Low Body Fat – The Tipping Point

OK good, I was hoping you weren't 6' @ 138# :) Sounds like maybe somewhere between where you are now and where you were before (175) will be a little better, you should be able to maintain a good fitness level in the 150-ish range, just need to figure how to get there

I think Eugene might have been onto something w/ weight training, I'd consider starting to lowering reps, start increasing weight and up the rest periods and see if that doesn't help pack on some pounds- maybe add more speed stuff to your running and cut back a bit on the longer stuff.

btw- this is the opposite of what I'm doing now, I've gone to body weight exercises and getting a lot more aerobic work in than I have in the past- I'll be diligent to not got too far, nothing to worry about in the short term though :)

…

Mike,

The last time I had it tested my RHR was 48 (I wasn't quite as fit then either), but it was only 52 when I ran much warmer. Definitely something interesting to monitor!

-chris

I'm curious about how the male human body then works, if you look back on what our ancestors did while on their daily long walks. How is it that they maintained a warm body temperature and still be as fit as they were. Surely they didn't get cold the way you are now, Chris. What is it in your exercise routine or eating habits that is causing the problem? Since our ancestors didn't eat a lot of carbs, that couldn't have been what kept up their body temperature. Since they couldn't have moved about constantly all the time, how did they stay warm when resting? And since supposedly the men did more long-distance walking than the women when they went hunting, there must have been something about everyone's diet that helped them. Could it be that you're not getting enough fat? Or maybe you're moving too much? Or maybe you're not getting enough rest between workouts? I don't know. But if you weren't running cold before, but are now, surely there is something that you had before that you are missing now.

I'm not so sure about the carb thing. There are at least as many studies dispelling the paleo diet as there are for it. Despite that, I rarely see a cave man depicted with a really lean stature (think very vascular and visible striations all over). Not even my Scottish and Cherokee ancestors are known for being really lean.

I think the problem really comes down to our societal beliefs. We have an obsession with looking fit. The reality is that I was probably 90-95% as fit when I had a little extra padding and no problems staying warm. I just didn't look like it and for some reason I wanted that. Now here I am. I look as fit as I truly am, but I'm not sure I'm better for it.

This is turning in to a great discussion, which is what I wanted. We need to know about both sides of the equation in relation to how it effects our hobby/sport/obsession.

Despite that, you rarely see a cave man depicted with a lean stature. Not even my Scottish and Cherokee ancestors are known for being lean.

Hmm, I'm not sure about that. By lean, do you mean emaciated? Or rippling muscles? Or simply, as I think it was throughout most of human history, with little extra body fat. If you look at any old photographs of Americans just 150 years ago, you will very rarely see overweight people. Most of them didn't have bodies of the kind you see in "Sparta" or aerobics competitions, but almost everyone was lean. And if you look at old photos of Native Americans (I have Gullah ancestry from South Carolina, a mix of Cree and escaped slaves who lived in isolation until fairly recently) from throughout the country, you never see any overweight people. Now I'm talking from 150 years ago and more, not more recent history, in which diets worldwide were drastically changed by the sudden explosion of industrial production. I also have Filipino ancestry and have lived in Japan for most of my life, and people in the Philippines and here are almost never overweight. Almost everyone is quite lean. I have traveled throughout the world and most people in most of the world are lean. The obesity problem in the States right now is very much an anomaly, and not the norm by any measure. And I think it very much has to do with the huge amounts of grains and sugar and sheer amount of food that people eat. Though, sadly, as processed food consumption increases in many parts of the world, obesity is beginning to spread everywhere. Nearly all of it is due to processed foods, sugar, and grains.

I also do a lot of walking in the mountains in Japan. Throughout my life (I've been here for 27 years over a span of 41 years) I have seen extremely fit and healthy Japanese who do very strenuous mountain walks without all the huge amounts of eating that people talk about so often here on BPL. I once met a 75 year old mountain woodcutter who everyday walked about 20 km in very steep, rugged terrain, plus shinnied himself several times a day during those walks up and down the trunks of cedar trees (including coming back down headfirst), and all he ate for lunch were two tangerines and a small rice ball with a pickled plum inside. That kept him going all day long. His muscles were ropey and extremely well defined and he was indefatigable. I once saw him carry a rope and wood slat pack with an enormous load of wood that I couldn't even lift. I don't know how he did it. I suspect he had never eaten much throughout his life. He would have been astonished to see the kinds of meals so many Americans eat.

