Joe.Muscle
Active Member
Quad I plan to post some pics soon.
bodyfat illusion
- Thread starter scientific muscle
- Start date
scientific muscle
New Member
These are my wife's legs. Keep in mind she is not a bodybuilder, although she is an athletic person, it is mostly genetics. I think here BF% reading is around 26%....again not accurate.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">But in keep in mind, short of going to a laboratory, you cannot accurately measure your bodyfat as Aaron_F pointed out, most measurements are pretty much worthless. </div>
Worthless? Any measurement is an estimate, so what is the best way to record bodyfat% besides doing hydrostatic weighing. Basically, when it comes to down to the average joe, is it better to get one of those new scales or use calipers?
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">American Council on Exercise Bodyfat Chart.
Essential Fat: female 10-12% male 2-4%
Athletes: female 14-20% male 6-13%
Fitness: female 21-24% male 14-17%
Acceptable: female 25-31% male 18-25%
Obese: female 32%+ male 25%+</div>
Are these recommended ranges that people should be in? What is a good standard of bodyfat percentages? I always went by:
8% = 6 pack, 10% = 4 pack, 12% = upper abs showing
Am I wrong to go by this standard?
Worthless? Any measurement is an estimate, so what is the best way to record bodyfat% besides doing hydrostatic weighing. Basically, when it comes to down to the average joe, is it better to get one of those new scales or use calipers?
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">American Council on Exercise Bodyfat Chart.
Essential Fat: female 10-12% male 2-4%
Athletes: female 14-20% male 6-13%
Fitness: female 21-24% male 14-17%
Acceptable: female 25-31% male 18-25%
Obese: female 32%+ male 25%+</div>
Are these recommended ranges that people should be in? What is a good standard of bodyfat percentages? I always went by:
8% = 6 pack, 10% = 4 pack, 12% = upper abs showing
Am I wrong to go by this standard?
Morgoth the Dark Enemy
New Member
There is no wrong or right...except for having a cool thing to state like:duuudddeee, I absolutely rock at 2% bodyfat, check it out(like many many morons, erm, gurus, quote for themselves, even if they should be quite dead if it were true), BF %age has little use.
If you look good and have little/no bodyfat visible and get a BF reading putting you at some ridiculous percentage, will your abs suddenly disappear?Of course not. The reverse is true as well-if you have lard sitting happily on your belly, and you get a reading putting you at sub 10%, will ripped abs become a reality just because the calipers/bod-por/BIA analysis/whatever says so?
If you look good and have little/no bodyfat visible and get a BF reading putting you at some ridiculous percentage, will your abs suddenly disappear?Of course not. The reverse is true as well-if you have lard sitting happily on your belly, and you get a reading putting you at sub 10%, will ripped abs become a reality just because the calipers/bod-por/BIA analysis/whatever says so?
scientific muscle
New Member
exactly.
Joe.Muscle
Active Member
I've always said that instead of worrying about weight, you get out of the shower soaking wet and look in a full length mirror. If you're happy with that, you've arrived. But you don't have to stay there.
Our local gym owner says "it doesn't matter if you can lift the back of a truck, when you look like you can lift the back of a truck."
And for others, it's more important to BE able to lift the truck...
Two twins, same size and BF. One sees the other as chunky and the other sees him as slim. All in the mind of the beholder. I see myself as fat one day and herculean the next. Maybe I'm crazy.
Our local gym owner says "it doesn't matter if you can lift the back of a truck, when you look like you can lift the back of a truck."
And for others, it's more important to BE able to lift the truck...
Two twins, same size and BF. One sees the other as chunky and the other sees him as slim. All in the mind of the beholder. I see myself as fat one day and herculean the next. Maybe I'm crazy.
Joe.Muscle
Active Member
<div>
(quadancer @ Feb. 17 2007,21:28)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I see myself as fat one day and herculean the next. Maybe I'm crazy.</div>
No you are normal...well normal for people like us.
Its the nature of the beast in the Iron Game.
But that is what keeps all of us striving to look better...never being satisfied.
I often tell me employees.....Shoot for the stars, and if you miss you will land on the moon!
(quadancer @ Feb. 17 2007,21:28)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I see myself as fat one day and herculean the next. Maybe I'm crazy.</div>
No you are normal...well normal for people like us.
Its the nature of the beast in the Iron Game.
But that is what keeps all of us striving to look better...never being satisfied.
