Okay, let's disclude freaks of nature like John Stone. :eek:

How long is a single digit BF maintainable. For those who have done it, how did you change your diet and exercise routine to maintain it?

You can maintain until you consistently eat more calories than you burn throughout the day for a long period of time. For most people, this should be well into their years. It's not hard to maintain a single-digit, but it is hard to maintain a specific single-digit, especially the lower the digit.

As far as changes, you move your calories to about maintenance and do whatever you want with your exercise routine (but don't eliminate it). Some days you'll cheat a lot, some days less. Some days you'll eat too much, some too little. Over time this balances out -- there's no need to be obsessive about it (unless you enjoy being so). However, as soon as you consistently overbalance in favor of excess, you risk losing your hard work.

You can't go back to your former lifestyle that originally caused you to become fat.

John Stone isn't a freak of nature physically. What he did can be accomplished by anyone. Most people just don't want it bad enough or have the mental fortitude to get it done.

Single digits body fat can be maintained indefinitely. It's not about physically not being able to do it ... it's about mentally whether you've really made the change.

I'm a prime example. When I've reached low single digits body fat, I've maintained these easily for months, even years. Then, I hit a stressful point in my life, use the food as an excuse and BAM! gain the weight back. I've had that pattern a few times and every time losing the single digits wasn't anything physical, but a mental choice or decision to lose control and use food like a drug instead of fuel.

I have many friends in the fitness industry who have been single digits for years. While many people "let go" and use bulking as an excuse to get up to 18% body fat, most of these friends call "bulking" going from 6% to 10%, and "cutting" going from 10% to 5%.

Great news is that the hardest part is getting there the first time. Many people overestimate their lean mass, "I'm 5'10" and I'll be shredded at 200 pounds" so it's frustrating to learn they have to lose another 20 or 40 pounds to really get lean. Many people don't like their nutrition plan and don't have the discipline to follow it, so they use the excuse of, "I'm going to bulk" before every getting lean in the first place. Let's face it ... lean doesn't mean healthier. You can be very healthy at 15% body fat, even if you don't see your abs. Your body prefers this and resists losing the last bit of fat. If it were easy, everyone would be doing it, but because of the discipline and drive it requires, only an elite few make it.

It's not because of genetics or that the body physically can't handle it. Getting to single digits isn't like running a 4 minute mile or winning the Tour de France, where having some good genetics IS what spearates the top players. It's something the MAJORITY of people can accomplish, but again, few people have the discipline to do ... kind of like quitting smoking or breaking a drinking habit, only people find breaking a poor nutrition habit even more difficult because there is no social stigma against it.

Back to my original point, however, if you overcome these odds and choose to be focused and disciplined and honor your self-promise and cut through the excuses, once you reach single digits, if you ever lose it for whatever reason, getting it back is much easier because you know what to expect.

Jeremy

Okay, let's disclude freaks of nature like John Stone. :eek:

How long is a single digit BF maintainable. For those who have done it, how did you change your diet and exercise routine to maintain it?

Good post Jeremy...

I'm wondering how "healthy" it is to stay in the single digits over time...meaning before hormone levels, bone density etc.. start to change? Or does this even happen?

Good post Jeremy...

I'm wondering how "healthy" it is to stay in the single digits over time...meaning before hormone levels, bone density etc.. start to change? Or does this even happen?


I would think 8-10% BF is an ideal amount as far as health is concerned. Maintaining 5-6% may cause problems over time.

I don't really have a conception of what single figure bodyfat percentages look like. What is the average % for people who have their abs showing?

I would think 8-10% BF is an ideal amount as far as health is concerned. Maintaining 5-6% may cause problems over time.
8-10% isn't really what I'd call ideal for most people. You can be perfectly healthy at this level, but unless you are very strict about which foods you are eating, it's easier to be properly nourished at a body fat percentage closer to 12% or more.

Very nice post Jeremy. It almost made me cry. No wait I think that was the coffee burning my tongue. I digress.

Your experience in this matter is well respected. As is John Stone's. Thanks for taking the time to write that. It sounded straight from the heart from someone's who's been down that road and back again and down that road once more! :bow:

8-10% isn't really what I'd call ideal for most people. You can be perfectly healthy at this level, but unless you are very strict about which foods you are eating, it's easier to be properly nourished at a body fat percentage closer to 12% or more.

You're probably right, but I think he just meant that it's the lowest level he personally feels he can stay healthy over a long period of time at.

I agree it's probably easier to be healthy at a slightly higher fat level, but I'd be willing to bet that somebody at even 5 or 6% body fat COULD be as healthy as somebody at 11-12%, it would just be much more difficult.

Plus, you have to take into account things like a person's weight, and level of physical fitness (e.g. triathlete maintaining 5% vs. skinny guy watching TV at 12%), etc...so it's hard to judge.

Swolecat, who apparently has gotten down to 3%, said that you'd be miserable at that low a level.

Is it miserable to be at 6-8% for maintenance or is it really very doable?

Swolecat, who apparently has gotten down to 3%, said that you'd be miserable at that low a level.

Is it miserable to be at 6-8% for maintenance or is it really very doable?


