Body Fat % of UFC fighters

Package

hey guys. ive become obsessed with body fat, and the trying to lower of mine

is there a site with a list of fighters with their body fat percentages?

who has the lowest/highest?

whats the ave?

scudzilla

Sure Roy Nelson will be the highest, not got a clue who the lowest would be

pablohoney87

By just lookin at him id say GSP has to be one of the lowest.

SanoVitae

Marcus Davis in his last fight looked skeletal!

DJKendo

Rumble Johnson has the least body fat after cutting.

Thiago Alves when he actually makes weight, Hector Lombard is a beast aswell but he's Bellator. Basically anyone from ATT!

EDIT: Corey Hill from TUF 5 is 6 4 and fights at 155.....enough said.

Mellor

That just means he has low muscle mass (obv bf% is low too, but no reason to think its way down)



I'd say most fighters are in the 10-12% range, Some of the lighter guys are very low, and some of the LHW and HW guys are carring a fair bit extra

Tim_Murphy

Package wrote: »

hey guys. ive become obsessed with body fat, and the trying to lower of mine

is there a site with a list of fighters with their body fat percentages?

who has the lowest/highest?

whats the ave?

Why would you possible want that list?

the_doctor199

DJKendo wrote: »

Rumble Johnson has the least body fat after cutting.

IMO Rumble could do with stepping up to MW. Did anyone see GAD on MMA Live saying that he's to cut 50 pounds to make weight for his Dan Hardy fight.

Mellor

Mellor wrote: »

That just means he has low muscle mass (obv bf% is low too, but no reason to think its way down)

I'm sure it's in the single figures anyway. Alves' bf% has to be in the singles too after cutting.

Fall_Guy

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm sure it's in the single figures anyway. Alves' bf% has to be in the singles too after cutting.

Why would cutting (assuming you are referring to the pre-fight weight cut and not weight naturally lost throughout a 6-8 week training camp) have any effect in reducing body fat? They are only cutting water at this stage, not fat.

Having a list of fighters' body fat %'s is pretty useless to you, as the body fat % that suits one person in order to perform at their optimum level might not suit you.

_oveless

I'm not sure what a fighter's body fat would have much to do with their performance in any area.

Tones69

_oveless wrote: »

I'm not sure what a fighter's body fat would have much to do with their performance in any area.

Very true, if it were a bodybuilding contest then yeah that would mean an awful lot, but its not. Physical appearance doesnt mean a whole lot in the mma world

Mellor

DJKendo wrote: »

Rumble Johnson has the least body fat after cutting.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm sure it's in the single figures anyway. Alves' bf% has to be in the singles too after cutting.

em, cutting would cause their BF% (percent, not mass) to increase not decrease.

eg, somebody with 10%Bf @ 80kg, when they cut to 76kg its 10.5

_oveless wrote: »

I'm not sure what a fighter's body fat would have much to do with their performance in any area.

On its own, nothing.
lower BF% would most likely give a better power to weight ratio, which is important seeing as fighters are grouped by weight. Low BF% doesn't make you stronger, but it means you have more muscle relative to your division.

DB888

When you see fighters weighing in and it appears their bicep is split in 2,then there the guys with the lowest body fat % at the time of weigh in's..John Hathaway comes to mind...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_UB2-sbYZQVk/TACnf4p0Z2I/AAAAAAAACO0/Gjt_R_vE8eM/s1600/john-hathaway.JPG

Rodin

DB888 wrote: »

When you see fighters weighing in and it appears their bicep is split in 2,then there the guys with the lowest body fat % at the time of weigh in's..John Hathaway comes to mind...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_UB2-sbYZQVk/TACnf4p0Z2I/AAAAAAAACO0/Gjt_R_vE8eM/s1600/john-hathaway.JPG

You get a better idea as his Serratus anterior is easily seen
I reckon that 'split bicep' is probably one of the heads of the triceps under the bicep

bigdogbarking

Rodin wrote: »

You get a better idea as his Serratus anterior is easily seen
I reckon that 'split bicep' is probably one of the heads of the triceps under the bicep

Surely its just both heads of the biceps? ie the inner and outer head of the muscle, hence the "bi" in biceps? just more visible because of the insanely low bodyfat?

DB888

The split bicep is just the bicep divided by the cut in the middle.There both the bicep,its just due to the very low body fat he carries.It can be a targeted area with certain type of reps.Obviously your bf% still has to be extremely low,but with the certain type of reps it can show alot more

ta2liam

DB888 wrote: »

When you see fighters weighing in and it appears their bicep is split in 2,then there the guys with the lowest body fat % at the time of weigh in's..John Hathaway comes to mind...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_UB2-sbYZQVk/TACnf4p0Z2I/AAAAAAAACO0/Gjt_R_vE8eM/s1600/john-hathaway.JPG

I trained with john in ZT fight skool in brighton and he told me that he has been as low as 4% and that was in 2007

_oveless

ta2liam wrote: »

I trained with john in ZT fight skool in brighton and he told me that he has been as low as 4% and that was in 2007

Isn't there a point where it gets dangerous to have such low body fat?

ta2liam

_oveless wrote: »

Isn't there a point where it gets dangerous to have such low body fat?

