Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Do you have to lose body fat to improve fitness ?

  • 25-04-2020 08:17PM
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 87 ✭✭


    Hi ,my body fat is 20% give or take ,my weight is 105kg ...last 3/4 months Iv really got back into fitness training , I train aerobic and anaerobic fitness as I play gaa ..my fitness has improved every time I do a fitness test but my diet would be average I’m the exact same weight as when I started and can’t say Iv noticed any changes in the mirror .....will this trend continue as long as I keep training hard and often or should I expect some plateau in my fitness if I don’t concentrate more on changing body composition .....for reference sake my fitness has improved from level 16 in the intermittent yo-yo test to level 18 and my ultimate goal being to reach level 20


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,802 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    Wildkid wrote: »
    Hi ,my body fat is 20% give or take ,my weight is 105kg ...last 3/4 months Iv really got back into fitness training , I train aerobic and anaerobic fitness as I play gaa ..my fitness has improved every time I do a fitness test but my diet would be average I’m the exact same weight as when I started and can’t say Iv noticed any changes in the mirror .....will this trend continue as long as I keep training hard and often or should I expect some plateau in my fitness if I don’t concentrate more on changing body composition .....for reference sake my fitness has improved from level 16 in the intermittent yo-yo test to level 18 and my ultimate goal being to reach level 20

    You can still improve your fitness to some degree at the same weight but you be in a better position to get even fitter by shedding some body fat. If you're lighter, your body won't have to work as hard to keep you moving so doing the same work will be easier, allowing you to do more.
    That's a simplification but you get the idea.

    If you're the same weight as when you started back into fitness training, then you're obviously eating more. You can make small tweaks to start with and build on those as the results show


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 258 ✭✭Wanderer19


    What do you mean your diet is average?

    You can't out train a bad diet. As stated above, your training will be more effective if you're not as heavy.

    How do you know your fat %?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 509 ✭✭✭Sono Topolino


    If you’re doing aerobic and anaerobic fitness, then you’re building muscle. Muscle weighs more than fat. Ergo, if you have the same body mass as when you started training, you have replaced some fat with muscle.

    Losing weight may give you some advantages, but if losing fat is what you’re talking about, you are already on the way.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,802 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    If you’re doing aerobic and anaerobic fitness, then you’re building muscle. Muscle weighs more than fat. Ergo, if you have the same body mass as when you started training, you have replaced some fat with muscle.

    Losing weight may give you some advantages, but if losing fat is what you’re talking about, you are already on the way.

    The OP is unlikely to be building muscle based on what they said, ie training to improve fitness. Anaerobic work might just be sprint intervals, which would make sense for GAA, and that's not really gonna build muscle or it would likely be negligible.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 87 ✭✭Wildkid


    The OP is unlikely to be building muscle based on what they said, ie training to improve fitness. Anaerobic work might just be sprint intervals, which would make sense for GAA, and that's not really gonna build muscle or it would likely be negligible.

    Yes the anaerobic training is sprint intervals


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 87 ✭✭Wildkid


    Wanderer19 wrote: »
    What do you mean your diet is average?

    You can't out train a bad diet. As stated above, your training will be more effective if you're not as heavy.

    How do you know your fat %?

    I took measurement of my waist and neck and weight etc and put it in to calculator not the most accurate I know but a decent ball park figure


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 464 ✭✭2forjoy


    And losing it is 80% diet and 20% exercise so you have a lot to do.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 258 ✭✭Wanderer19


    If you’re doing aerobic and anaerobic fitness, then you’re building muscle. Muscle weighs more than fat. Ergo, if you have the same body mass as when you started training, you have replaced some fat with muscle.

    Losing weight may give you some advantages, but if losing fat is what you’re talking about, you are already on the way.
    Muscle does not weigh heavier than fat, a pound is a pound, regardless of what you're weighing.

    Imagine the flat surface of your palm is muscle but weighs a pound, but your whole hand, including the fingers is fat, and weighs a pound.
    Fat takes up more space, that's all there is to it


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 258 ✭✭Wanderer19


    Wildkid wrote: »
    I took measurement of my waist and neck and weight etc and put it in to calculator not the most accurate I know but a decent ball park figure
    Ok, them methods really aren't useful - they don't take into account your body type, but if you think it's only at 20% then you're in the average range, so you don't have far to go.

    Are you doing weights and body conditioning exercises?

    A strict diet until you get to trim excess weight then good eating habits after that will get you where you want to be


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,505 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Wanderer19 wrote: »
    Muscle does not weigh heavier than fat, a pound is a pound, regardless of what you're weighing.

    Imagine the flat surface of your palm is muscle but weighs a pound, but your whole hand, including the fingers is fat, and weighs a pound.
    Fat takes up more space, that's all there is to it

    Muscle does weigh more than fat!
    By your logic lead weighs the same as marshmallow since a pound of lead weighs the same as a pound of marshmallow, in fact everything weighs the same as everything else :rolleyes:

    A bucket of fat weighs less than a bucket of muscle.
    A pound of fat needs a bigger bucket than a pound of muscle does.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,328 ✭✭✭the baby bull elephant


    Wanderer19 wrote: »
    Ok, them methods really aren't useful - they don't take into account your body type, but if you think it's only at 20% then you're in the average range, so you don't have far to go.

