Whats the fixation with bodyfat?

Why is everyone so keen on having absolute minimal bodyfat? From all my research and experimenting, I've found fat to be the most important nutrient for the body. Now don't go cramming oreo's in your mouth saying "he said its ok!". When i say fat, i mean animal and non-processed fat. But case in point, back when i was in the army, i was stationed in Arizona. I met a few native americans there and it was actually them that got me inspired to learn more about nutrition and fitness. Now these guys didn't have a six pack and didnt have huge arms. Legs were looking a little skinny too. But these guys beat everyone in our company in anything physical. They did the 2 miles in 10: something, and ridiculous #'s with situps and pushups. Looking at them, you'd think they were just an average joe, and had no muscles showing. I remember them getting measured for body fat and one came out 10% and the other was 12%. That's still pretty good, but today's media dons that 5-7% is "optimal".

now, maybe the native americans just have some genes that the rest of us don't that give them that ability. But the things i learned from them so far have held up in my training as well. I'm making another post that has to do with this as well.

but all and all, tell me what you guys think. I personally think media has got as all thinking this way or that way. I mean how much bodyfat you think the trainers had back in the 20's? And do you think they were more fit? or less?

I think also since the 70's, chemicals, drugs, etc have played a huge role in todays way of training.

sorry if this doesn't make much sense, i'm terrible at explaining things (probably why i can never win any arguements).
I'm the type that knows/understands something, but can't spell it out for others.... sigh

Personally, I think that too little bodyfat over a prolonged time period is not a good thing.

IMO, as long as you don't go to either extremes you should be fine.

Yes, media has influenced people opinion on Bodyfat a lot. Look at the physique of "heroes & babes" in movies between 1940 and now and you will see a trend.

Looking at the atlethes at the turn of the century I think they were fitter.

Many of them set records that still stand today, even though we got better gear, training, nutrition, etc.

I reckon a lot of modern day athletes would fall apart if they had to train under the same conditions and use the same gear.

Jut my thoughts.

*nods in agreement*

I looked around at athletes from different periods, and body styles changed dramatically, keeping mostly in line with what was going on in popular culture.

This guy was a a finalist the 1920 olympics, and got maybe a dozen other medals for that and other T&F events. A very fast guy, looks like he's fit as hell but has a healthy amount of bodyfat.

Then this guy, Jerome Drayton, was big in T&F in 1975, having won about as many awards for the same kind of stuff as Mr. Furna up there. This guy is a wire, I'd guess less than 6% bf.

just thought it was interesting, same sport, similar records. I agree with LC that the 1920 athlete looks healthier.

Then there's this guy who is just funny looking.

That last guy is made up for a guest spot on Star Trek surely...

i myself am about 16% bodyfat and have no visible six pack although i know it is in there somewhere!!
i consider myself to be of above average fitness, alot of my training is internal but i do run twice a week and do a lot of sparring. aswell as weight training. If getting a six pack was going to increase my martial skills then i would strive for it but i dont think it would all that much.
i like drinking beer and eating cornish pasties and dont see why i should give the fine things in life up for the sake of a chiselled stomach for me life is too short.
as long as you are happy that is all that matters there is no need to conform to what society dictates is the perfect body.I have sparred with guys bigger than me, i dare say, a lower BF% and more than held my own.

whatever floats you boat i guess:D :D

Actually, optimal body fat % depends on age. For adults in 20s and 30s I think "optimal" is considered between 18 and 22 %, below 18 % is considered too thin. I'll have to look that up.

But, I do know that single digit percentages of body fat is considered unhealthy by every living medical professional on earth.

I don't know why percentage of body fat means so much to so many people. Perhaps it's because we're so competitive that those whose golf scores are higher want lower body fat percentages than their golfing competitors so they win at something.

The human body needs fat in order to function properly. The body also needs to take in fat in order to function properly. Nuts, sunflower seeds, flax seeds and so on are good sources of good fat. The idea is take in the amount of fat your body requires without taking in too much Saturdated fat.

There are multiple answers to your questions including the geneology of native american peoples.

Body Fat Obsession:

-The Media, baby. Just look at the 80's in the WWF. The Hulk was the man and a powerhouse. By today's standards in the WWE he is a no-definition having bum. We are constantly bombared by people with little body fat, that people think that is how a "in shape" person looks, thus they aim to look like that.

Low body-fat = unhealthy:

100% BS. I've had the lean gene every since I can remember. I don't think I've been over 9-10% bodyfat since middle school, and my norm is somewhere around 7%. I'm **** healthy. I think what some people have to do to maintain low body fat is unhealthy, but having low body-fat isn't unhealthy in itself.

Fat as a nutrient:

You are correct. Fat is a great nutrient for the body. Most of the body's hormones need fat in order to be produced since they provide the lining for things like testosterone. Fat doesn't make you fat or have a high body fat for the most part. It is carbs that do the fattening up.

Native American Geneology:

Native American people's are more predisposed to storing fat than most other races. This is because as a very nomadic people who had to live through many famines and hard times the people amung them that had the most energy reserves (ie fat), were the ones who lived to pass on their genes. There is actually a lot of research being done on the genetic code of the native americans in order to try to isolate the "fat" gene.

Sorry, Ford, but you're simply not healthy. You'll have to go to McDonalds and eat 3 big macs right now! :D :p

The idea is to not set a goal for single digits if your metabolism is not geared toward that percentage. If that's where your body is naturally, then that's where you're healthy. But to shoot for 7% when you're body doesn't go there is unhealthy.

I agree. That's why I said what some people need to do to maintain a low BF% is unhealthy, but just having one isn't. :)

BTW, Miccy D's makes me sick. Maybe that's part of it!

People like Ford and Ironfist really chap my ass.

Hey man. I had to put up with being a string bean for most of my life. :p

Don't confuse being thin with having low body fat.

IronFist

IronFist is right. "Thin" is never a good indicator. There is a lady at my gym who is very thin....at 5'8" and 120 pounds, she still carries 30% bodyfat! That's a little more acceptable for a woman, but if that was a man, we'd have had a serious discussion.

Anybody remember Karen Carpenter's bf% when she died? A: 41%!

So obviously, the "obsession" with bodyfat is the ideal that the lower the bodyfat, the more muscle. It isn't always true though. The "lean" weight most bodyfat tests account for includes your bones, internal organs, internal water...so a bf% test can certainly be misleading. But for those trying to lose fat a test can give you a good benchmark because even if the test is off by 10%, as long as the same person administers the same test under similar conditions and the number goes down, you should be going in the right direction.