McRobert's advice on body composition

[wk105]

In Beyond Brawn (2nd ed.), McRobert gives this advice:

'Do not try to get very defined (under about 10% bodyfat) while you build yourself up. But at the same time do not get fat...

When in muscle-building mode, minimize the fat you gain (but you almost certainly will have to gain some fat). If you overdo fat gain while build- ing muscle, switch to a fat-loss program for a few months, to reduce your bodyfat to no more than 12% (for a male). Then get back into gaining mode, assuming you want to build bigger muscles. But adjust your caloric intake so that you add muscle but less fat than before. Whenever you hit 15% bodyfat, change modes and trim back to 10–12%. If done properly, each time you trim back your bodyfat you will have more muscle than the previous time. When you know what you are doing, it is easier to lose fat and keep your muscle than it is to build muscle in the first place. Getting bigger muscles is the hardest part.'

It struck me as something you'd agree with.

It might me wonder: what is the most anabolic body fat level? 10%?

You've said that at 15% the body starts to build fat more easily than muscle, so clearly McRobert is right about 15% as the upper limit.

And at 5%, natural bodybuilders have castrate levels of testosterone, bottomed out thyroid and IGF-1 levels, low sympathetic nervous system output, high cortisol, and they're usually impotent.

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

It might me wonder: what is the most anabolic body fat level? 10%?

Depends on the person to a very high degree. You also must realize we're not talking about general "anabolism" but rather, skeletal muscle anabolism. This is likely optimized in a high proportion of males around 8-15%.

And at 5%, natural bodybuilders have castrate levels of testosterone, bottomed out thyroid and IGF-1 levels, low sympathetic nervous system output, high cortisol, and they're usually impotent.

Depends on the amount of drugs they're using and their genetics. This occurs in some people, arguably many naturals, but isn't the rule besides the impotence lol.

[wk105]

[Skeletal muscle anabolism] is likely optimized in a high proportion of males around 8-15%.

Thanks. Why is this?

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

Thanks. Why is this?

All sorts of things, but mainly aromatase activity in the periphery, amino acid sensitivity in the skeletal muscle tissue, insulin sensitivity, and other factors contributing to the internal milieu.

[Milo's Ghost]

The 8-15% number - does that hold for 'rank novices' as well? What I'm getting at is that in Rip's writing he references 15-17% bf as being 'normal' for an athletic male and 18-19% as 'necessary' in the very early stages of SS for a super-skinny kid. I've always wondered if this is optimal or if it's just a (totally understandable) response to 155-pound kids who refuse to eat, aren't willing to gain any fat at all in order to maximize their LP, etc. Or is it that your initial LP really is unique, getting bodyfat above 15% for a couple months is beneficial during that period, and the lower range you mentioned is what's optimal for a more experienced trainee.

I'm really not trying to set up a you vs. Rip thing, btw; this is an honest question. And it isn't a stalking horse for some 'you'll get fat if you do SS' bullshit. As always, thanks Jordan.

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

The 8-15% number - does that hold for 'rank novices' as well? What I'm getting at is that in Rip's writing he references 15-17% bf as being 'normal' for an athletic male and 18-19% as 'necessary' in the very early stages of SS for a super-skinny kid. I've always wondered if this is optimal or if it's just a (totally understandable) response to 155-pound kids who refuse to eat, aren't willing to gain any fat at all in order to maximize their LP, etc. Or is it that your initial LP really is unique, getting bodyfat above 15% for a couple months is beneficial during that period, and the lower range you mentioned is what's optimal for a more experienced trainee.

I'm really not trying to set up a you vs. Rip thing, btw; this is an honest question. And it isn't a stalking horse for some 'you'll get fat if you do SS' bullshit. As always, thanks Jordan.

It really just depends on so many things that it'd be hard to say 18-19% > 15-17% or vice versa. Hell, it'd be hard to even discern that difference in body fat in 20 different people. Athlete's body fat varies with sport and level of advancement, but yes, most high-level strength-power athletes will not be <12%, although a few will. A skinny novice should do whatever it takes to grow, even if this means getting to 18-19%, although I doubt there is any performance gain in this specific BF range to be had outside of actually gaining weight.

[Squeakyguy]

I think there's something to be learned here if we introduce an obvious counterexample. Rather than trying to debate between 15% and 18%, do you think if someone was really trying to eat to fuel recovery, grow, and maximize absolute strength gains, didn't use a mirror, and found himself at 30% bodyfat, that his muscle growth has been compromised at this point?

Or is it just that our generalized novice will be synthesizing up to X lbs. muscle/month and adding additional calories above and beyond will deposit more readily as fat?

Does one need to lose bodyfat % to improve muscle mass gains?

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

maximize absolute strength gains, didn't use a mirror, and found himself at 30% bodyfat, that his muscle growth has been compromised at this point

Perhaps. I think that we could reasonably conclude that at that point the sum of all biochemical reactions contributing to anabolism is fairly inefficient at depositing amino acids in the skeletal muscle COMPARED to the rate of fatty acid fixation in the adipose tissue.

Or is it just that our generalized novice will be synthesizing up to X lbs. muscle/month and adding additional calories above and beyond will deposit more readily as fat

This also is likely, although I kind of feel like it's the same thing said differently.

Does one need to lose bodyfat % to improve muscle mass gains

At the point where testosterone and insulin signaling (among others) get compromised due to fat mass, yes.