I often tell me employees.....Shoot for the stars, and if you miss you will land on the moon!
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">If you look good and have little/no bodyfat visible and get a BF reading putting you at some ridiculous percentage, will your abs suddenly disappear?Of course not. The reverse is true as well-if you have lard sitting happily on your belly, and you get a reading putting you at sub 10%, will ripped abs become a reality just because the calipers/bod-por/BIA analysis/whatever says so?</div>
Bodyfat% has a lot of use. You need it to calculate how much lean body mass you have. It is very useful for deriving your maintenance level for caloric intake. All I want to know is what the true standards are, and if I am right with the 8-10-12% ab look scale.
Bodyfat% has a lot of use. You need it to calculate how much lean body mass you have. It is very useful for deriving your maintenance level for caloric intake. All I want to know is what the true standards are, and if I am right with the 8-10-12% ab look scale.
Joe.Muscle
Active Member
<div>
(colby2152 @ Feb. 17 2007,22:03)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">if I am right with the 8-10-12% ab look scale.</div>
From my expierence you are right on with this scale.
(colby2152 @ Feb. 17 2007,22:03)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">if I am right with the 8-10-12% ab look scale.</div>
From my expierence you are right on with this scale.
<div>
(Joe.Muscle @ Feb. 17 2007,22:25)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(colby2152 @ Feb. 17 2007,22:03)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">if I am right with the 8-10-12% ab look scale.</div>
From my expierence you are right on with this scale.</div>
I will take your word for it.
(Joe.Muscle @ Feb. 17 2007,22:25)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(colby2152 @ Feb. 17 2007,22:03)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">if I am right with the 8-10-12% ab look scale.</div>
From my expierence you are right on with this scale.</div>
I will take your word for it.
Lifting N Tx
New Member
<div>
(scientific muscle @ Feb. 16 2007,14:28)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Now I know I will have to go lower than that (186) to reach my goal, and then I can maintain/slowly put on lean mass, without getting flabby. (based on the partitioning ratio idea= leaner people gain more lean mass/ fatter people gain more fat mass generally)</div>
I'm late to the party here, and I'm going way back to respond to this one. Lyle's article on partitioning that you linked caught my attention also. Just remember that he also set a lower end of 10-12% starting point for this reason:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Trying to get super lean will probably end up screwing you in the long run because your body will be primed to put back fat on (and most other physiological systems are screwed up as well) when you get super lean.
</div>
So if you get really cut and start to bulk you may mostly gain fat until you climb above the really low body fat %s. Not that I'm anywhere near putting that to the test.
As for actual percentages and what is accurate, I don't really care. What is more important to me is whether the measurement system is accurate in tracking changes. If you put on 10lbs it is nice to know roughly how much was fat and how much LBM.
Finally, as a useless aside, the two most humorous things in this thread are vagrant's post and Colby's sig. Not that vagrant didn't have a point, he did. Not that I drink much anymore, either. Both were just funny in their own way.
(scientific muscle @ Feb. 16 2007,14:28)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Now I know I will have to go lower than that (186) to reach my goal, and then I can maintain/slowly put on lean mass, without getting flabby. (based on the partitioning ratio idea= leaner people gain more lean mass/ fatter people gain more fat mass generally)</div>
I'm late to the party here, and I'm going way back to respond to this one. Lyle's article on partitioning that you linked caught my attention also. Just remember that he also set a lower end of 10-12% starting point for this reason:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Trying to get super lean will probably end up screwing you in the long run because your body will be primed to put back fat on (and most other physiological systems are screwed up as well) when you get super lean.
</div>
So if you get really cut and start to bulk you may mostly gain fat until you climb above the really low body fat %s. Not that I'm anywhere near putting that to the test.
As for actual percentages and what is accurate, I don't really care. What is more important to me is whether the measurement system is accurate in tracking changes. If you put on 10lbs it is nice to know roughly how much was fat and how much LBM.
Finally, as a useless aside, the two most humorous things in this thread are vagrant's post and Colby's sig. Not that vagrant didn't have a point, he did. Not that I drink much anymore, either. Both were just funny in their own way.
Joe.Muscle
Active Member
<div>
(Lifting N Tx @ Feb. 18 2007,14:39)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">So if you get really cut and start to bulk you may mostly gain fat until you climb above the really low body fat %s. Not that I'm anywhere near putting that to the test.
</div>
Are you sure you are correct on this?
It was my understanding that you cut to around 8% and bulk to 15%. Rough estimate.
My understanding is anything above 15% you may gain fat faster than if you were lean.
I could be wrong but I have a different understanding than you do of this?
(Lifting N Tx @ Feb. 18 2007,14:39)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">So if you get really cut and start to bulk you may mostly gain fat until you climb above the really low body fat %s. Not that I'm anywhere near putting that to the test.
Are you sure you are correct on this?
It was my understanding that you cut to around 8% and bulk to 15%. Rough estimate.
My understanding is anything above 15% you may gain fat faster than if you were lean.
I could be wrong but I have a different understanding than you do of this?
Lifting N Tx
New Member
<div>
(Joe.Muscle @ Feb. 18 2007,14:03)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Are you sure you are correct on this?
It was my understanding that you cut to around 8% and bulk to 15%. Rough estimate.
My understanding is anything above 15% you may gain fat faster than if you were lean.
I could be wrong but I have a different understanding than you do of this?
</div>
I think that you have the general idea. I'm not sure about exact percentages...and given the previous discussion I'm not sure how accurate they are. The point is that either below or above some point you lose the benefit of favorable partitioning.
Here is that quote from Lyle's article's recommendations with a bit more included for context:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
1. If you’re above 15% body fat (about 24-27% for women), diet first. If you can get to the 10-12% (19-24%) body fat range or so, I think you’ll be in an overall better position. Trying to get super lean will probably end up screwing you in the long run because your body will be primed to put back fat on (and most other physiological systems are screwed up as well) when you get super lean.
</div>
Maybe depending on the individual and on the method of measurement, the exact range that is best for bulking will vary.
(Joe.Muscle @ Feb. 18 2007,14:03)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Are you sure you are correct on this?
It was my understanding that you cut to around 8% and bulk to 15%. Rough estimate.
My understanding is anything above 15% you may gain fat faster than if you were lean.
I could be wrong but I have a different understanding than you do of this?
I think that you have the general idea. I'm not sure about exact percentages...and given the previous discussion I'm not sure how accurate they are. The point is that either below or above some point you lose the benefit of favorable partitioning.
Here is that quote from Lyle's article's recommendations with a bit more included for context:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
1. If you’re above 15% body fat (about 24-27% for women), diet first. If you can get to the 10-12% (19-24%) body fat range or so, I think you’ll be in an overall better position. Trying to get super lean will probably end up screwing you in the long run because your body will be primed to put back fat on (and most other physiological systems are screwed up as well) when you get super lean.
</div>
Maybe depending on the individual and on the method of measurement, the exact range that is best for bulking will vary.
<div>
(colby2152 @ Feb. 18 2007,11:23)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Worthless? Any measurement is an estimate, so what is the best way to record bodyfat% besides doing hydrostatic weighing. Basically, when it comes to down to the average joe, is it better to get one of those new scales or use calipers?</div>
You have to understand the quality fo the measurement.
Autopsy is the best, but not useful
UWW is just as problematic due the assumptions it is based on
Total body fat content in a group of professional football players
.Adams J, Mottola M, Bagnall KM, McFadden KD.
A hydrostatic weighing method coupled with a closed-circuit helium dilution technique was applied to twenty-nine professional football players of a successful Canadian Football team to obtain body density values. From these results, it was hoped that values for percent body fat could be calculated for each player using Siri's (1956) formula. Unfortunately, the values for body density were so high that for some players negative values for percent body fat were obtained. It has been suggested that these results reflect large skeletal deposits in response to the heavy exercise routines undertaken by the players. Skinfold measurements of the players suggest that there are more fat deposits than their body density values indicate. This casts serious doubt on the use of Siri's (1956) formula with the extremes of body form found in the population and also suggests restricted use of equations based on skinfold measurements for estimating body fat percent.
the scales require frequent and consistent use, and the calipers have a relatively wide range of error as well, which can get better with consistent use, but still can be completely annoying. Measurement points need to be measured, not looked at and guessed.
And even then, track the skinfold distance or the sum of skinfolds. Converting it into BF% is pretty much worthless.
(colby2152 @ Feb. 18 2007,11:23)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Worthless? Any measurement is an estimate, so what is the best way to record bodyfat% besides doing hydrostatic weighing. Basically, when it comes to down to the average joe, is it better to get one of those new scales or use calipers?</div>
You have to understand the quality fo the measurement.
