Advice from the guys: healthy male body fat percentage?

I had a question for the men.

My fiance' got into being a "health nut" about 6 months ago.

We had a falling out and broke off the engagment for a short time about a month ago and within a matter of 2 weeks from when I didn't see him he dropped a LOT of weight, he literally looked like a different person.  I'm kinda concerned a little now though cuz he mentioned his goal is to get down to 2% body fat?! is this healthy???  6 months ago the most honestly I thought he only needed to (if he WANTED to) was to lose 5-10lbs max.  His dad had to start eating healthy and at first that was what he wanted to do, just to be healthy so he wouldn't have heart problems like his dad does now.

I think he is taking this to the extreme and when i said that to him just jokingly he thought I was being ridiculous. I'm kinda getting concerned that he is getting a bit obsessive. I am not used to a guy being suddenly overly into his appearance. I think it's because  he felt girls didn't notice him before he started this diet/fitness routine.  He also almost brags about how he can go with just fruit all day...buys super tight shirts etc. like ridiculously tight, and then insists he's not being extreme with it.  He's a REALLY tall guy too about 6'1"  how much should he be getting in a day and is he going to the extreme or am I being ridiculous?

What is normal and how do I approach this situation?

Hmm..

This is kind of a tough situation to give advice on.

Usually I would say to get an initial bodyfat% taken and then to get a new one every few months or so. 12% and under is considered to be ideal for men. With solid weight training, HIIT cardio, and good nutrition, 8-12% is a realistic and attainable goal. Top athletes get as low as 6% and some bodybuilders get in the 4-5% range.

However, from your description, it sounds like he may be developing an unhealthy obsession with exercise/fitness. Especially because of how much importance he puts on exercise in regards to his self esteem, and the level of bodyfat he wants to get to (2% is dangerously low and unhealthy). So getting his bodyfat% tested, may feed into his obsession and make it worse. I read an article on exercise/fitness addiction in a magazine a few months ago, and your description sounds exactly like the article. There are some warning signs to look out for. Does he work out everyday and never want to take a day off? Does the topic of conversation tend to always be about exercise/working out? Does he fell guilty/depressed when he misses a workout? Is he too strict on his diet, never having a cheat meal, etc..

My suggestion would be to do research into exercise/fitness addiction further on the net and to see if he meets any of the warning signs. There is a fine line between passion and obsession. If it turns out that he is just really passionate about exercise/fitness then have him get bodyfat % tests every few months or so and shoot for 8-12%. If he shows a lot of warning signs, then he may want to talk to somebody. I am not a psychiatrist or anything. Your description just really matches the article and when someone says they want to have 2% bodyfat...

2-4 is essential body fat for guys and something that only serious body builders go down to right before a competition, and not live at. By the sounds of it, i think your thinking is normal and his goal is not healthy. If he wants a six pack he'd only need to go down to around 8-10% and maybe he thinks it's lower. If he's living off fruit all day only he is really going to mess up his body and end up looking like a stick. He obviously needs protein for the muscle mass he does have. If he is a health nut and thinks he knows everything now, approaching him that he's straight out wrong and its extreme will, as it did, tick him off. I'd probably do "hey did you know for a killer six pack you only need to get to 8-10% body fat?" or ask him how much protein he is eating to keep the 'hot' muscles he does have now. turning it from an accusation to a question type thing and putting in realistic facts. just my opinion though.

Competitive body-builders get down to 3-4% a couple times a year for a few hours each time, and they eat perfect close to 100% of the time (i.e. they don't eat nothing but fruit for a whole day).  Unless your friend is planning on giving up on having any sort of a social life and living like a hermit there is no way he's going to get anywhere close to 2%.

2 percent is not realistic.  I think bodybuilders get down to the 2 - 4% for a show but that's not really something that's maintainable on a day to day basis.  I've heard of people maintaining in the 6-10% range.  Although these are athletes with muscle.  By the way based on your comment of him eating only fruit for a day, I doubt he's getting enough protein to maintain any muscle mass.  His rapid weight loss probably took a lot of muscle with it too.  How much does he weigh at 6' 1"? 

If he's just doing cardio and not getting enough protein and weight training, he'll probably wind up as "skinny fat".  Is he just trying to see his abs?

Here's a table showing recommended body fat % ranges.  As you can see 2-4% is "essential" fat and he'll have a hard time getting to 6-10% if he's doesn't add some muscle to his frame.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_fat_percent age

He may be receptive to the info as it's shown here too:

http://www.scientificpsychic.com/fitness/diet .html

I don't know that 12% is "ideal".  While 12% can be achieved and maintained, it is at the level of "athlete" in the charts above. 

I hope that this information will help your cause. A human body needs to have what is called essential fat. Without it, a person's health and physiological performance will deteriorate. Essential fat constitutes about 3 percent of the total weight in men and 12 percent in woman. Storage fat even has it's functions, it  helps us retain body heat, provides an energy base for our metabolism and is padding against physical trauma. 

I would suggest if he wants his body to look fit he should spend a little time with a certified personal trainer, he will get the proper advice for exercise and nutrition.      

Thank you so much for your advice, I will approach it with the website and also the 8-10% comment when he brings it up.

I also hope that this doesn't become an obsessive thing. what do i look for if it gets out of control? it's hard to decipher since before he was a couch potato.

Body fat percentages are so relative to the individual.  Everyone carries fat differently and in different places.  He shouldn't focus on the number so much as how he looks and feels.  To see abs, it's going to vary from person to person on what body fat % that is.  It's different for everyone.  Tell him to focus on how he looks instead of a number.  I do body building competitions and as a woman I'm 10 days from a competition sitting at 8.39%.  I won't stay here for long at all as I'm freezing all the time, even when it's 75 degrees outside...it's too low to maintain.  Anyway, he should set a goal that's more something he can achieve and visually like the results, like 6 pack abs...just my thoughts....

