Body fat

i'm glad I stopped cycling like i used to, i couldn't afford to feed myself after a while.....i was spending about $2000 CDN a month on food, just to maintain
 
I'm going to say 15-20% for your average urban survivalist. Given that shelter and clothing should be easier to find.

I'm sitting about 12% at the moment weighing 220lbs and 6'4''. I do eat every 2 hours and can consume huge amounts of food in a day but I am working out for 2hrs a day and i'm on the go with work for 12hrs a day so that's why. I would say If I put a little more weight on say getting up to 15% i'd be better balanced.

I have been at 7% at 200lbs during last summer and the lowest fat I went down to was 4-5% at 200lbs a few years ago. While I looked better then I was physically weak and hungry all the time.

If you were in a rural environment i'm going to say 20-25%, think Ray Mears not Bear or Les. You need that extra level of padding to give you more of a margin before starvation kicks in. I know i've fattened up before Arctic training, got up to 20% and after the first 2 weeks I was down to 15% but not starving or cold. Had I not had the fat to lose i'd have been a lot less combat ready.
 
10-12% is too much for me. I think 6-8% is what I want. This is just my opinion, but if I can grab the fat, it's too much for me. I'm at ~11% right now, with grabable fat around the mid-section.
 
I believe that healthy is 10-18 percent like has been said for non-athletes. Bodies vary quite a bit so I don't even go by "ideal body weight" or "ideal body fat." A healthy person is a healthy person. According to my height, 6', I should weigh 164-188 pounds and that's for "large frame males." My lean body mass is 168. So according to the charts my ideal weight should be 0% fat.:rolleyes: Just remember there are a lot of unhealthy skinny people.
 
I know bikers that spend that on food... the poor ones just eat a ton of potatoes and noodles... and then pound coffee by the pot. Thankfully I did most of my biking under my mom's house... one year she went on a low cholesterol kick and I was doing 60 miles a day living on cheerios, rice and fish sticks. I lost fifteen pounds in a week... most of it was muscle mass I had built up for Air Force Basic Training.
 
I'm hearing some very low numbers here... Have you all had your bodyfat measured with calipers? 6% is ripped, 10% is pretty lean. I'm not doubting that you're that lean, but a lot of my clients underestimate their %...
 
I am pretty chubby, but most of it is on my upper torso. my lower half is pretty ripped thanks to bicycling. I really do have a lot to lose though.
 
According to one of my running mags, you burn 90 calories per mile walking and 120 running. If you weigh, say 200lbs, I imagine you could roughly adjust for a 40 lb pack by adding 20%.(40/200) to that.

A big mac has 576 calories, or about 7 miles walking/6 mi running.

I have not weighed myself for years nor do I have any idea what my body fat % is, nor do I really care to know. I do a lot of running, plus work at a physical job so I figure that whatever I happen to weigh is the right weight for me.
 
Those estimates are pretty optimistic! 500 cals is about the most someone can expect to burn in a P.T session for 1 hr!
 
beef said:
I'm hearing some very low numbers here... Have you all had your bodyfat measured with calipers? 6% is ripped, 10% is pretty lean. I'm not doubting that you're that lean, but a lot of my clients underestimate their %...
Click to expand...

I use three different methods, and take the average. I use the hand-held electric device that measures an electric current, the same type of device in my scale, and the tape test. I think the tape test is more accurate than the electric device, which is greatly influenced by water intake. I have not had a caliper measurement, but like the tape test, it must measure a whole bunch of different points to be accurate.
 
I'd be happy to find a place where I can do the submerged scale test.
 
beef said:
Those estimates are pretty optimistic! 500 cals is about the most someone can expect to burn in a P.T session for 1 hr!
Click to expand...

I don't think that's totally accurate. My last 8 mile run at a lethargic pace yielded 800 calories burnt. The 10 mile run two days before yielded 1175 calories burnt. Both runs were just over an hour. Also, I think HIIT training for 1 hour would yield a massive amount of spent calories.
 
I've been dunked before, I was 17 at the time, but my dad and I went down to UW Madison to get body mapped for my road bike frame size. They say road bikers burn up to 3,000 calories an hour, cross country skiers and swimmers even more.
 
calorie burn is a function of your V02 and unless you know what you working at, after youve had a V02 max test, and correlated it with your known max heart rate, any calculator or anything like that is simply a BS guess.

1 L o2 uptake = 5kcal

so, unless your doing those things, its not accurate (thats treadmills and ellipticals too)
 
The calories burnt are what my Garmin Forerunner 305 says. It monitors heart rate every second for the duration of the event. Do you think it's inaccurate? It marries itself to your heart rate pattern, whatever that actually means.
 
it still cannot take into account how much oxygen you take in, how high or low your metabolism is, your body weight/fat percentage, etc etc etc. There's about 10,000 different things that can affect how many calories you burn and there's not a single calculator, monitor, etc out there that will tell you within reason how many calories you burn-just approximations based on activity.
 
its not quite that complicated.

if you dont input your weight, then it wont be accurate. if you do, it should be relatively close, emphasis on should. so basically what they do is get data from people who have done v02 max tests with real measuring equip in a lab and correlate the heart rates. since people have different max heart rates, there is error in that. but, that being said, the v02 -hr relationship is linear almost the entire way to 100% so if your hr is near the mean that they use, it should be close.

so when someone says they burned 3000 kcal in a workout, lets see how much that would actually be.

working backwards, 3000kcal @ (1Lo2 used = 5 kcal) is 600L of O2.

lets say our cyclist is 170lbs, theyre pretty skinny. so thats 77.11kg. if his vo2 max is 50ml/kg/min (decent for males) and hes going to work out at 85% of that (42.5ml/kg/min)

42.5 x 77.11 = 3277.175ml.min / 1000 = 3.2771l/min

600/ 2.771L/min = 183.08minutes

3 hours, thats a loooong time to be at 85% vo2 max which is about 90% of heart rate max..... not gonna happen unless your world class freak, at that point, people know what you need.

so, when people say their "calorie burn" from a workout, dont give it too much stock
 
beef said:
I'm hearing some very low numbers here... Have you all had your bodyfat measured with calipers? 6% is ripped, 10% is pretty lean. I'm not doubting that you're that lean, but a lot of my clients underestimate their %...
Click to expand...

Yes I have, when I box they measure all that good stuff.
 
Charlie Mike said:
I'd actually like to know how many calories I burned given a 120 degree temp in a hightened state of awareness with reduced sleep and rations.
Click to expand...
Depends on what you were doing. If you were sitting or laying still on watch, not a lot. If you were moving on foot, it can be quite a bit.

Temperature, awareness state, reduced sleep, and reduced rations will not increase your caloric burn. It's all tied to activity level.

Temperature, awareness state, and reduced sleep, can influence your caloric intake by affecting your appetite. Reduced rations definitely reduces your caloric intake. If caloric burn > caloric intake, you lose weight. If caloric burn < caloric intake, you gain weight...even if you're in 120-degree heat, low sleep, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top