainly no lighter. I'd be weak.

  3. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Escondido, CA
    Posts
    2,085
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ThermionicScott View Post
    What, no Reg Park?
    If you insist:



    The following year [1949], pictures of Reg Park and rumors of his genuine 18 inch arms started appearing all over the Physical Culture press, along with the news that he had bulked himself up to as much as 230 pounds. He then dieted down to a weight at which he felt he achieved maximum muscularity. Park now weighed in at 205 pounds, with a neck of 18 inches, chest 49, waist 31, thigh 25, and a 16 inch calf.
    205 pounds at the height of 6'1" is BMI 27.1. At 6% body fat, that's FFMI 25.4.

    18" arms and 49.5" chest are in line with the measurements of other high-profile bodybuilders at the time. Steve Reeves had 17.5" arms and 48" chest.

    The Governator, same height as these two, was reported to have 22" arms and 57" chest at the peak of his career.

  4. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Escondido, CA
    Posts
    2,085
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
    Very interesting. My current FFMI is 21.7, which puts me, at 68, firmly in the 95th+ percentile. Which means what? I'd like to get down to an FFMI of 21, but certainly no lighter. I'd be weak.
    It could mean that you're underestimating your BF% (or, alternatively, that the paper was systematically overestimating BF%'s of its test subjects).

    Here's a different paper that gives slightly different numbers but it too says that, for 40-59 yo males, 85th percentile is 20.9 and 95th percentile is 22.4.

    It also depends on how recently you've been in the gym lifting weights. Personally, I'm in the same boat. I was in the gym doing weights twice a week from October to December, then did a hydrostatic body fat test and it came up with FFMI 21.5. I don't think I was higher than 21 in the summer. For my & your height, the difference between 21 and 21.5 is 3 lbs of muscle.

    (Also, there's no contradiction between the low 85th/95th percentiles and the ease of gaining the first few pounds of muscle. In any given month, fewer than 5% of adult Americans regularly work out in a gym, and even fewer hit the weights.)
    Last edited by hamster; 01-20-14 at 12:15 PM.

  5. #30
    just another gosling Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Everett, WA
    My Bikes
    CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
    Posts
    8,178
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hamster View Post
    It could mean that you're underestimating your BF% (or, alternatively, that the paper was systematically overestimating BF%'s of its test subjects).

    Here's a different paper that gives slightly different numbers but it too says that, for 40-59 yo males, 85th percentile is 20.9 and 95th percentile is 22.4.

    It also depends on how recently you've been in the gym lifting weights. Personally, I'm in the same boat. I was in the gym doing weights twice a week from October to December, then did a hydrostatic body fat test and it came up with FFMI 21.5. I don't think I was higher than 21 in the summer. For my & your height, the difference between 21 and 21.5 is 3 lbs of muscle.

    (Also, there's no contradiction between the low 85th/95th percentiles and the ease of gaining the first few pounds of muscle. In any given month, fewer than 5% of adult Americans regularly work out in a gym, and even fewer hit the weights.)
    Yes, I've been in the gym since the end of September. My thigh measurement is up 1", belly down 3". I'm getting my fat percentage off my scale, so probably not particularly accurate, but I'm looking fairly cut, so maybe not so far off. Down 3% BF, up 2% muscle since April. I'm also riding, 96 miles of hilly riding on the tandem over the weekend, with other cycle-based work during the week and a day of alpine skiing. I'm on the edge. OLP and the gym today (Monday).

  6. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Escondido, CA
    Posts
    2,085
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
    Yes, I've been in the gym since the end of September. My thigh measurement is up 1", belly down 3". I'm getting my fat percentage off my scale, so probably not particularly accurate, but I'm looking fairly cut, so maybe not so far off. Down 3% BF, up 2% muscle since April. I'm also riding, 96 miles of hilly riding on the tandem over the weekend, with other cycle-based work during the week and a day of alpine skiing. I'm on the edge. OLP and the gym today (Monday).
    Scales can be pretty far off. Here's an easy check. With your height, 11% body fat should put you firmly below 28" waist circumference.