Autopsy is the best, but not useful
UWW is just as problematic due the assumptions it is based on
Total body fat content in a group of professional football players
.Adams J, Mottola M, Bagnall KM, McFadden KD.
A hydrostatic weighing method coupled with a closed-circuit helium dilution technique was applied to twenty-nine professional football players of a successful Canadian Football team to obtain body density values. From these results, it was hoped that values for percent body fat could be calculated for each player using Siri's (1956) formula. Unfortunately, the values for body density were so high that for some players negative values for percent body fat were obtained. It has been suggested that these results reflect large skeletal deposits in response to the heavy exercise routines undertaken by the players. Skinfold measurements of the players suggest that there are more fat deposits than their body density values indicate. This casts serious doubt on the use of Siri's (1956) formula with the extremes of body form found in the population and also suggests restricted use of equations based on skinfold measurements for estimating body fat percent.
the scales require frequent and consistent use, and the calipers have a relatively wide range of error as well, which can get better with consistent use, but still can be completely annoying. Measurement points need to be measured, not looked at and guessed.
And even then, track the skinfold distance or the sum of skinfolds. Converting it into BF% is pretty much worthless.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">the scales require frequent and consistent use, and the calipers have a relatively wide range of error as well, which can get better with consistent use, but still can be completely annoying. Measurement points need to be measured, not looked at and guessed.
And even then, track the skinfold distance or the sum of skinfolds. Converting it into BF% is pretty much worthless. </div>
Not totally useless. As you say Aaron: more consistent use = less error. After using calipers for a few months, I am sure you are able to take decent measurements within .5% bodyfat.
And even then, track the skinfold distance or the sum of skinfolds. Converting it into BF% is pretty much worthless. </div>
Not totally useless. As you say Aaron: more consistent use = less error. After using calipers for a few months, I am sure you are able to take decent measurements within .5% bodyfat.
1) I said "Converting it into BF% is pretty much worthless"
and it is
but Consistent use will improve the measuremnet but if you take something really bad, and just make it bad, it aint much use.
and consistency is possibvle with a trained operator (there is a liciencing system for researchers who use skinfolds during data collection), and even then if you convert this into BF it will be +-1% or more. With each skinfold taken 2-3 times until measures are within 1mm of each other. This level of variability is fine for research because you have the population base to even out the variability of the measurement. When n=1 you have more issues.
Now if you take your skinfolds each morning and work out an average for the week, it would be better. But you still have the issue of converting this skinfold measuremtn into body density and then into BF via equations based on stupid assumptions.
If you get the typical gym "oh I do skinfolds" person, it will probably be +-5 to 10% (seen it)
and if you start with the measurements in the wrong place, then all the practice in the world wont fix it.
The likes of the australian institute of sport tend to avoid converting raw skinfold measuremnts into BF to avoid all of that stupidity. Tehy will compare skinfolds to normative range data they have collected over the years. Still relies upon the variability of the test method, but they work with that (and they have well trained collectors)
and it is
but Consistent use will improve the measuremnet but if you take something really bad, and just make it bad, it aint much use.
and consistency is possibvle with a trained operator (there is a liciencing system for researchers who use skinfolds during data collection), and even then if you convert this into BF it will be +-1% or more. With each skinfold taken 2-3 times until measures are within 1mm of each other. This level of variability is fine for research because you have the population base to even out the variability of the measurement. When n=1 you have more issues.
Now if you take your skinfolds each morning and work out an average for the week, it would be better. But you still have the issue of converting this skinfold measuremtn into body density and then into BF via equations based on stupid assumptions.
If you get the typical gym "oh I do skinfolds" person, it will probably be +-5 to 10% (seen it)
and if you start with the measurements in the wrong place, then all the practice in the world wont fix it.
The likes of the australian institute of sport tend to avoid converting raw skinfold measuremnts into BF to avoid all of that stupidity. Tehy will compare skinfolds to normative range data they have collected over the years. Still relies upon the variability of the test method, but they work with that (and they have well trained collectors)
I have a caliper. I've found that using the spot above the hipbones, moving it just 1/4" or more will give a completely different reading, so it's really impossible to get the exact spot every time unless you tatoo marks on yourself.
Back to the mirror. Works every time.
