Whats my BF%

Esse85

RacoonQueen

25% at least...

pvt.joker

mp1972 wrote: »

25% at least...

unreggd

Might help...

Hanley

unreggd wrote: »

Might help...

There is absolutely no way the guys in those photos correspond to the estimated bf %'s. They're all way high.


Esse, I'd say between 16 and 20%.

Zorba

Ok so seen this thread earlier but well waited to see if the replies helped me figure out what it was about............but i'm still lost !!!

So are u giving some sorta percentage of how good his body is or something ?

Ahhhhhh get it now bf = body fat, hmmm well bearing in mind he's holding in his stomach for all he's worth ................

MagicMarker

this is soo stupid.... all people can do here is look and guess, which is what you can do yourself in a mirror ffs! If you just want to post pics of yourself then i know of a few sites......

RacoonQueen

pvt.joker wrote: »

Do you not agree with me?

King of Kings

mp1972 wrote: »

Do you not agree with me?

no i don't he is a lot lower.

i'd say 15% ish

but hard to say - he could have a fatty back

Esse85

MagicMarker wrote: »

this is soo stupid.... all people can do here is look and guess, which is what you can do yourself in a mirror ffs! If you just want to post pics of yourself then i know of a few sites......

This is a fitness forum where dedicated trainers with great experience and knowledge train, id rather get an estimate from these guys who know what their talking about rather than step on a unreliable machine and get an inaccurate reading.

Thanks for the helpful post though, great contribution:rolleyes:

P.S Thanks everyone else.

celestial

Esse85 wrote: »

This is a fitness forum where dedicated trainers with great experience and knowledge train, id rather get an estimate from these guys who know what their talking about rather than step on a unreliable machine and get an inaccurate reading.

Thanks for the helpful post though, great contribution:rolleyes:

P.S Thanks everyone else.

I reckon 16-18% Esse.

bwardrop

This has popped up previously - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055293940

And I'll say here what I said there:

"...all anyone can say from a photo is that you look lean / normal / fat. You will not get a result that is reliable from someone looking at a photo.

If you want to estimate your % body fat, you will at least need someone who knows what they are doing, working with a decent set of calipers (i.e. not the 'slim guide' white plastic calipers). Good calipers will be metal and give the reading on an analogue dial to the nearest 0.1 / 0.2 mm.

Ideally, the measurements should include a few upper body skinfolds and one or two lower body ones. This is important to get an idea of the dispersion of fat over your whole body. However, many places will rely on the old bicep / tricep / subscapular (below shoulder blade) & suprailliac (above hip) skinfolds. Nothing wrong with this, it would just be preferable to include a lower body one too..."

If all you want is a guesstimate from someone with experience - then I would put you at around 20 - 25%... Your upper torso looks lean enough, but your abdomen gives it away. Typical android fat distribution. However, it is just impossible to be accurate from a photo - I could be wrong. I'll assume you are average height and from the looks of the pic about 180lbs / 81kgs (it doesn't really matter for this example). At 20% you would have 36lbs / 16kgs of fat, at 25% it would be 45lbs / 20kgs - that is quite a difference.

I think from the photo - you look normal. Not lean, but not fat either.

cowzerp

King of Kings wrote: »

no i don't he is a lot lower.

i'd say 15% ish

but hard to say - he could have a fatty back

He looks about 20 to 22% obviously its a guess based on the part of his body you can see,low muscle mass and fair amount of fat for his size! he could have skinny legs, or big butt etc..which could put it up or down depending!

Transform

The estimates posted so far are total and utter rubbish!!!

Having done body fat tests with calipers on clients for over 10 years i would guestimate between 11-13% certainly no higher or lower.

Look in decent enough shape so keep up the good work and aim to get it to single figures. Post a pic further away for full body helps.

bwardrop

Transform wrote: »

The estimates posted so far are total and utter rubbish!!!