  7. #32
    just another gosling Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Everett, WA
    My Bikes
    CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
    Posts
    8,178
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hamster View Post
    Scales can be pretty far off. Here's an easy check. With your height, 11% body fat should put you firmly below 28" waist circumference.
    That's impossible, at least for rather athletic me. I'm already at the Willoughby ideal athletic weight. If I lose 3" off my waist, I'd be 30", which would be the Willoughby ideal athletic waist. I can and probably will do that this spring and summer. I can see the first 2 bottles, but the bottom 4 bottles are still under a layer of fat. Not that my front abs are much anyway - I don't do crunches or that sort of nonsense. But my back and TVAs are pretty good. But thanks for the check: my scale probably is off. It's really only good for watching progress.

  8. #33
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Austin
    My Bikes
    Pinarello ROKH
    Posts
    22
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianBiker32 View Post
    Ok what would be a good body fat % to achieve for a cycling. More less i want to better my results in my cycling events from Road TT's , road races and 100 mile mtb events.

    i am thinking i am around 20% at this time, according to my scale

    for the top guys who place well in citizen events
    what would be good body fat % to work towards ? would this make ones performance on the bike better?
    to be more lean?
    thanks
    I use one of those omron electrical dealies you hold in your hands and it measures body fat.
    http://www.amazon.com/Omron-Monitor-.../dp/B000FYZMYK

    I'm right around 14.5% currently give or take depending on the day.

    I view weight a little differently than I used to when my goal was to simply lose it, I weighed around 200lbs at one time and now I'm training to race currently. So for one I stopped looking at weight in lbs and switched to tracking in kilo's.

    I'm 5' 6.5" and ~67kg (~148lbs) with a FTP hovering around 3.8 watts per kilo, just by losing a few kilo's I could push my power to weight ratio up to 4+ watts per kilo without having to work quite as hard as it would take me to gain the extra 12 watts. However in the time I'm losing that weight I'm also increasing my power through training so that power to weight ratio goes up even higher. I'm aiming to get to around 10% body fat without trying to gain too much muscle through eating healthier and then see how much that affects my performance as sometimes losing too much weight too soon can sacrifice performance.

  9. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    542
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hamster View Post
    If you insist:

    205 pounds at the height of 6'1" is BMI 27.1. At 6% body fat, that's FFMI 25.4.

    18" arms and 49.5" chest are in line with the measurements of other high-profile bodybuilders at the time. Steve Reeves had 17.5" arms and 48" chest.

    The Governator, same height as these two, was reported to have 22" arms and 57" chest at the peak of his career.
    Impressive arms, but those are some skinny legs. The Governator has a bigger frame, so it would take a lot more to fill it out. I'd have to hit 250 to look that muscular.

  10. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Escondido, CA
    Posts
    2,085
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
    That's impossible, at least for rather athletic me. I'm already at the Willoughby ideal athletic weight. If I lose 3" off my waist, I'd be 30", which would be the Willoughby ideal athletic waist. I can and probably will do that this spring and summer. I can see the first 2 bottles, but the bottom 4 bottles are still under a layer of fat. Not that my front abs are much anyway - I don't do crunches or that sort of nonsense. But my back and TVAs are pretty good. But thanks for the check: my scale probably is off. It's really only good for watching progress.
    Being able to see the abs is not necessarily proof that it's impossible to lose much waist. There is usually a substantial amount of fat behind the abs, that's what makes waist circumference pretty sensitive to BF%.

    Willoughby ideal athletic weight/waist assumes well developed muscles all around (FFMI ~23..24?) and low body fat. For you, it's 30". A pre-steroid era world class bodybuilder with your height might get to 31-32" (as mentioned above, Reg Park was 31" at 6'1" height, but that seems to be below average.) For an average male who does not do crunches, this article gives average waist ~29" at 15% BF, 32" at 20% BF, and 36" at 25% BF.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •