[Mike Young]

Mike Young on January 4, 2010 at 8:09 am #16435

Over the past couple years I’ve noticed an interesting phenomenon that I don’t have a research-based physiological explanation for. I’ve noticed that people tend to perform better at slightly higher body fat percentages. Not “big” or “fat” by any means but slightly higher than rock bottom, paper thin-skin body fat values. In fact, other than some rare cases, most athletes don’t seem to per

Continue reading…

ELITETRACK Founder

[sizerp]

sizerp on January 5, 2010 at 2:39 am #93191

Perhaps it’s because achieving extremely low body fat percentages requires what is essentially a slight starvation that in turn affects performance.

One thing that goes hand in hand with the extremely low body fat is the reduced amount of free fatty acids that are released into the bloodstream when energy beyond the anaerobic and glucose reserves is needed. I assume a person that is “slightly starved” has less glycogen stored than a well fed person. Another thing is that recovery from training , especially weight lifting, requires accelerated protein synthesis that consumes a lot of energy, which someone on a diet doesn’t have much of.

I found a relatively relevant scientific study:

Adipose triacylglycerol lipase deletion alters whole body energy metabolism and impairs exercise performance in mice

[Nick Newman]

Nick Newman on January 5, 2010 at 3:40 am #93196

Dennis your alive! Still training?

[sizerp]

sizerp on January 5, 2010 at 4:02 am #93202

Dennis your alive! Still training?

Yep, still trying to run jump. I probably managed to acquire a decent amount of bodyfat with all this holiday food and relatives trying to feed me all the Bulgarian food they thought I was lacking in the United States. Strength and speed is up though, so I definitely agree with Mike in his conclusions.

[Nick Newman]

Nick Newman on January 5, 2010 at 4:07 am #93203

Yeah but i dunno, i mean i was stronger when i had slightly more BF and body weight than i do now…but im relatively stronger now than i was when i was 189 and that kinda strength is more important than absolute max.

[Jay Turner]

Jay Turner on January 5, 2010 at 6:41 am #93207

A couple months ago I was watching the Discovery Channel and they were talking about this very thing. I can’t remember exactly what was said but the test subject was a seemingly out-of-shape, older, novice male swimmer. He attempted to swim the English Channel and I’m not sure if he was successful or not, but if not he was darned close. They studied him and determined it was because of his extra body fat that he was able to keep up the energy needed to swim that far. Something about the fat stores being used for energy. I wish I could remember exactly what was said.

[Matt Norquist]

Matt Norquist on January 5, 2010 at 7:42 am #93210

A couple months ago I was watching the Discovery Channel and they were talking about this very thing. I can’t remember exactly what was said but the test subject was a seemingly out-of-shape, older, novice male swimmer. He attempted to swim the English Channel and I’m not sure if he was successful or not, but if not he was darned close. They studied him and determined it was because of his extra body fat that he was able to keep up the energy needed to swim that far. Something about the fat stores being used for energy. I wish I could remember exactly what was said.

Well, when we convert from Speed/Power athletes to start swimming the English Channel, will definitely need to up the BF 🙂 !!

I’d anecdotally say that the diet requirements necessary to drop under 7% will be pretty restrictive for an athlete’s recovery process and energy systems. (Even intensive training will not get most individuals to <7% – and active dieting is necessary). But will add that most sub-elite athletes probably have a ways to go and could stand to lose a fair bit of fat. Probably even a fair # of elite athletes.

I posted on this topic recently regarding my desire to lose weight (I'd like to be 10-15# less, given my current strengh levels). For the month of November, I restricted caloric intake and went from 204 down to 196. Strength stayed the same. But I was whipped all the time. Then when I went back to normal diet, I gained most of that back almost immediately. Personally, I have decided to focus on training during the season – and not worry about BF levels at all. Let them fall where they may. Then during my active recovery phase (this year, that will be July-August) I will work on going down to a lower BF%.

[Craig Pickering]

Craig Pickering on January 5, 2010 at 7:51 am #93214

I have found that I generally race better with slightly higher body fat. I found in 2008, when I got down to sub 8% BF, I wasnt very happy, and went out of my way to make sure I was eating stricter. I got very ill, probably due to a very weak immune system, and also badly injured, tearing my hamstring. I didnt run better.

End of 2008, and outdoors 2009 to now, I am ill much, much less, and injured less. I also enjoy eating much more, and can let myself go without getting over stressed. So, I’m much, much happier, hence why I think performance also improves. Im now at about 9% BF. I also have much more energy, probably due to glycogen stores been full.

[barto]

barto on February 10, 2010 at 2:33 am #94517

Anecdotally, I can report that often times peak performances are achieved by my athletes when their body fat is very low, however this “tissue paper skin” state seems to almost always be followed by some sort of injury.

I describe this phenomenon as the classic Chicken/Egg situation. Is the low bodyfat due to increased volume and intensity of training and the training is responsible for the improved performance or is the improvement in performance due to better power to weight ratio achieved through a loss of fat? Like most things physiological, a number of different factors are at play.

What you can be sure of is that very low bodyfat may produce a spike in performance, but that spike will be short lived. Slightly elevated bodyfat is crucial when increasing volume in training. Recovery requires fat, and super-compensation requires recovery. Isn’t this the object of training?

[jamesbrrando@gmail.com]

jamesbrrando@gmail.com on April 18, 2010 at 12:08 pm #97468

crap
ive gone from 10+% to just under 8.0% since Dec 2009
…
i guess i wont know until i run a few meets then