    Are you doing weights and body conditioning exercises?

    A strict diet until you get to trim excess weight then good eating habits after that will get you where you want to be

    If it's the US Navy test it is actually pretty accurate and is the best way to get a ballpark without spending big. What do you mean by bodytype? If you're talking about somatotypes they have no bearing on anything.

    You're right losing weight is all about diet. Being in a calorie deficit is all that's necessary to lose weight. Though it is certainly easier if the food is mostly of good quality.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,802 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Muscle does weigh more than fat!
    By your logic lead weighs the same as marshmallow since a pound of lead weighs the same as a pound of marshmallow, in fact everything weighs the same as everything else :rolleyes:

    A bucket of fat weighs less than a bucket of muscle.
    A pound of fat needs a bigger bucket than a pound of muscle does.

    'Muscle is more dense than fat' - no need to waste two buckets.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭Cill94


    Wildkid wrote: »
    Hi ,my body fat is 20% give or take ,my weight is 105kg ...last 3/4 months Iv really got back into fitness training , I train aerobic and anaerobic fitness as I play gaa ..my fitness has improved every time I do a fitness test but my diet would be average

    Unfortunately the average diet is really bad, and it's most likely the main thing you need to address.

    You'll also want to do some strength training if you want to have muscle under the fat. This will also add to your calories burned, speeding up the fat loss process.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 258 ✭✭Wanderer19


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Muscle does weigh more than fat!
    By your logic lead weighs the same as marshmallow since a pound of lead weighs the same as a pound of marshmallow, in fact everything weighs the same as everything else :rolleyes:

    A bucket of fat weighs less than a bucket of muscle.
    A pound of fat needs a bigger bucket than a pound of muscle does.
    You're talking volume if discussing buckets full, not weight, 2 different things.

    A pound is a pound regardless of the size.

    Try putting a pound of marshmallows on a scale compared to a pound of butter and you'll see the difference.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 258 ✭✭Wanderer19


    If it's the US Navy test it is actually pretty accurate and is the best way to get a ballpark without spending big. What do you mean by bodytype? If you're talking about somatotypes they have no bearing on anything.

    You're right losing weight is all about diet. Being in a calorie deficit is all that's necessary to lose weight. Though it is certainly easier if the food is mostly of good quality.
    It's not just about somatotypes. I know my tummy carries extra weight, but my legs are pure muscle, where others would carry fat.

    I've been 10 stone, very toned and muscular, and looked better than I did at 9 stone without muscle and toning, iykwim?


    A bodybuilder may be pure muscle, but may have big arms, legs etc, weight and and height formulas cannot distinguish fat from muscle, so are likely to give a false reading.

    I don't know anything about the Navy test so can't discuss it.

    Imo, the others are an indication, but the best way is through a dexa scan.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,802 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    Wanderer19 wrote: »
    You're talking volume if discussing buckets full, not weight, 2 different things.

    A pound is a pound regardless of the size.

    Try putting a pound of marshmallows on a scale compared to a pound of butter and you'll see the difference.

    Well, they're talking density. And we're all talking mass as opposed to weight, strictly speaking :pac:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,505 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Wanderer19 wrote: »
    You're talking volume if discussing buckets full, not weight, 2 different things.

    A pound is a pound regardless of the size.

    Try putting a pound of marshmallows on a scale compared to a pound of butter and you'll see the difference.


    Yes I know volume is different to weight, thanks!
    We are both talking about weight, or as Alf points out, actually its mass but since we are all on earth I think we cat let that slide. :)
    Saying that muscle weighs the same as fat is just plain old wrong.
    Muscle is more dense than fat.
    There is more matter in a given volume of muscle than there is in the same volume of fat. Thats what "weighs more" means. Fat has less matter than muscle, thats why it is less dense and hence why it weighs less.

    Telling someone that two objects weigh the same if you have the same weight of both of them is particularly useless.

    You might as well say that a bicycle is as fast as a plane, when both are going at the same speed.:rolleyes:

    The whole point is that the OP's volume hasnt changed but also their weight hasnt changed so they want to know whats going on, if anything.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭mouldybiscuits


    You could be the fittest man in the world, training harder than anyone else and if you're eating more calories than you're burning you'll still be putting on fat. Your body composition is 80% diet, 20% exercise. If you want to lower your body fat percentage you need to eat less and burn more calories. It's simple in theory but it takes determination.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,109 ✭✭✭Minime2.5


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Muscle does weigh more than fat!
    By your logic lead weighs the same as marshmallow since a pound of lead weighs the same as a pound of marshmallow, in fact everything weighs the same as everything else :rolleyes:

    A bucket of fat weighs less than a bucket of muscle.
    A pound of fat needs a bigger bucket than a pound of muscle does.

    No he's right. Muscle does not weigh more than fat. The term your both looking for is DENSITY . Muscle is more dense than fat


Advertisement