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