Original Post by stefiann:

I do body building competitions and as a woman I'm 10 days from a competition sitting at 8.39%. 

8.39%?  You're kidding right? None of the tests are accurate enough for you to report out to that many decimals.

Body composition methods

Skinfold: ± 3%

Hydrostatic weighing: ± 1.5%

Bioelectrical impedance: ± 3 %

Air Displacement (bod pod): ± 3 %

Accuracy of Dexa is not reported.  If you had that done, I'd be interested to know the accuracy.  I would imagine it'd be in the report.

Congratulations though on achieving such a low percentage.  Good luck with your show.

ds, that is the stat my trainer gave me.  I used it as an example and that's all.  Of course all methods have a +/- in there deviation for calculations.  He did a several point skin fold test and plugged it into his calculations and that is what it read...we all know there are deviations.  It was an example and obviously not the point of my post.  I think you should probably lay off the details, huh?  Otherwise, people like me won't want to give their input. 

i rarely agree with ds, but i agree with him here.

aside from the fact that most methods are not particularly accurate, except maybe to establish a baseline and monitor progress, i think trainers are an especially bad source.  they're salespeople.  chances are, they're either trying to convince you that you need their services or they're trying to convince you that the services you've already paid for are worth the money.  and that still assumes that they have some skill at testing bf%, which is assuming a lot.

Thanks PG! 

Stefiann, I understand your point was that you're at a low BF and that it's not maintainable long term. 

However, maybe that's the number that came out of his calculator, but all I'm saying is that he should have reported it as 8% or 8-9%.  He's conveying a false sense of accuracy by reporting that out to 2 decimals.  If he were to perform the test in a few days and get 8.51%, would he tell you that you've added body fat and that you need to change something in your diet or workout?  I would hope not. 

In Stefiann's defense, I went to a gym last night for a single session with a personal trainer and he did a skin fold test.  He plugged the numbers into a computer program and gave me a print out that reported my bodyfat % (and LBM and fat weight) out to several decimal places precision. 

So maybe that is the number she is giving, and I think she knows that it's not accurate to that number of decimal places. 

Thank you Karozel!  Exactly!  It's a computer system that gives out the numbers...  Of course I know it's not accurate to the decimal, that's why I mentioned the +/- factor of around 3 %...

And, I AM A CERTIFIED PERSONAL TRAINER MYSELF, pgeorgian.  I do not SELL anything at my gym, I train clients they send to me.  The trainer I was referring to is MY trainer, a trainer's trainer, if you will.  He has specializes in training clients for body building competition for decades.  He was in the Navy Seals and is a specialist in the field of nutrition with all kinds of lovely letters behind his name.  He and I both know it's not accurate to decimals...I thought that was a given.  It was an example.  And that's all.  I represent his company, I don't pay him.  He doesn't sell me anything.  We do skin fold measurements every other week to track progress and the point is that it goes down before I do a show.  We don't take it every 2-3 days, that would be stupid and non relevant.

I find it hilarious that I have to explain myself further...what a waste of my time.  Good luck with the bantering.  I'll keep my comments to myself next time.    

Original Post by stefiann:

Thank you Karozel!  Exactly!  It's a computer system that gives out the numbers...  Of course I know it's not accurate to the decimal, that's why I mentioned the +/- factor of around 3 %...

I didn't see you mention this 3 % anywhere.   It would also be interesting to see what kind of precision your trainer has.  In other words, if he took your measurements 3 or 4 times, what would the repeatability be?

Sorry, I'm an R&D engineer who uses the six-sigma methodology a lot.  Accuracy and precision are to me as grammer and spelling are to an English professor. 

Most people, engineers included, could use a refresher in significant figures.

Original Post by ds1973:

Most people, engineers included, could use a refresher in significant figures.

I'm a biologist, and one day I found myself trying to explain to an engineer that, when we convert feet into meters, it's important to consider sig figs.   For example, if a lake is reported to be 20 ft deep, and we are supposed to report in meters, it isn't accurate to say that the lake is 6.096 meters deep.

I couldn't get him to understand that.

Original Post by amethystgirl:

Original Post by ds1973:

Most people, engineers included, could use a refresher in significant figures.

I'm a biologist, and one day I found myself trying to explain to an engineer that, when we convert feet into meters, it's important to consider sig figs.   For example, if a lake is reported to be 20 ft deep, and we are supposed to report in meters, it isn't accurate to say that the lake is 6.096 meters deep.

I couldn't get him to understand that.

That's pretty funny.  Did he tell you that the conversion factor built into the calculator was 0.3048 and so it must be accurate to 4 decimals?

I was just laughing with one of our technicians the other day about another engineer that insists he can read a graduated column to 1 cc, even though it's marked in 10 cc increments.

Engineers are funny this way.  For some reason, those in the sciences (chem, bio, etc) seem to do better than engineers.  It may have something to do with the use of computers, numerical analysis and doing a lot of multi-step calculations for engineering designs, especially when pulling data from multiple tables and converting from many units.  In this case, it's best to carry as many digits as you can and then truncate the final figure at the end.  See: guard digits. 

So, if one were going to use that depth in subsequent calculations, one would use the 6.096 rather than 6.1 (assuming your zero was significant) until they reach the final answer.

I'm pretty sure than when it came to the depth of the lake, the zero was not significant - more like a guy said "Yeah, I bet it's about 3 times my height".

My favorite was the stuff that got converted from "approximately 20 ft" to "approximately 6.096 m"

How the heck is 6.096 "approximate"?