As to images of cave men, I beg to differ. Most images I've seen of them are of burly, heavy browed ape-like brutes who certainly are very lean and muscular (as are wild apes. Gorillas seem to be overweight, but actually that is all the vegetable matter fermenting in their stomachs… humans can't eat a gorilla diet). I'm not talking about Homo erectus, but of Homo sapiens, our direct ancestors who are identical to us, in fact are us (recent discoveries in genetics have found that we also have neanderthal genes and characteristics among us, too). The main problem with depicting them in images is that no one with a camera or good drawing skills was around then to record them, so we simply don't know. But from all the archeological evidence, they were exceptionally fit and very lean. Very few of them had any of the modern afflictions we suffer from today, like cardiovascular diseases, tooth disease, lifestyle diseases like diabetes or obesity. They were also taller than people of the first few thousand years following the development of agriculture, and their brains were slighter bigger than our's are today. Nearly every study done of hunter-gatherers today have found them to be very fit and lean, with almost no modern diseases. Diabetes and obesity was unheard of among Native Americans until the introduction of the European diet… now it is the highest rate in the world. If you see people like the tribes in the Amazon or New Guinea who seem to be overweight, that stomach distention is very often is caused by kwashiorkor or protein deficiency, something, surprisingly, that is hard to get in rain forests.

I guess the question we all have to ask is, do we want to "look" fit or "be" fit? We really have to redefine what "fitness" means. To me, while it is nice to have rippling muscles, I'd much rather feel energetic all day, sleep well at night, eat just enough to keep my body running in top well-being, including being able to fend off infections and occasional stress well, occasionally eat something just for the pleasure of it, live a very long, fulfilling life, have healthy children, and enjoy a nice, challenging hike every now and then. To me that is health and fitness.

@Miguel — We really have to redefine what "fitness" means…

That was very well stated. But if as a result of being fit, I have have visble abs, I'm not complaining…

"I'm not so sure about the carb thing"

Neither am I, especially as an endurance athlete. I've read plenty on "paleo" diets (Cordain, etc.) and I know some athletes that succeed with this diet. However, I think humans have been far more diverse and adaptive in our dietary needs over the last 10-20,000 years than much of the paleo camp gives us credit for. There are obviously cultures that have adapted in different ways: lactose tolerance, etc.

I don't think it's much of a stretch to imagine that some people are more carbohydrate tolerant than others. But many paleo diets tend to rule out carbs almost entirely.

No contemporary nutritionist from any culture is going to argue that highly processed and refined carbs are good for you.

But complex, whole carbs are a much different story. If merely eating farmed carbohydrates (grains, starches, etc.) is "going against our biology", as many paleo advocates argue, explain the success of Kenyan distance runners- they're primary sources of calories are ugala (like a polenta porridge), rice, and natural sugars (fruit). According to articles I've read on their training, only about 4 small portions/week are meat.

It seems the major benefit of the paleo diet is simply getting people off of processed and packaged foods- which is typically junk carbs in our culture. But to rule out whole, natural carbs- if you can tolerate them (like brown rice or yams) seems silly.

Ultimately we should be focusing on what works for us as individuals (more power to you if the paleo diet is working for you Miguel, I'm not knocking it at all), but not painting all human nutrition with such a broasd brush- as I think many paleo diets do with sweeping claims about what have and have not "evolved" to eat.

I apologize, Miguel, for not being more specific. Yes, a lot of our ancestors were not overweight and probably carried little "extra" fat. Where I think we, and our different cultures, vary, is what is defined as "extra". In my case, I could easily gain 20 lbs, whether it be fat or muscle, and still be considered at a healthy weight and likely even a healthy level of fat.