Having done body fat tests with calipers on clients for over 10 years i would guestimate between 11-13% certainly no higher or lower.

Look in decent enough shape so keep up the good work and aim to get it to single figures. Post a pic further away for full body helps.

That is way off transform - there is no way the OP's %BF is that low. I would bet my life on it. At 11 - 13% you would expect to see much more definition and vascularity. Look around the left lumbar, right lumbar and umbilical regions - there is significant adiposity there. I have tons of experience with body composition analysis using methods such as calipers, underwater weighing, dual energy x-ray absorbtiometry, BIA and BIS. At best the OP is in the high teens, but more realistically he in in the low 20's

RacoonQueen

King of Kings wrote: »

no i don't he is a lot lower.

i'd say 15% ish

but hard to say - he could have a fatty back

I was being sarcastic ...you can't really tell from a photograph...

cowzerp

Transform wrote: »

The estimates posted so far are total and utter rubbish!!!

Having done body fat tests with calipers on clients for over 10 years i would guestimate between 11-13% certainly no higher or lower.

Look in decent enough shape so keep up the good work and aim to get it to single figures. Post a pic further away for full body helps.

Maybe your doing the calipers wrong, human error makes it a useless tool.
he's defo high teens or low 20's.

BrianD3

I was going to say approx 12%. So I agree with Transform. I'd say that there is at least an 8 inch difference between the chest and waist size there, also if there is no six pack on display that is partly due to the pose.

MagicMarker

Esse85 wrote: »

This is a fitness forum where dedicated trainers with great experience and knowledge train, id rather get an estimate from these guys who know what their talking about rather than step on a unreliable machine and get an inaccurate reading.

Thanks for the helpful post though, great contribution:rolleyes:

P.S Thanks everyone else.

Are you happy with the accurate readings so far? :rolleyes:

bwardrop

MagicMarker wrote: »

Are you happy with the accurate readings so far? :rolleyes:

Agreed - the wildly varying guesstimates highlight the futility of this thread

rubadub

cowzerp wrote: »

Maybe your doing the calipers wrong, human error makes it a useless tool.

Even if 2 people get the exact same measurements they can use different formulas. I think I got a variance of 10% with one set of readings I had, i.e. one formula was claiming I was 8% and another 18%.

Educo gym seem to have some crazy formula, that is the only way to explain people having a net loss of 2lb in one week, but are packing on 20lb of muscle and losing 22lb of fat

Just use mirror, clothes and the mm sum of your calliper readings as a guide.

Racing Flat

Looks like 12% to me but if he stood with arms by sides and relaxed could be a bit more, maybe 16 or so.

Hanley

bwardrop wrote: »

This has popped up previously - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055293940

And I'll say here what I said there:

"...all anyone can say from a photo is that you look lean / normal / fat. You will not get a result that is reliable from someone looking at a photo.

If you want to estimate your % body fat, you will at least need someone who knows what they are doing, working with a decent set of calipers (i.e. not the 'slim guide' white plastic calipers). Good calipers will be metal and give the reading on an analogue dial to the nearest 0.1 / 0.2 mm.

Ideally, the measurements should include a few upper body skinfolds and one or two lower body ones. This is important to get an idea of the dispersion of fat over your whole body. However, many places will rely on the old bicep / tricep / subscapular (below shoulder blade) & suprailliac (above hip) skinfolds. Nothing wrong with this, it would just be preferable to include a lower body one too..."

If all you want is a guesstimate from someone with experience - then I would put you at around 20 - 25%... Your upper torso looks lean enough, but your abdomen gives it away. Typical android fat distribution. However, it is just impossible to be accurate from a photo - I could be wrong. I'll assume you are average height and from the looks of the pic about 180lbs / 81kgs (it doesn't really matter for this example). At 20% you would have 36lbs / 16kgs of fat, at 25% it would be 45lbs / 20kgs - that is quite a difference.