Back to the mirror. Works every time.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Now if you take your skinfolds each morning and work out an average for the week, it would be better. But you still have the issue of converting this skinfold measuremtn into body density and then into BF via equations based on stupid assumptions.</div>
More or less, that is what I do. My measurements have a range of up to 3% during a week, so there is some decent variance involved. The numbers I get match up well with how I look in the mirror and bf% standards. As long as those standards are indeed correct, then my numbers should be good.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I have a caliper. I've found that using the spot above the hipbones, moving it just 1/4" or more will give a completely different reading, so it's really impossible to get the exact spot every time unless you tatoo marks on yourself.
Back to the mirror. Works every time. </div>
Yeah, you have to hit the right spot every time in certain areas. When I measure the sides of love handles, the error can be huge, so I don't give that figure that much weight. As far as the front of the stomach is concerned, I always measure 1 inch horizontally from the navel.
More or less, that is what I do. My measurements have a range of up to 3% during a week, so there is some decent variance involved. The numbers I get match up well with how I look in the mirror and bf% standards. As long as those standards are indeed correct, then my numbers should be good.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I have a caliper. I've found that using the spot above the hipbones, moving it just 1/4" or more will give a completely different reading, so it's really impossible to get the exact spot every time unless you tatoo marks on yourself.
Back to the mirror. Works every time. </div>
Yeah, you have to hit the right spot every time in certain areas. When I measure the sides of love handles, the error can be huge, so I don't give that figure that much weight. As far as the front of the stomach is concerned, I always measure 1 inch horizontally from the navel.
LittleBigHorn
New Member
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Another factor is one I suffer: pelvic tilt. </div>
I suffer from that very same problem, at least a mild form of it. For me, it looks the absolute worst when I twist my torso and look at myself from the rear or side. Before I began lifting weights, it looked absolutely hideous (I'm talking Chernobyl mutant kind of hideous), but it's less of a problem now that I've packed on upper back and shoulder mass and developed more of a V shape to my upper body. And it actually looks less bothersome when viewed from up front, even though I can clearly see that one side of my pelvis is higher than the other.
Go figure.
I think I may also have a mild case of scoliosis, as my entire spine seems slightly bent to the side.
Why can't people be born more symmetrical (exept the lucky ones)?
A friend of mine has all kinds of structural defects that have all but halted his weight lifting progress. And he never got past 120 lbs in bench.
He has a shoddy knee, and even though he has never deadlifted with a poor technique, his somehow managed to break his back with a very light weight set of DLing. The poor dude has only been lifting for about 2 years, and what little progess he managed to make was erased when his body went 'crack, pop and snap' in pretty much all the critical places.
But back to bodyfat issues.. has anyone here tried UD2 and met with success? I ordered the book, but it all seems rather daunting. I don't know how any human being can survive that ordeal. Also, I'm afraid the extrem stress it will place on my system will make my vitiligo flare up again (autoimmune disorder), and I'll end up losing more skin pigment. Damn.. come to think of it, I don't know how I can ever diet again (UD2 or any other diet), seeing as my cutter last summer triggered my vitiligo to begin with, and it is bound to be aggravated if/when I attempt to cut up again.
I suffer from that very same problem, at least a mild form of it. For me, it looks the absolute worst when I twist my torso and look at myself from the rear or side. Before I began lifting weights, it looked absolutely hideous (I'm talking Chernobyl mutant kind of hideous), but it's less of a problem now that I've packed on upper back and shoulder mass and developed more of a V shape to my upper body. And it actually looks less bothersome when viewed from up front, even though I can clearly see that one side of my pelvis is higher than the other.
I think I may also have a mild case of scoliosis, as my entire spine seems slightly bent to the side.
Why can't people be born more symmetrical (exept the lucky ones)?
A friend of mine has all kinds of structural defects that have all but halted his weight lifting progress. And he never got past 120 lbs in bench.
But back to bodyfat issues.. has anyone here tried UD2 and met with success? I ordered the book, but it all seems rather daunting. I don't know how any human being can survive that ordeal. Also, I'm afraid the extrem stress it will place on my system will make my vitiligo flare up again (autoimmune disorder), and I'll end up losing more skin pigment. Damn.. come to think of it, I don't know how I can ever diet again (UD2 or any other diet), seeing as my cutter last summer triggered my vitiligo to begin with, and it is bound to be aggravated if/when I attempt to cut up again.