At least in the US, sub 20% body fat is healthy for men. At 14-18% you're considered fit. I, personally, wouldn't consider someone "lean" until they're under 12. As a society here, most would probably dictate we go even lower and say you need to be under 10, maybe even under 8. I'm sure this varies A LOT by country and culture.

Your last paragraph sums it up nicely, though. I thought I wanted to fit in to your first ideal (rippling muscles), and while I do like the way I look today, I'm gradually finding I'd rather fit your second description.

Well, to be more accurate about my diet, I'm following the Primal Blueprint diet, which doesn't rule out carbohydrates. It just lowers the amount. I don't follow the strict paleo dictums either. I feel a lot of the conclusions of people like Cordain about paleolithic people are far too simplistic and based too much on his concept of the world as he grew up with in America. People tend to forget that paleolithic people were not simpletons or "lower on the evolutionary chain" than we are. Their lives were as complex as ours and were probably not very different in terms of how they thought and what they expected. I think it is important, when studying these people, to look at differences in all the cultures of the world today and see the complexity there in order to understand the people in the past. That goes for the way they ate, too. I suspect it was far more complex and varied than what the paleo-nutritionists claim. Even wild animals like wolves and bears are far more complex in their eating habits than that pictured of the paleo humans. The idea that something that happened 2 million years ago is less progressive evolutionary-wise is a false one. The only criteria for success in evolution is survival and flourishing. Today cockroaches are as alive and successful as ever. Evolutionary-wise for us to claim that we are more successful and more developed than they are ignores just how successful cockroaches really are.

Craig, I actually agree with you. I was a vegetarian for many years, but no matter how hard I tried after I got diabetes I could never get it under control, until I lowered my carbohydrate intake. I'm still trying to learn how to deal with high exertion requirements, like when I climb mountains.

climb 4 times a week, dont eat too many cheezy poofs … eat some good steak or sushi

and thats all you need to do …

its all a matter of willpower … how many of you are doing squats while reading this ;)

I'm doing a permanent squat on the couch! Does that count?

I've met a few flamboyant poofs but never any cheezy ones. Mostly they dress better than I do.

Michael

…

First of all, my name is Alice, not Chris. (Just sent a msg to support). I am female, 23-25% body fat. I generate a lot of heat when moving. If I'm not tired I can stay fairly warm when stopped, but when I am fatigued I get very cold. It's like my body says it has already burned its allotted number of calories for the day and it is not going to burn any more. When I get very tired even a down parka doesn't feel warm and I'll shiver. Maybe I'm not putting out enough heat for the parka to conserve. The only thing that helps is putting on all my clothes, climbing into a very warm sleeping system, and going to sleep. My body never hesitates to tell me what it needs, anyway.

"Maybe I'm not putting out enough heat for the parka to conserve."

That is a sure sign that you need to eat. Initially take in some carbs, followed by a good high calorie meal within 2 hours of ceasing exercise. This is good policy regardless of whether or not you are feeling fatigued. It will hasten your recovery and leave you in better shape to continue the next day, assuming you are on a multi day hike.

Mike I think addresses the most important about how our bodies were meant to ne used on a day to day basis. And it's easy to see even today. Just observe wild mammals. You will never see most of them (at least not the larger ones) running around incessantly, pushing their bodies to overly elevated heart rates, lifting unreasonable amounts of weights, or pushing themselves for overly long periods. That the human body can do this (and no doubt most animals, too) shows the great recency and redundancy built into our systems so that we can survive times of hardship or danger. But I font think this was meant to be sustained for any length if time.

I've read a lot of books on exercise methods and ways of eating, mostly to come to grips with having diabetes and needing to live with it my whole life and get control of it. Most books tended to be more for the writer's self promotion and ego than to really do something about the epidemic of bad health. Occasionally I came across some gems that really made a difference, and one of them is "The Primal Print" that I mentioned earlier. Mark Sisson maintains, after having been an Olympic level long distance runner, that trying to keep up such a tamped up level of activity is very damaging to the body. It is not natural for us to do that. And I agree.

