Bodyfat and performance

[Bazza20]

Low calories is only detrimental to muscle mass and strength if it's in the long term
2-4 weeks of low calories won't do shit

It does.

 

[chocchillimango]

Low calories is only detrimental to muscle mass and strength if it's in the long term
2-4 weeks of low calories won't do shit

I would disagree with that, especially in relation to strength.

 

[0ni]

You're not going to lose the sum of multiple years of training in 4 weeks
Strength will be down when the calories are low, the strength will come back when you increase calories again

 

[spartacus]

Last two posts by the great one says it all.

 

[Goosey]

I would peg a minimum at around 12%. In field events it's very rare to see anyone competitive coming in less than 15%.

Also from what I have seen injury risk seems to increase when you hit sub 10%. Most bodybuilding injuries occur when dieting right down for contest prep. This would indicate that low bodyfat puts you in a sub optimal state for performance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's an interesting observation, and maintaining sub 10 on and off season would be hard work for most both mentally an physically, which would effect the way you train (practice)?

 

[jzpowahz]

Low calories = weak as piss for me.

AFTER refeed then strength is there. I would say that this would not be considered low calorie anymore at this stage.

 

[spartacus]

I don't about that one.

There are quite a few sprinters and NFL players that stay well under 10%.

I don't think Usain bolt would ever be over 10%, he may have a range though.

Is there a link between bodyfat and injuries, maybe, but I don't think there would be much difference from a staying within a 7-10% range than say 12-15%. does not sound logical to me.

 

[Bazza20]

I've had strength drop straight away from dropping calories to low and it took months to get back to that initial level. It's happened more than once. So yes it does happen.

In any case Onis two posts are talking about two different things. No surprise there.

First post says dropping calories for 2-4 weeks won't to shit for strength or muscle. Then next post he says strength will be down when calories are low. Lol. But will come back when calories come back up.

Make up your mind.

 

[spartacus]

yep, there is no consistency.

What he should have said is that a few weeks of dieting, as long as reasonably done and not too low, will not result in much strength loss.

While Ben Johnson was on drugs in 1988, he lost 3-4 kilos in last month, but actually peaked in terms of strength and speed.

 

[Bazza20]

yep, there is no consistency.

What he should have said is that a few weeks of dieting, as long as reasonably done and not too low, will not result in much strength loss.

While Ben Johnson was on drugs in 1988, he lost 3-4 kilos in last month, but actually peaked in terms of strength and speed.

For the natural trainer getting that balance of low BF and keeping strength can be tough. Either by themselves is fairy simple.

I can guarantee that strength loss from 2-4 weeks of very low calories would not come back the instant I increase calories.

 

[Goosey]

I don't about that one.

There are quite a few sprinters and NFL players that stay well under 10%.

I don't think Usain bolt would ever be over 10%, he may have a range though.

Is there a link between bodyfat and injuries, maybe, but I don't think there would be much difference from a staying within a 7-10% range than say 12-15%. does not sound logical to me.

yeah, I said "more often than not" in that most, and then there are the small minority like in all activities that just excel in everything.
Their just renegades, and the ones we all try to emulate.

 

[spartacus]

Bazza, you are right.

But if you only losing a small amount of weight per week, and calories still near 3000, you should not lose much strength in a couple of weeks, as nitrogen levels more likely to be positive.

Losing a lot of weight in a few weeks a different story. Here I refer to weight loss form calories rather than water reduction.

 

[Goosey]

I remember Ed Considine, for the bombers, sheed's really liked him, sheed's told me that Ed had to work three times harder than most, it was his work ethic that made him successful.

 

[spartacus]

Silverback, I think as long as you have a range to move in terms of putting on fat or weight, does not really matter if moving within range 6-10% or 12-16% regardless of ability.

Just that few people appear capable of getting down to low levels (6%) in first place while holding on to strength.

 

[0ni]

I hate it when you put in five years, ten years, twenty, accrue more potential for muscle, stronger joints, a whole assortment of physiological adaptations that your lesser-trained self simply didn't have, change the way your genes express themselves, changes wired right into your brain and in the structure of your muscle fibres, only to lose it all in 4 weeks of low calories

 

[Bazza20]

I hate it when you put in five years, ten years, twenty, accrue more potential for muscle, stronger joints, a whole assortment of physiological adaptations that your lesser-trained self simply didn't have, change the way your genes express themselves, changes wired right into your brain and in the structure of your muscle fibres, only to lose it all in 4 weeks of low calories

Good to see you have changed your argument yet again Oni. You never fail do you. Lol.

Look at the evolution of Onis 3 previous posts changing his argument trying to dig himself out of stupid comments. Lol.

 

[0ni]

Good to see you have changed your argument yet again Oni. You never fail do you. Lol.

Look at the evolution of Onis 3 previous posts changing his argument trying to dig himself out of stupid comments. Lol.

It's exactly the same
If you lose strength then you simply didn't manage the cut correctly. Strength will be low while calories are low but will go back up when you bring the calories back up. You didn't lose strength you were just tired and exhausted from low calories. If you experienced something different then you simply did it wrong. I've done it, plenty of other people have done it, it exists and is entirely possible and that's all their is too it. I still go by my original comment

 

[Bazza20]

It's exactly the same
If you lose strength then you simply didn't manage the cut correctly. Strength will be low while calories are low but will go back up when you bring the calories back up. You didn't lose strength you were just tired and exhausted from low calories. If you experienced something different then you simply did it wrong. I've done it, plenty of other people have done it, it exists and is entirely possible and that's all their is too it. I still go by my original comment

What you are posting is bullshit and as usual you keep changing your argument every post. Maybe if you managed to achieve anything naturally you would have some real life experience on cutting and maintaining strength without drugs.

 

[DREADLIFT]

What you are posting is bullshit and as usual you keep changing your argument every post. Maybe if you managed to achieve anything naturally you would have some real life experience on cutting and maintaining strength without drugs.

Drugs are irrelevant. Sure they help, but you wont turn into prepubescent strength levels if you manage a weight cut properly.

 

[Bazza20]

Drugs are irrelevant. Sure they help, but you wont turn into prepubescent strength levels if you manage a weight cut properly.

First drugs are relevant when cutting. You even admit it in your post when you say sure they help.

Second if you read my posts I never said that you cannot maintain your strength on a cut if done properly. That's exactly what I am saying. But I was disagreeing with Onis posts saying that "2-4 weeks of low calories won't do shit" in regards to losing strength.

Two to four weeks of cutting with too low calories will definitely cause strength loss that will take a while to get back.