You want to think about things like Leptin. IIRC there was a study done in either 2009 or 2010. It showed the level various test subjects reacted to low leptin varied wildly. Some people started to slow down and save bf at fairly high levels. Others didn't react even if fairly lean levels. These were all "normal" subjects. Not people with leptin issues.
I don't think worrying about leptin levels is something that has to be worried about until you are actually getting lean. There are various refeed protocols that can help with leptin, though keeping with the basics for now is advisable.
I don't think humans are yet coming off some mass assembly line built to some blue print.
Sure, we are all special snowflakes.
BTW plug pubmed somatotypes into google. Might change your mind on how archaic they are.
No... no it really doesn't I am aware of current somatotyping, and fall into the camp of those that don't acknowledge or see the relevance. The basics of training and diet are the same for EVERYONE. Sure, there are outliers, but those are the exception.
Originally Posted by oldsuperman
The scales only tell you how much you weigh. It does't tell you your BMI or how you look and feel. As I said before, none of my clients are to ever step on the scales unless it's almost show time in a bbing contest. I can tell in an instant how fat you are and if your diet and exercise program is working by your progress pics. If the symmetry and leanness is there, then you are heading in the right direction. When a client of mine is getting ready for a shoot or film, who cares what he or she weighs? All the photographer cares about is does he look lean and have abs? I weigh about every 6 mths personally if at all. I can tell by a quick look in the mirror if I like what I see. If you want to weigh yourself because it makes you feel better. Then I guess you can. Yet not in my stable.
The scale weight is a valid data point, BMI is appropriate for population studies, not individuals.
If intuitive training works for you, that's great (and I envy those that can do it) but it isn't going to do to much good for someone struggling to lose weight and doesn't have access to a trainer.
To the rest of use mere mortals, I recommend they reread the bottom of post 55.
Originally Posted by lunchbreak
Er, no way to find your BMI without knowing your weight since the two figures you factor into it are your weight and height Linky. Of course BMI is about as useful as a chocolate fireguard. I'm overweight on the BMI scale. LOL!
I like knowing my weight. It's just another tool to use, not the only one. It helps me understand if I've got the surplus or deficit I want, it enables me to compare leanness against weight to get an understanding of what LBM gains I'm making. The mirror is just as important. It's the trends I look for, not the individual data points from either the scale or my reflection.
Standard deviation is 6 calories per 24 hours per kilo of fat free mass. That means if I have 72 kilos of ffm, my rmr could be 432 higher or lower than what these calculators say. It also means two individuals at different ends of this deviation are almost 900 cals different in spite of identical ffm. This has nothing to do with somatotypes, its just typical differences between people. Sure, most won't be at the edge of the norm, but they can be.
Every time I'm knocked down is a chance to get up again.
Drudixon's See No Evil, Hear No Evil - Aesthetics Acquisition Log
Standard deviation is 6 calories per 24 hours per kilo of fat free mass. That means if I have 72 kilos of ffm, my rmr could be 432 higher or lower than what these calculators say. It also means two individuals at different ends of this deviation are almost 900 cals different in spite of identical ffm. This has nothing to do with somatotypes, its just typical differences between people. Sure, most won't be at the edge of the norm, but they can be.
I would be interested in seeing the bolded source.
FWIW I only use calculators as a reference point. Unless you have an indirect calorimetry test... a starting point IS just a guess. Either way, we are similar enough where a mathematical equation correctly estimates BMR for most people.
Outliers are the exception (and I agree there are exceptions).
Last edited by acrawlingchaos; 12-13-2012 at 06:48 AM.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to acrawlingchaos again.
Got him.
No brain, no gain.
You can't out-train bad nutrition.
"The fitness and nutrition world is a breeding ground for obsessive-compulsive behavior. The irony is that many of the things people worry about have no impact on results either way, and therefore aren't worth an ounce of concern."--Alan Aragon
I would be interested in seeing the bolded source.
FWIW I only use calculators as a reference point. Unless you have an indirect calorimetry test... a starting point IS just a guess. Either way, we are similar enough where a mathematical equation correctly estimates BMR for most people.
Outliers are the exception (and I agree there are exceptions).
Hey bud. Ya, it's interesting for sure. There's a google book (and other places) where the 6kcal / kilo ffm / day is referenced. I came across it doing some random googling of BMR which led me to RMR (which I've decided is better for calculating my baselines based on how BMR is derived [ a condition that I will never be in]).
Dru, I was just rereading that link. "From a review and meta-analysis of 15 different samples ad studies, the standard deviation adjusted for FFM is 6 W per 24 hours or about 124 kcal a day.
So once the non FFM variance (124 k cal), the FFM standard deviation is only +/- 250 calories.
Last edited by acrawlingchaos; 12-15-2012 at 03:12 PM.
Discounts & Deals - Sign Up!
Bookmarks