His main point in talking about eating has to do with insulin. It is the key to understanding weight gain, NOT "calories in, calories out" as the popular wisdom unthinkingly dictates. If it were, then everything you pit into your mouth would affect you equally. But it doesn't. Different foods affect you in different ways. The thing you have then ask yourself is "How?" Why does a food that is primarily fat affect you differently from something that is primarily carbohydrates? In terms of weight gain it boils down primarily to the production of insulin in your body. Insulin works with carbohydrates, little else. In the absence of carbohydrates insulin is not produced. Insulin us the hormone that takes the glycogen produced from the carbohydrates and, when there is excess glycogen, turns that into fat for storage and later energy needs. Just the fact that we HAVE the ability to store body fat INDUCATES that fat is the preferred energy source for our bodies. Glycogen is an >extra< fuel.

Now, people like Sisson's main gripe with grains and sugar is not so much people's tolerance to them, but to the far in excess production of insulin they produce due to the grossly high amounts we consume of them. Our bodies cannot maintain such high amounts of insulin without breaking down. We were never meant to useore than trace amounts of insulin day-to-day. All animals produce insulin. It is what helps animals gain the fat they need for energy during the winter. And the reason Americans have such high levels of obesity is from over production of insulin. Obesity is defined by "hyperinsulinism".

That is why carbohydrates are better to be lowered and grains and sugars eaten in moderation.

Edit: sorry about the bad spelling… iPhone!

@Miguel — Thanks for bringing up the insulin production issue. It's really one of the key points to paleo-type diets, and tends to get overlooked.

And yes, a big part of the obesity problem is that sugar is no longer seen as a luxury to be enjoyed occasionally, but is a major source of daily calories…

There are variations in body shape around the world, too. Some people are long and linear and others are more compact and wide. I think this correlates to the temperature of the environment in which the population has lived, with longer more linear shapes having more surface area to mass. I suppose if you diet/exercise your way into a more linear shape, you'll also have more surface area to mass and thus dispell more heat.

As for the whole diet thing, sometimes I wonder if it's partially when one major thing is removed from the diet it causes weight loss. You have your vegans who don't eat much protein, your paleos who don't eat much carbs, your doctor-prescribed low-fat diets…Is it forcing a lack of one major nutrient that causes weight loss? Or do all these diets have in common, even if it's just incidental, that they force the eater to consume less sugar and refined/processed foods?

"Makes sense that very low fat reserves could make your body think it's in danger of starvation, so it will protect itself by ramping down your metabolic rate."

It doesn't really work like that. Body fat stores are a response to starvation + gorging. Eating smaller meals more frequently leads your body to adapt by storing less fat.

"Instead of increasing your body-fat %, would increasingyour lean muscle mass help insulate ? "

It doesn't offer much insulation, so adding muscle wouldn't make much of a difference to warmth.

"I've had a similar problem and in my case I've attributed it to having a low resting pulse. Do you have a particularly low resting pulse?"

A low resting heart rate is just a sign of an efficient and healthy circulatory system combined with a strong heart. What it really means is that during exertion, you can crank your metabolism higher than most people can.

"Since our ancestors didn't eat a lot of carbs, that couldn't have been what kept up their body temperature. Since they couldn't have moved about constantly all the time, how did they stay warm when resting?"

1) Wear the same thing their prey did
2) Stay active
3) Build more body fat stores than we do (read the first answer above)
4) Share warmth

Miguel, you raised a lot good points. You also reminded me about the mountain guides on the Kilimanjaro trip; our guide in particular ate a meal that consisted mostly of a grain-based dish that looked remarkably like mashed potatoes (obviously, it wasn't potatoes, since it was made from grains, IIRC corn or something similar) after dinner before our summit day. He also said that he wasn't going to eat anything else until the following evening.

Good Luck isn't a big guy. Quite lean, not unusually muscular. I suspect that part of the reason that he is able to do that trip with the apparent ease with which he does it is that he is very efficient — he doesn't waste any effort. He was carrying quite a bit of stuff, also — probably more than I was, even with my 35-pound pack. (Mostly due to photo gear.)