Miserable? Only you could tell- everybody is different. At 3% your body doesn't have what it wants in terms of cellular makeup. At 6-8? All depends on you. I agree with the above that the real struggle is having the mental fortitude and self-honesty to get there in the first place. You get that far and maintaining might be a piece of cake.

If it was easy... every man in America with belong on the cover of Men's FItness... their abs anyway... :D

If it was easy... every man in America with belong on the cover of Men's FItness... their abs anyway... :D

If every man could be on the cover of Men's Fitness or Men's Health in today's standards, I wonder what the new ideal body would look like.

a. FAT or Obese?
b. Completely out of proportions (huge upper body and chicken legs)
c. Huge Right side, small thin Left side


Hmm this is actually an interesting topic.

Infinitely. It depends how much effort you put in and where your body naturally tends to. I haven't hit singles in years but I've been around 11% for months, now. I just haven't put in that extra bit of effort to get into singles but I know I could get 9% and keep it if I really care enough, I just don't.

8-10% isn't really what I'd call ideal for most people. You can be perfectly healthy at this level, but unless you are very strict about which foods you are eating, it's easier to be properly nourished at a body fat percentage closer to 12% or more.

You wouldn't call 8-10 % "ideal" for most people because most people don't have the willpower or self discipline to maintain that BF%. You show me ANYWHERE that says 12% is HEALTHIER than 8-10%. I doubt you'll EVER find ANYONE "in the know" willing to make that claim.
You insist a person has to be "very strict" to remain "properly nourished" at 8-10%, I totally disagree with that also. I DO believe a person has to eat "smart" though. My maintenace intake is 2600 cal/daily. I can consume plenty of good, healthy food and still maintain my low bodyfat.
Settling for 12% is just being unwilling to go that extra mile. That's my opinion anyway.

Swolecat, who apparently has gotten down to 3%, said that you'd be miserable at that low a level.

Is it miserable to be at 6-8% for maintenance or is it really very doable?
It is 100% dependent upon you and your lifestyle IMO. I've been under 10% a few times, but generally don't stay there much more than a couple months (1-2). I find myself sitting around 12% most of the time. However, that is because I eat out a lot, I drink on the weekends and I have trouble doing enough cardio regularly.

I can see it being very doable to sit around 8-9% year long though if you do enough cardio to counter any excess eating or just avoid drinking and eating off your diet too often. Most people don't have the discipline/desire to do so however.

Can BF be maintained at sub-10% without Exercise (cardio or weights), assuming you watched your calories very very closely?

Or will your body just slowly go back to how it wants to be genetically, fat and round (and blue, see avatar), at least for me.

Can BF be maintained at sub-10% without Exercise (cardio or weights), assuming you watched your calories very very closely?

Or will your body just slowly go back to how it wants to be genetically, fat and round (and blue, see avatar), at least for me.
It can be maintained, but part of that will be genetics.

There's more benefits to exercise than body composition. I wouldn't drop it in favor of just nutrition.

I think 8-10% is possible to maintain long term if you want...And as long as you dont try to maintain at a much lower BF%, like 5%, it can be very healthy.

But I also think it´s true that you can build muscle faster if you bulk and let your BF% increase to 12-14%. At least thats true for me. But I guess it depends on your condition when you start the bulk. If you are at 5% when you start it´s reasonable that you dont need to bulk to 14% to get good progress...But if you start at 8-9% I think most people would need to at least go to 12-13% if the goal is to build more muscle as fast as possible. The truth is...if you dont eat enough you cant get bigger.

You wouldn't call 8-10 % "ideal" for most people because most people don't have the willpower or self discipline to maintain that BF%. You show me ANYWHERE that says 12% is HEALTHIER than 8-10%. I doubt you'll EVER find ANYONE "in the know" willing to make that claim.
You insist a person has to be "very strict" to remain "properly nourished" at 8-10%, I totally disagree with that also. I DO believe a person has to eat "smart" though. My maintenace intake is 2600 cal/daily. I can consume plenty of good, healthy food and still maintain my low bodyfat.
Settling for 12% is just being unwilling to go that extra mile. That's my opinion anyway.It depends on the person's appetite. For me, my maintenance at high singles would be around 2600/day also, and I'd be constantly starving. In fact, I'm not content unless I'm eating 3500+ calories, irrespective of the food I eat. I just have a very large appetite. Some people do have large appetites, just as others have small ones. Two people with the same build and same required maintenance calories may feel hunger differently, so for me if I want to maintain a low body weight it does require a diligent attention to it at almost all times. The only way I've found to stay thin without feeling overly restricted on calories is why running an average of five miles/day.

It can, but I would never want to. That's only because I don't train and eat healthy just to look good naked, I want to live healthy. Exercise is a very important component of health. There are plenty of people who are low body fat due to genetics who don't exercise and have just as much adverse risks for various illnesses as those who are sedentary and overweight.

Jeremy

Can BF be maintained at sub-10% without Exercise (cardio or weights), assuming you watched your calories very very closely?

Or will your body just slowly go back to how it wants to be genetically, fat and round (and blue, see avatar), at least for me.