whats this dude bf %

[The Shadow]

If I were that small waisted, I'd probably be happy with that size, A tiny waist and wrists etc... you can get away with that stuff and look awesome. l

that is where I am...very small jointed..narrow hips...if you measure between my hip bones Im less then 10 inches across...wrists just at 7 inches..but I have good sweep in most muscle groups..so I look 10-12 pounds heavier than I am

 

[Sub-Zero]

lol

You'd think at 5%, "maybe" he'd have some veins or striations .

my friend is around 10% bf, and has zero veins, and im like a fat fuck probably around 18%, and i have way more veins than him, even on my stomach

 

[Dial_tone]

It's no wonder everyone on the Internet "lies" about their stats. The truth is people aren't actually lying, they're just ignorant. The guy who said pros look ripped at 10-12% is bang-on. Of course, they don't step on stage at that bodyfat, but they'd still look damn good.

In reality, 15% and you'll look pretty good; 12% and you'll be "ripped"; and sub-10% and you're shredded. These translate to 10%, 7-8%, and 5% as far as people on these boards seem to think.

I don't agree. I had a hydrostatic weighing test done once when I hadn't worked out for nearly a year. I came out at 14.6%. I wasn't fat but I damn sure wasn't ripped or even defined for that matter.

 

[Joe Stenson]

my friend is around 10% bf, and has zero veins, and im like a fat fuck probably around 18%, and i have way more veins than him, even on my stomach

Although your post gives heed to the fact that veins and bodyfat are not necessarily correlated, it really has nothing to do with what I said. There's a large difference between being 5% and being 10 or 18%. Genetics or not, I think you will be hard-pressed to find many guys at 5% with few veins.

 

[Joe Stenson]

I don't agree. I had a hydrostatic weighing test done once when I hadn't worked out for nearly a year. I came out at 14.6%. I wasn't fat but I damn sure wasn't ripped or even defined for that matter.

1) Everyone has different opinions on what constitutes "looking good" (what I said someone would like at 15%)

2) After not working out for a year, you probably had lost a lot of muscle mass, which would have contributed to your less than stellar physique. Like I said earlier, the more muscle mass you have the higher your bodyfat % can be in order to look good.

 

[pitbullstl]

I don't agree. I had a hydrostatic weighing test done once when I hadn't worked out for nearly a year. I came out at 14.6%. I wasn't fat but I damn sure wasn't ripped or even defined for that matter.

Same test, so I know exactly where I was when
<--------------------this photo was taken. Anyone want to guess where I was bodyfat wise there...??..???

 

[gonelifting]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^... 7%?

 

[pitbullstl]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^... 7%?

5.6%

But to be honest on me, it's hard to tell a lot of difference between that and 7%. Damn thick skin.

 

[gonelifting]

5.6%

But to be honest on me, it's hard to tell a lot of difference between that and 7%. Damn thick skin.

Damn, that's impressive.

Thick skin huh? So this won't bother you... Asshole! Nerd, uglifiant bastad! HAA! jk