BTW, to clarify — glycogen is an anaerobic source of energy. It's used for fast-twitch movement rather than for endurance; due to being anaerobic, burning it produces lactic acid. We need oxygen to get rid of lactic acid. Fat on the other hand burns aerobically, and the body uses it to make ATP which consumes oxygen and emits carbon dioxide and water.

Most mammals use fat to provide both insulation and energy storage. It's what enables whales to consume vast amounts of krill, and then swim north to give birth, and not eat again for six months. It's what enables bears to sleep through the winters, and what keeps critters like walruses warm in the cold Arctic waters, penguins to go for months at a time without food.

"Is it forcing a lack of one major nutrient that causes weight loss? Or do all these diets have in common, even if it's just incidental, that they force the eater to consume less sugar and refined/processed foods?"

Part of it is that when we eat overly processed foods, we basically trip up our metabolism; we're evolved to eat complex foods, not raw sugars and junk like high fructose corn syrup. Our bodies metabolize that stuff into fat because it metabolizes so easily.

The weight loss from *most* diets is due to starvation — most diets lead to thin, flabby people. Not fit people. And certainly not healthy people…

Diets that combine exercise with proper nutrition achieve weight loss by balancing caloric intake with activity levels, as well as balancing where those calories are coming from, so that the body can use that energy like it's evolved to use it.

This has been an interesting discussion so far. :)

Over the last 6 months I have taken my bodyfat from ~20% down to about 5.4% (measured with calipers). I used to be comfortable in the house at 70F, now I am cold. I ran the heater in my office at work today, and it was 100F outside. I sleep with an electric blanket in the middle of summer.

Yes, I agree that you get much colder with low bodyfat percentage.

However, I think that carrying an extra pound or two of gear/clothing weight in exchange for 25 lbs less of bodyfat is an winning trade.

I hadnt intended to go this low with my bodyfat when I started, and am still slowly going lower. Just got started to get in better shape for in-bounds hiking with skis at 12000 ft for ski trip, and didnt stop.

Martin-

Good to know I'm not alone. However, I wouldn't take too much stock in what calipers tell you given their relatively high percentage of error.

Keep in mind that really getting below 6% (for men) is unhealthy (you're getting in to essential fat required for the body to function properly) and not maintainable. Body builders do it for competition, but under the supervision of physicians in controlled situations and only for a few minutes.

To offset 25 lbs of body fat, I'm fairly certain you'd need a lot more than just 2 lbs of extra clothing. I'd guess more like 10. You'd likely be much more comfortable and efficient with the 25 lbs of fat spread across the body than the 10 extra on your back (I would anyway).

The real problem with very low body fat, though, isn't so much being colder, it's having no reserves to allow for longer trips.

An interesting thing I've noticed (I believe due to training) is that I can wake up in the morning (6-8 hours post rest and 10+ post meal), not eat, and go run 5-10 miles @ 85-90% max hr with no degradation in performance versus having eaten several hundred calories an hour before. During intense activity, I actually have to force myself to eat and prevent an eventual crash. On my recent 30+ mile day trip with Javan, I only consumed 1000-1200 calories while walking and nothing considerable prior to starting. I can do this for a day, maybe 2 but more than that would be dangerous with my lack of reserves.

"An interesting thing I've noticed (I believe due to training) is that I can wake up in the morning (6-8 hours post rest and 10+ post meal), not eat, and go run 5-10 miles @ 85-90% max hr with no degradation in performance versus having eaten several hundred calories an hour before. During intense activity, I actually have to force myself to eat and prevent an eventual crash."

It takes time for you body to metabolize. Elite distance runners load up on carbs the night before a race, not a few hours prior.

I don't load up on anything prior. I did the pre-race carb thing when I ran competitively because that's what you were told to do. I run much longer distances now without doing that and see zero difference. Anything I eat for dinner is long gone before I wake up in the morning, as is evidenced by my feelings of starvation.

What I have found, and I'm not alone, is that our bodies can be trained to burn fat (instead of carbs) while still operating at a very high output.

What Nick is talking about is carbohydrate loading and it's all about muscle glycogen stores, not food in your stomach which we all know is gone the next morning.