Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Body Fat % of UFC fighters

  • 10-01-2011 2:27am
    #1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,322 ✭✭✭


    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?


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,943 ✭✭✭✭scudzilla


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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,707 ✭✭✭pablohoney87


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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,117 ✭✭✭SanoVitae


    Marcus Davis in his last fight looked skeletal!


  • Registered Users Posts: 344 ✭✭DJKendo


    Rumble Johnson has the least body fat after cutting.


  • Posts: 3,518 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 39,601 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,995 ✭✭✭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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,017 ✭✭✭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.


  • Posts: 3,518 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 776 ✭✭✭Fall_Guy


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 253 ✭✭_oveless


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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,333 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 39,601 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    DJKendo wrote: »
    Rumble Johnson has the least body fat after cutting.
    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 132 ✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users Posts: 256 ✭✭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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 132 ✭✭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


  • Registered Users Posts: 62 ✭✭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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 253 ✭✭_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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 62 ✭✭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 :D


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 39,601 ✭✭✭✭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 :D
    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.


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 21,981 ✭✭✭✭Hanley


    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!! :D

    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 253 ✭✭_oveless


    Hanley wrote: »
    I’ll give you my first born child and my right testicle if that’s true!! :D

    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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,803 ✭✭✭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 %


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 21,981 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,720 ✭✭✭Sid_Justice


    so they're pretty good then


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 24,878 ✭✭✭✭arybvtcw0eolkf


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

    And who says you can't spot reduce :p


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,594 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 39,601 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,476 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,476 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Mellor wrote: »
    DEXA scan > Callipers > Electronic scales/meter etc

    DEXA scan? Measuring bone density?:(


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 39,601 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,720 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,476 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,476 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 39,601 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,720 ✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,758 ✭✭✭✭TeddyTedson


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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,720 ✭✭✭Sid_Justice


    The man says DEXA scan or hydrostatic displacement test.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 39,601 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    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).
    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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,476 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 39,601 ✭✭✭✭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)


  • Registered Users Posts: 119 ✭✭Psychosis


    Phil "Mr Wonderful" Davis comes to mind.

    14_PhilDavisUFC117w.jpeg

    phil-davis.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 39,601 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    He's basically a big triangle that fella


    mr-strong.jpg


Advertisement