undefined | Better HN

0 pointsxiaoma11y ago0 comments

That doesn't make much sense. As a competitive runner in school, I was under a 5% body fat percentage without really lifting. Now I do lift and I'm at about a 23% body fat percentage (and nearly 3x the arm strength I once had). Runners tend to have a significant lower body fat percentage than lifters, even at a professional level.

More likely is that the OP just isn't doing enough. Running 25 miles a week is enough to bring about significant benefits in health and fitness along with moderate weight control benefits. 25 miles a month is just a waste. Going up from 1-2x per week to 3-4x makes a huge difference.

Most likely is that it's a dietary issue. While living in Asia, I knew many, many non-exercising people at healthy weight levels just because they didn't overeat like Americans tend to. The OP probably doesn't eat like them.

0 comments

fasteo11y ago

Uhmm, looking at all the comments to my initial comment, I think this has gone offtrack:

- I am not against running, but I consider weight lifting a necessary addition to it.

- I am not talking about lowering body fat or aesthetics. I am talking about health. A lower body fat is healthier up to a point. Single digit body fat level is just an unhealthy as a 30% body fat level.

- In the same sense, this is not about how much calories muscles burn as this is irrelevant to health. My point is about the role muscle has in maintaining homeostasis in our metabolism.

- My point is/was to help Anand: My sweet spot for body fat level is 13-14%. This is where I feel and perform the best. Anand is at 19% and I believe it is because lack of lean mass; that´s why I recommended him some weight lifting.

xiaomaOP11y ago

>A lower body fat is healthier up to a point. Single digit body fat level is just an unhealthy as a 30% body fat level.

[citation needed]

>Anand is at 19% and I believe it is because lack of lean mass; that´s why I recommended him some weight lifting.

My point was that this belief doesn't make sense. Some people who lift and have a lot of muscle mass are lean, but many others aren't. A billion people who don't body-build are leaner than the OP. An objective observation of people (or even countries of people) who are or aren't fat doesn't generate very convincing evidence for the theory that people are fat "because of a lack of lean mass". It's because of their diets.

On the contrary it tends to be exactly those groups most interested in weight training who are the fattest— e.g. Americans and, to a lesser extent, Anglophones in general.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Health/Obesit...

tertia11y ago

you were probably under-eating as a runner.

xiaomaOP11y ago

Lolwut? Not sure where you came up with that. Actually, I was eating more then than now and was doing well.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsxiaoma11y ago0 comments

0 comments

fasteo11y ago

Uhmm, looking at all the comments to my initial comment, I think this has gone offtrack:

- I am not against running, but I consider weight lifting a necessary addition to it.

- In the same sense, this is not about how much calories muscles burn as this is irrelevant to health. My point is about the role muscle has in maintaining homeostasis in our metabolism.

xiaomaOP11y ago

>A lower body fat is healthier up to a point. Single digit body fat level is just an unhealthy as a 30% body fat level.

[citation needed]

>Anand is at 19% and I believe it is because lack of lean mass; that´s why I recommended him some weight lifting.

On the contrary it tends to be exactly those groups most interested in weight training who are the fattest— e.g. Americans and, to a lesser extent, Anglophones in general.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Health/Obesit...

tertia11y ago

you were probably under-eating as a runner.

xiaomaOP11y ago

Lolwut? Not sure where you came up with that. Actually, I was eating more then than now and was doing well.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse