Why Fixating on Reaching a Specific Body Fat Target is Problematic

Achieving a specific body fat percentage within a tight deadline is a common goal for many fitness enthusiasts, but it’s fraught with challenges and misconceptions. This article delves into the complexities and offers a more sustainable approach to goal setting.

The information for this article is based on a scientific paper published by Eric Trexler at Stronger by Science website. He is a researcher, educator, coach, athlete and creator of the MacroFactor app. If you want to see his entire point of view on the matter of why fixating on reaching a specific body fat target is problematic, click here.

The article below will showcase the main points from Trexler on why fixed body fat goals are problematic, the inaccuracies in body fat measurement, and the impact of rigid timelines on health and performance.

Why Fixating on Reaching a Specific Body Fat Target is Problematic

Setting a specific body fat percentage as a goal often ignores the true underlying objectives, such as health improvement, athletic performance, or achieving a desired aesthetic. Simply put, the number itself holds little intrinsic value. The focus should be on the real benefits and outcomes associated with body composition changes, not the percentage alone.

Health Metrics: Many people set body fat goals to improve health markers like cholesterol or blood sugar levels. For example, a person might aim to reduce their body fat to 20% in hopes of improving their high cholesterol and impaired glycemic control. However, their ultimate goal is better health, not the specific body fat number. Achieving the body fat goal might not necessarily improve these health markers if other lifestyle factors aren’t addressed. This disconnect can lead to disappointment and a misunderstanding of what truly impacts health.
Performance Goals: Athletes often target a specific body fat percentage to enhance their performance. For instance, a powerlifter might believe they will perform better in a lower weight class with less body fat, or a sprinter might think a lower body fat percentage will make them more explosive. However, body fat percentage is a poor proxy for performance. If the powerlifter cuts weight to achieve the target body fat percentage but loses strength and performs worse, the body fat goal proves irrelevant and even counterproductive.
Aesthetic Goals: People frequently set body fat goals based on the appearance of fitness models or bodybuilders, estimating their body fat percentages and aiming to match them. However, body fat distribution varies greatly among individuals, and achieving a certain percentage does not guarantee a similar look. One might reach the target body fat percentage yet still be dissatisfied because their muscle development or fat distribution doesn’t mirror the model’s appearance. This can lead to frustration and a sense of failure, despite achieving the numerical goal.

The satisfaction derived from achieving goals is highly subjective. Even in competitive bodybuilding, where body fat percentage is a significant focus, the leanest competitor does not always win. Judges prioritize overall physique, muscularity, symmetry, and presentation over an arbitrary body fat percentage. Therefore, focusing on body fat percentage alone is often misguided.

Measurement Challenges

Inaccuracies in Body Fat Measurement Methods

Accurate measurement of body fat percentage is complex. Common methods like DXA, BodPod, and bioelectrical impedance analysis are prone to significant errors. A study showed that these methods could overestimate or underestimate body fat by several percentage points, making them unreliable for precise tracking.

Tracking Body Fat Changes Over Time

Even when using advanced methods, tracking changes in body fat over time is fraught with inaccuracies. For example, DXA scans can show significant variations due to hydration levels and other factors, leading to misleading results about fat loss progress.

The Difficulty in Predicting Changes in Fat-Free Mass

Predicting changes in lean mass during a fat loss programme is challenging. Factors such as training status, genetics, and dietary habits influence how much lean mass one might lose or gain. This unpredictability makes it difficult to set accurate weight loss goals tied to body fat percentage targets.

5 Underrated Habits to Lower Body Fat Percentage

The Dangers of Fixed Timelines

Unsustainable Methods and Health Risks

Setting a deadline to achieve a specific body fat percentage can push individuals towards extreme and unsustainable methods. These methods may include severe caloric restriction, excessive exercise, or other drastic measures that can be harmful to one’s health.