I think that is when he is cutting weight, unfortunately i couldn't tell you from personal experience as my lowest has been about 12% haha I love carbs and king crisps

Mellor

ta2liam wrote: »

I think that is when he is cutting weight, unfortunately i couldn't tell you from personal experience as my lowest has been about 12% haha I love carbs and king crisps

As I mentioned above, cutting weight is losing water, not fat.
if he was 4% before he cut water, he is going to be about 4% in the ring.

_oveless wrote: »

Isn't there a point where it gets dangerous to have such low body fat?

The physical minimum the body needs is 2-3%
Professional bodybuilders are about 4% at contest time

But, its nearly impossible to get below 3-4%, you have to literally starve yourself, and even so, you would lose lean mass first and body fat probably would prob only drop below 3% in your final days.
Basically, afaik, you can't get to dangerous levels if you are eating and training right.

Mellor

Mellor wrote: »

As I mentioned above, cutting weight is losing water, not fat.
if he was 4% before he cut water, he is going to be about 4% in the ring.



The physical minimum the body needs is 2-3%
Professional bodybuilders are about 4% at contest time

But, its nearly impossible to get below 3-4%, you have to literally starve yourself, and even so, you would lose lean mass first and body fat probably would prob only drop below 3% in your final days.
Basically, afaik, you can't get to dangerous levels if you are eating and training right.

This is true! I think Stallone was 2.8% bodyfat while filming rocky 3 and he admitted it casued him to black out for periods during filming.

Hanley

Deleted User wrote: »

This is true! I think Stallone was 2.8% bodyfat while filming rocky 3 and he admitted it casued him to black out for periods during filming.

I’ll give you my first born child and my right testicle if that’s true!!

The problem with trying to guesstimate what bodyfat levels are based off callipers is that they’re just not reliable. The same 8 site measurement put into different equations will result in swings of 3-4%, if not more.

The only way you’ll get a REAL bodyfat% is to chop someone up and weight that crap.

_oveless

Hanley wrote: »

I’ll give you my first born child and my right testicle if that’s true!!

The problem with trying to guesstimate what bodyfat levels are based off callipers is that they’re just not reliable. The same 8 site measurement put into different equations will result in swings of 3-4%, if not more.

The only way you’ll get a REAL bodyfat% is to chop someone up and weight that crap.

What about the scales that are supposed to measure body fat? How far would they be off?

dunkamania

Mellor wrote: »

As I mentioned above, cutting weight is losing water, not fat.
if he was 4% before he cut water, he is going to be about 4% in the ring.

Silly observation on my part, but wouldn't cutting water increase your body fat %

Hanley

_oveless wrote: »

What about the scales that are supposed to measure body fat? How far would they be off?

They told me I was 30+% bodyfat when I was 90kg w/ abs.

Sid_Justice

so they're pretty good then

arybvtcw0eolkf

Hanley wrote: »

They told me I was 30+% bodyfat when I was 90kg w/ abs.

And who says you can't spot reduce

Fozzy

dunkamania wrote: »

Silly observation on my part, but wouldn't cutting water increase your body fat %

It would during the actual cut, but before the cut and in the cage would be the same

Mellor

dunkamania wrote: »

Silly observation on my part, but wouldn't cutting water increase your body fat %

Yup, which is exactly what I said ;

Mellor wrote: »

em, cutting would cause their BF% (percent, not mass) to increase not decrease.

eg, somebody with 10%Bf @ 80kg, when they cut to 76kg its 10.5

As for the part you quoted, fighters rehydrate by the time they enter the ring, so water levels and therefore bf% will be roughly what it was before the cut

_oveless wrote: »

What about the scales that are supposed to measure body fat? How far would they be off?

They are prob the least accurate method

DEXA scan > Callipers > Electronic scales/meter etc

Ush1

_oveless wrote: »

What about the scales that are supposed to measure body fat? How far would they be off?

Useless AFAIK.

Most accurate is a displacement pod I think.

Calipers would have at least a 2-4% error margin.

Ush1

Mellor wrote: »

DEXA scan > Callipers > Electronic scales/meter etc

DEXA scan? Measuring bone density?:(

Mellor

Ush1 wrote: »

DEXA scan? Measuring bone density?:(

Lol.
failed attempt at being clever

friendly advice, maybe actually be sure what you are talking about before you try to be smart

Sid_Justice

Only time I've heard of a DEXA scan being used is for bone density test for people with osteoporosis. Is there another type or is used to measure body fat density.

Ush1

Mellor wrote: »

Lol.
failed attempt at being clever

friendly advice, maybe actually be sure what you are talking about before you try to be smart

I wasn't trying to be clever.

I'm as sure as a layman can be to be honest. Got a DEXA scan done roughly 6 months ago and it was explained and shown to be that it is for measuring bone density.