I think from the photo - you look normal. Not lean, but not fat either.

While I agree that you won't get a true accurate specific bodyfat % number from a photo, you can use them as a relatively good guide to specific bodyfat % levels.

For example everyone knows what 4% looks like - a stage ready bodybuilder (of course your measurements may not return him as ACTUALLY being 4%, but that's what it "looks" like)

Similarly, a mens health cover model might be 8-10% (well they might not be, but when people look at him they think "yeah he's 10%)

Daniel Craig might be 12-14% (or at least LOOK like he is)

Etc etc....

I think that's probably the scale Esse was looking to be measured against. When it comes down to it I'm sure you'll agree actual bodyfat % means very little to most trainees, so it's not like he was looking for it as a medical reference point. I think he just wanted to know so he could compare himself to others.

Anyway, I hope you can understand the point I'm trying to make?!?

Beerlao

i'm 20% and i've certainly got a lot more fat on me than this dude. i'd say 13-14%.

FunkZ

You look like me, I'd say around 14%, maybe a bit more, when I raise my arms and tense my stomach I have vertical lines on my abs.

Take a picture with your hands by you side!

g'em

Without a shoe your question is null and void tbh.

bwardrop

Hanley wrote: »

I think he just wanted to know so he could compare himself to others.

Anyway, I hope you can understand the point I'm trying to make?!?

Cheers Hanley - that is what I was getting at with the lean - normal - fat descriptions. The rest is kinda pointless! And I think G'em's point above is very valid...

Transform

If the original poster works out in westwood i will test him when i am up there - just an offer.

"Maybe i am doing the calipers wrong" FFS i do this full time so no i do not think i am using my calipers wrong. I use a fattrack calipers with clients - simple, accurate and as long as i am the one doing the testing all the time will give good readings.

Overall, keep working to single figures

cowzerp

Transform wrote: »

"Maybe i am doing the calipers wrong" FFS i do this full time so no i do not think i am using my calipers wrong. I use a fattrack calipers with clients - simple, accurate and as long as i am the one doing the testing all the time will give good readings.

Calipers are pretty crap no matter who uses them, and just because your doing it full time means nothing! i do too and would not trust calipers! also if the readings dont suit you its easy to lie to clients..

i've seen tubby lads been told they where 12% by experienced trainers, and i agree that once you take the reading all the time it will be accurate, but all that means is that if your measuring wrong consistantly then you'll know if your clients are gaining or losing.

im not having a go at you, but human error is too great and people sometimes store more fat in areas different than the reccomended sites, for example, even when im ripped to the bone, i have a relatively big bum!

rubadub

Beerlao wrote: »

i'm 20% and i've certainly got a lot more fat on me than this dude. i'd say 13-14%.

Who told you that you are 20%. As I mentioned if the same person measured you with the exact same mm readings BUT used different formulas you could see a wide variation. If your 20% was derived using calipers then another formula might have given you a reading of 15%, in which case you might be saying the OP was 10%

Transform wrote: »

"Maybe i am doing the calipers wrong" FFS i do this full time so no i do not think i am using my calipers wrong. I use a fattrack calipers with clients - simple, accurate and as long as i am the one doing the testing all the time will give good readings.

What forumla do you use? and why?
I hear some formulas are suited to certain bodytypes so you might use more than one. Have you ever tested your formulas out, e.g. verified readings against other techniques, e.g. those floatation machines, though they will have have flaws too...

Hanley wrote: »

Anyway, I hope you can understand the point I'm trying to make?!?

I certainly do. You mention the 4% bodybuilder. In a thread a while ago somebody pointed out a factor to watch out for, that the 4% is a percentage not an actual figure. So a 100kg bodybuilder at 4% has a lot more fat than a 50kg man at 4%. Somebody posted a pic of a lean footballer with visible abs and saying he must be 6% or something, because they may have seen a BBer with similarly visible abs at 6%. It is like equating the % number with a thickness of fat.