Extreme Dieting: When individuals fall behind their weight-loss schedule, they might resort to crash dieting. This involves drastically reducing caloric intake, often leading to nutritional deficiencies, muscle loss, and metabolic slowdown. Such extreme measures are unsustainable and can cause more harm than good, both physically and mentally.
Excessive Exercise: To meet their body fat goals within the set timeline, people might overtrain, engaging in excessive cardio or resistance training. While exercise is beneficial, too much can lead to overuse injuries, burnout, and a weakened immune system. Overtraining can also negatively impact mental health, leading to anxiety and depression.

Psychological Impact of Rigid Timelines

Rigid timelines can foster a black-and-white mindset, where progress is viewed only in terms of success or failure. This type of cognitive restraint is associated with several negative psychological outcomes.

Rigid Cognitive Restraint: This mindset involves setting inflexible rules and boundaries. When applied to dieting and fat loss, rigid restraint can lead to disordered eating behaviours, body image concerns, psychological distress, and decreased overall well-being. People with this mindset often evaluate their progress in absolute terms, seeing any deviation from their plan as a failure.
Negative Psychological Outcomes: Rigid restraint is linked to a higher incidence of stress and anxiety. The pressure to meet an arbitrary deadline can overshadow the enjoyment and satisfaction derived from the process of improving fitness and health. This can result in a negative relationship with food, exercise, and one’s body image.
Outcome-Oriented Goals: Goals with fixed deadlines are inherently outcome-oriented rather than process-oriented. This focus on the end result rather than the journey can lead to decreased motivation and satisfaction. Research suggests that people pursuing outcome-oriented goals often have lower success rates and subjective well-being compared to those focusing on process-oriented goals.

The Better Approach

Instead of setting rigid body fat percentage goals within tight deadlines, it’s more effective to adopt a holistic and flexible approach to fitness and health. This involves:

Focusing on Health Metrics: Directly targeting health markers like cholesterol levels, blood pressure, or glucose levels can provide more meaningful and measurable improvements in health.
Setting Performance Goals: Aiming for specific performance outcomes, such as increasing strength, endurance, or flexibility, can be more motivating and rewarding.
Adopting Process-Oriented Goals: Focusing on daily habits and routines, such as consistent exercise, balanced nutrition, and adequate rest, supports sustainable progress and long-term success.
Flexible Timelines: Allowing flexibility in timelines helps accommodate the inevitable fluctuations and setbacks in any fitness journey, promoting a healthier and more enjoyable approach to achieving one’s goals.

By shifting the focus from rigid body fat percentage goals to broader health and fitness objectives, individuals can achieve more sustainable and fulfilling outcomes.

Process-Oriented Goals

Focus on process-oriented goals with flexible timelines. For instance, aim to lose a consistent amount of weight per week through healthy habits rather than striving for a specific body fat percentage by a set date. This approach reduces stress and promotes long-term adherence to healthy behaviours.

Setting a goal to reach a specific body fat percentage within a fixed timeframe is often unrealistic and can lead to unhealthy behaviours and disappointment. A better approach involves focusing on the underlying reasons for wanting to reduce body fat and setting flexible, process-oriented goals that align with your overall health and fitness objectives. By doing so, you can achieve sustainable results and improve your overall well-being without the drawbacks of rigid goal setting.

Scientific references used by Eric Trexler:

Body composition changes in bodybuilders: a method comparison

Estimating body composition at baseline and tracking changes during weight loss: Validity of common methods in comparison to a criterion four-compartment model

A systematic review of dietary protein during caloric restriction in resistance trained lean athletes: a case for higher intakes

Energy deficiency impairs resistance training gains in lean mass but not strength: A meta-analysis and meta-regression

Interference of strength development by simultaneously training for strength and endurance

Towards a Sustainable Nutrition Paradigm in Physique Sport: A Narrative Review

The Way is the Goal: The Role of Goal Focus for Successful Goal Pursuit and Subjective Well-Being

How Focusing on Superordinate Goals Motivates Broad, Long-Term Goal Pursuit: A Theoretical Perspective

image sources