Ush1

Sid_Justice wrote: »

Only time I've heard of a DEXA scan being used is for bone density test for people with osteoporosis. Is there another type or is used to measure body fat density.

Can be done for many reasons. I got it done as I was on steroids and you can take a reference point to see if your bone density is being effected over time.

Mellor

Sid_Justice wrote: »

Only time I've heard of a DEXA scan being used is for bone density test for people with osteoporosis. Is there another type or is used to measure body fat density.

It's same scan, the data is just added and subtracted differently, i'll post a sample below

Ush1 wrote: »

I'm as sure as a layman can be to be honest. Got a DEXA scan done roughly 6 months ago and it was explained and shown to be that it is for measuring bone density.

Well, you sounded like you were trying to be smart, as in "lol, dexa is for bone not fat"
Apologies if you weren't

I just found it surprising that you heard of the bod-pod/hydrostatic displacement testing, and knew of the accuracy of calipers and were unaware of DEXA for body fat. Even more surprised now that you say had one done. (do you still have results)
I first heard for it shortly after I first heard of calipers/skin fold, on the fitness forum I think

Dexa is common method for bone density, true, as there are few other options. But it also totals lean tissue absorption, which is ignored when bone density is being studied. But if you know lean mass, bone mass and total mass, working out fat mass is simple.

In terms of accuracy Dexa is up there with hydrostatic displacement, which is very very high. One good feature of DEXA is that it is able to break down figures by area (arms, legs, body, head etc)

Here's a sample DEXA scan that has to explanatory notes on how to read it and what the various figures are. I have no idea if yours looks similar, but maybe dig it out and see if you can calculate lean/fat mass.

Sid_Justice

So people actually get DEXA exams to measure their body fat %? I'm not sure who would do that, professional athletes/bodybuilders/models/curious?

TeddyTedson

Is there anything you can get to give you a completely accurate reading of body fat?

Sid_Justice

The man says DEXA scan or hydrostatic displacement test.

Mellor

Sid_Justice wrote: »

So people actually get DEXA exams to measure their body fat %? I'm not sure who would do that, professional athletes/bodybuilders/models/curious?

Anybody that wants to know their bf% really, athletes, body builders, or even overweight people who want a reference point for the start of a weight loss plan. The same people who'd get skin fold testing done.
The link I posted previously was a from a service that does just that dexa specificly aimed are people looking to know (and improve) their body comp. It's quite common, a lot of sports science labs would have dexa, bod pods for that purpose.

Quite a few on the fitness forum have done it afaik.
Calipers is more portable, and accessable so its more common for gauging progress month to month.

I was looking into getting bf% measured before xmas, my gym doesn't offer it. From an afternoon searching the net, a dexa scan was cheaper and quicker than a guy doing calipers near me (although imo, he was expensive as there were other things grouped in with his service, as opposed to dexa being cheap).

TeddyTedson wrote: »

Is there anything you can get to give you a completely accurate reading of body fat?

As mentioned, Dexa or bod pod are the most accurate.
But, accuracy isn't a huge deal at the same time. It's good to know for piece of mind, but calipers are accurate enough, if the figures are coming down every few months, then you are losing fat. Some people like to use one of the more accurate methods as a once off to get a value. Then monitor the rest with simpler means.

UCD Institute for Sport & Health offer both

Ush1

Mellor wrote: »

Well, you sounded like you were trying to be smart, as in "lol, dexa is for bone not fat"
Apologies if you weren't

I just found it surprising that you heard of the bod-pod/hydrostatic displacement testing, and knew of the accuracy of calipers and were unaware of DEXA for body fat. Even more surprised now that you say had one done. (do you still have results)
I first heard for it shortly after I first heard of calipers/skin fold, on the fitness forum I think

Dexa is common method for bone density, true, as there are few other options. But it also totals lean tissue absorption, which is ignored when bone density is being studied. But if you know lean mass, bone mass and total mass, working out fat mass is simple.

In terms of accuracy Dexa is up there with hydrostatic displacement, which is very very high. One good feature of DEXA is that it is able to break down figures by area (arms, legs, body, head etc)

Here's a sample DEXA scan that has to explanatory notes on how to read it and what the various figures are. I have no idea if yours looks similar, but maybe dig it out and see if you can calculate lean/fat mass.

No I genuinely didn't know DEXA could be used for that. That's interesting though. I'll see if I can root out my results. Cheers.

Mellor

Ush1 wrote: »

No I genuinely didn't know DEXA could be used for that. That's interesting though. I'll see if I can root out my results. Cheers.

Semi-inspired by this thread, I've booked a Dexa for this friday
(its not that I care so much that the test needs to be hyper-accurate, I just couldn't find a calipers test for cheaper)

The guy is going to explain the test results too, so Ush, if you want me to try explain any different numbers or letter I can try (as they might not list them off clearly)

Psychosis

Phil "Mr Wonderful" Davis comes to mind.

Mellor

He's basically a big triangle that fella