A while ago I was questioning if there could ever be an "ideal" bodyfat level, IMO it would change depending on how much muscle you have. I don't think many fully understood my point though. I think a better "ideal" measurement would be actual thickness of fat. i.e. a layer of fat Xmm thick in certain places would be "ideal". So if you had 2 people 100kg & 50kg, and the sum of various mm measurements were the same, their BF% could vary greatly.

Your surface area does not increase proportionately to your volume. If you have 2 rubber balls, both with a 5mm thick wall, one holds 1 litre, the other 10litres, now fill both with cement. They both have the same "fat thickness", but the ratio of rubber to cement is different.

Hanley

cowzerp wrote: »

Calipers are pretty crap no matter who uses them, and just because your doing it full time means nothing! i do too and would not trust calipers! also if the readings dont suit you its easy to lie to clients..

i've seen tubby lads been told they where 12% by experienced trainers, and i agree that once you take the reading all the time it will be accurate, but all that means is that if your measuring wrong consistantly then you'll know if your clients are gaining or losing.

im not having a go at you, but human error is too great and people sometimes store more fat in areas different than the reccomended sites, for example, even when im ripped to the bone, i have a relatively big bum!

Why do people get so hung up on the %'s?

Just keep track of the mm readings. No bullsh!t formula's to deal with there. They either go down, or not.

Money Shot

What is 'ideal' ? Too low a bodyfat level is extremely dangerous for an extended period of time, too high increases your risk of various medical illnesses. Ideal to me would be what is considered reasonably healthy for an individual, and that should usually be fairly obvious for a trained medical practioner.

The quest for finding you're holy grail BF% number seems quite a worthless endeavour to me, considering the fact that when you find the number, chances are it will be wrong. These kind of threads are lost on me.

cowzerp

I agree Hanley, once your doing proper resistance work and taking enough protein your muscle mass will be fine! mirrors tell you this..wheter your talking fat or muscle mass..

and then if body fat reduction is a goal, reduce calories that are not necessary!

cowzerp

Money Shot wrote: »

What is 'ideal' ? Too low a bodyfat level is extremely dangerous for an extended period of time, too high increases your risk of various medical illnesses. Ideal to me would be what is considered reasonably healthy for an individual, and that should usually be fairly obvious for a trained medical practioner.

The quest for finding you're holy grail BF% number seems quite a worthless endeavour to me, considering the fact that when you find the number, chances are it will be wrong. These kind of threads are lost on me.

without even been told a number, if you look healthy in the nude then your body fat is probably within range, the simple test, and im serious (if you can pinch an inch) then you know you've some work to do.

Vegeta

Hanley wrote: »

Just keep track of the mm readings. No bullsh!t formula's to deal with there. They either go down, or not.

I agree.

Guessing your bf% is pointless and even getting it measured causes debate.

Take some skin fold measurements. track their movement up or down and be done with it.

A few points on the pic, the lighting is favourable, the pose also helps lift skin/fat/(whatever ya want to call it) away from the mid area, all of your waist should be in the shot.

big shoulders, arms and good taper going

gabgab

Yeh I take pics and I gotta admit the can vary greatly depend ing on lighting and camera settings and colour.

My settings have changed as I was mucking about with the camera and found an indoor setting, new bulbs in the kitchen/living room (joys of apartment/shoebox living) and the pics look distinctly different. Also if I take one angled a bit away from the lens so I am not fully square on it looks much better.......

What I learnt, leave the settings the same and take it square on, really I dont care what the actual reading is as long as I look like I am losing some of the fat

Transform

Hanley wrote: »

Why do people get so hung up on the %'s?

Just keep track of the mm readings. No bullsh!t formula's to deal with there. They either go down, or not.

Totally agree.

I focus on the sigle measurements more but clients still like an overall percentage as its easier to relate to.

Does not matter what method you use so long as is the same method and measured in same way.