Low Body Fat Affects Performance!

thirtyfoot

http://www.elitetrack.com/blogs/details/4951/

This is an interesting blog based on the author's thoughts that low, low body fat will not always result in better performance in power athletes especially. Now as a man who loves his food and always has a little more cushioning that I should in the belly area, I like this theory (even if anecdotal) and will take it as a given to have that kebab every two now instead of four weeks. I also am always uneasy when I see coaches or athletes getting obsessive about diet and body fat numbers - we are athletes and not bodybuilders. As the author says

I guess it's just another example of optimal being neither minimal or maximal.

.

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 perform there best when at their lowest body fat percentages. This seems to be especially true for activities placing a premium on strength or low end power. To throw out some observational estimated figures, I'd say that 7-10% body fat appears to be the sweet spot for performance and better for performance than 4-6% body fat (the lower limits of what is physiologically possible). Is this because peak performances usually occur during times when training volumes are lower...which when combined with unmodified caloric intake lends itself to increased body fat values? Or could it be that slightly higher body fat percentages facilitate more efficient neural transmissions? Perhaps it's because achieving extremely low body fat percentages requires what is essentially a slight starvation that in turn affects performance. I'm not exactly sure but I've seen this phenomenon enough times in athletes I've worked with to question the usual paradigm that athletes should strive for the lowest possible body fat percentages. Ultimately it doesn't matter because repeated real-world performance improvements trump scientific explanation. I guess it's just another example of optimal being neither minimal or maximal.

limericklion

Its a well known fact that athletes should have their body fat in the range of 7-12% and not 2 or 3 as this will lead to the immune system breaking down. Most elite athletes are in the 7-12% range. One must remember been toned and skinny does not mean you have very low body fat. In fact there is an athlete I know whoes body fat was measured recently and it resulted in 10% and there is not a pick of fat on him, toned like the full time athlete he is. Therefore given these facts a balanced and healthy diet is key, binging on junk food once in a while like at Christmas etc will do no harm, at it every weekend though along with indulging in high caloriy drinks will result in an increase in body fat levels and while it may help the immune system slightly the benefits do not outway the advantages of a good body fat level. Moderation is the key.

tunney

Tingle wrote: »

http://www.elitetrack.com/blogs/details/4951/

This is an interesting blog based on the author's thoughts that low, low body fat will not always result in better performance in power athletes especially. Now as a man who loves his food and always has a little more cushioning that I should in the belly area, I like this theory (even if anecdotal) and will take it as a given to have that kebab every two now instead of four weeks. I also am always uneasy when I see coaches or athletes getting obsessive about diet and body fat numbers - we are athletes and not bodybuilders. As the author says .

interesting. However it would be more interesting if it was research backed fact rather than just opinion. Another opinion based article I read recently suggested that the western world was sacraficing performance at the altar of balance and moderation.

thirtyfoot

tunney wrote: »

Another opinion based article I read recently suggested that the western world was sacraficing performance at the altar of balance and moderation.

In this context of speed and power athletes, performance is not sacrificed by the western world based on the hard facts of medals and records which are dominated by the 'bad' eating, balanced and moderate US/Caribbean (is Jamaica 3rd world?) athletes. Hungry on the track instead of hungry off it is their motto I'd say.

Even our own power athletes like Gillick, Hession and O' Rourke while massively disciplined would have a healthy approach to diet. For those 3 anyway there is no sacrifice in performance due to their balanced approach to life and training, in fact, I'd say its a major factor in their success.

Overall, it makes sense to me that when you train less in the run up to a race you will burn less calories and so may put on a few pounds. Bear in mind a sprinter may train only 2 or 3 times in the 6 or 7 day run up to a big race versus training 9 or 10 times over the same period in the heart of winter training. I know I am always a little heavier in June/July than in Jan/Feb.