What is my BF% around? 166 lbs 5'9" ?????

I would appreciate any feedback on what u think my BF is at... I'm scared to find out. probably pretty high. Don't mind the chest hair... After all it is winter time! Here is some background on my situation:

about 5 months ago I weighed 185 lbs at 5'9" tall no idea BF%
I did Adkins diet for 2 months (zero to 20 grams of carbs per day) and dropped down to 170 lbs.

the next 2 months I did the full BSN mass stack and lifted 4 days a week rotating body parts like usual w/ short sets. My max bench only got up to 190! pretty sad!, but I really wanna be cut first, and get rid of these love handles and have a 6-pack... so,,,

for the last 3 weeks I have been on a low fat high protein diet with only healthy carbs and no sugar... I run 45 minutes on treadmill 3-4 times a week and take 6 Lipo-6 tabs a day, 1 multi vitamin, 1 flax seed gel, and 1 fish oil gel. I weigh 166 as of today when these pics were taken. I ultimately want to weigh 175 and 8% body fat. I'm scared that my BF% is like 20%. I have no idea and haven't ever been measured. Please give me some feedback on what I need to do to get where I want! The most I ever weighed was 195, and now I'm 166, but want to replace my fat w/ lean muscle. Cutting is more important to me now, because I have never been cut before! Please leave me some suggestions! I would greatly appreciate it! Thankyou sooooo much!

In your first couple pictures you look around 20-22%. But in those side shots you look a LOT smaller!

around 15%

Well thats what that pose is supposedd to do. I cant really tell your BF why not get it done proffessionally. No one here can acuratly call it.

16%?

I'd say if he had super clear pictures of flexed and unflexed the people here could call it more accurately than underwater weighing.

[QUOTE=DJohnson]16%?

I'd say if he had super clear pictures of flexed and unflexed the people here could call it more accurately than underwater weighing.[/QUOTE]

Do u have pics of ur progress? looks like u have lowered ur BF% substantially! Maybe I could compare what the different % look like just as a guesstimate....

I'd guess 16-17%, but that's purely a guess.

My guess is 15-17 based on where I was at 166 and accounting for you having more lean mass than me. I'm also 5'9" and started cutting at 182 in June.

shave

Excellent progress on your weight loss, great numbers. However, DJohnson's post about "people here could call it more accurately than underwater weighing" is very incorrect. Hydrostatic weighing is the standard of body composition assessment. Almost all other techniques to determine body composition are validated against it. If the individual is able to perfrom the test adequately, it is the most accurate technique availible. But again, great progress.

Get an accumeasure caliper and google calculating bf.. Find the site with the calculator. Take the measurements in the 3 areas indicated (chest, thigh, hip) and do your calcs. It is as accurate as the hydro-static method.
I'd say you're 17-20%. I think your LBM will say you need to be around 165 but that's wihtout training.

change your sig to FURRYBUTFIT! joking

Hey what's with all the hair police?

<pulls collar together>

OK, it is a little easier to assess definition when clipped....

Hey, take off your sweater!

[QUOTE=bc_2005]Do u have pics of ur progress? looks like u have lowered ur BF% substantially! Maybe I could compare what the different % look like just as a guesstimate....[/QUOTE]

Just some random ones. My measurements might not be completely accurate as they're just 1 point measurements with an accu-measure. But yeah, over the last year my progress has been quite ridiculous. I'm very satisfied.

I'll probably get some pics up sometime soon.

[QUOTE=AppleSauce]Excellent progress on your weight loss, great numbers. However, DJohnson's post about "people here could call it more accurately than underwater weighing" is very incorrect. Hydrostatic weighing is the standard of body composition assessment. Almost all other techniques to determine body composition are validated against it. If the individual is able to perfrom the test adequately, it is the most accurate technique availible. But again, great progress.[/QUOTE]

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree. MRI or even DEXA (uses x-rays) would probably be the most accurate. Hydrostatic weighing is accurate within 2-4% because of bone density and air not fully expelled from the lungs, intestinal gas, whatever.

With bodyfat under 15% after seeing literally hundreds of pictures with bodyfat percentages you can be quite accurate while guessing. Probably within 1% 99/100 times.

For an experienced person seeing clear pics from every hang flexed and unflexed it'd be impossible to error by over 2% when guessing on a person under 15% BF.

Of course it's not gonna say in a textbook that DJohnson's guessing is the gold standard of bodyfat estimation because that just wouldn't be scientific. But really, people are really well off posting your pics for people to guess.

No hard feelings.

damn yer a hairy mofo

[QUOTE=DJohnson]Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree. MRI or even DEXA (uses x-rays) would probably be the most accurate. Hydrostatic weighing is accurate within 2-4% because of bone density and air not fully expelled from the lungs, intestinal gas, whatever.

With bodyfat under 15% after seeing literally hundreds of pictures with bodyfat percentages you can be quite accurate while guessing. Probably within 1% 99/100 times.

For an experienced person seeing clear pics from every hang flexed and unflexed it'd be impossible to error by over 2% when guessing on a person under 15% BF.

Of course it's not gonna say in a textbook that DJohnson's guessing is the gold standard of bodyfat estimation because that just wouldn't be scientific. But really, people are really well off posting your pics for people to guess.

No hard feelings.[/QUOTE]


Thanks for the comment DJohnson, good find on DEXA. I thought it was only used for measuring bone density by measuring the amount of calcium phosphate absorbed by the x-rays. You do have calcium in the cytoplasm and sarcoplasm of a cell but the amount will be hard to detect. Though it has just came on the market as a body composistion device, there hasn't been much exposure of it being used for body composition. Thanks for the info. For MRI, MRI's could one day be used to measure body composition but for now, they cannot. The software needed for the calculations and measurements has not been created. Residual volume is calculated to provide an accurate measurement of the amount of air trapped in the respiratory system once as much air as possible as been exhaled. So the amount of air left in the respiratory system will be accounted for. Bone density is definetly a problem in accumulating accurate results, so specialized equations have been developed for use with people with higher bone density (ex. african-americans). Judging bodyfat % from a picture, i will say with given practice, you could be able to get close to the actual percentage. However, 99/100 times would not happen. There are a few things that could throw off your estimation. The presence of visceral fat would be an issue since some of it cannot be seen when looking at someone. Also, if you cannot determine their body type (Andriod, Gynoid, or Ovoid) the accuracy of your guess will be greatly deminished. People who compete in the World Strongest Man competition have enormous amount of muscle on their body, with very little fat but they dont looked ripped at all. Magnus Samuelsson, at 6'7, 350 pounds has less than 10% bodyfat but would you have been able to guess that? I would have to say no.

its hard to tell what your body fat is because theres a rug covering it.. dude you need to shave, I wish I was informed before I opened the file.. maybe %16

[QUOTE=i,scorpius]change your sig to FURRYBUTFIT! joking[/QUOTE]

LMFAO!!! I would shave but my GF loves it, and it's not summer time anymore... plus it itches the next couple of days after

[QUOTE=WindSurf3r]its hard to tell what your body fat is because theres a rug covering it.. dude you need to shave, I wish I was informed before I opened the file.. maybe %16[/QUOTE]

I did inform u idiot... Go have your boyfriend shave off the rest of ur sac.

i think you're 18%-22% bf...cuz my body is not too dissimilar to yours

[QUOTE=dance2trance]i think you're 18%-22% bf...cuz my body is not too dissimilar to yours[/QUOTE]

Thats what I was thinking like 18% just from pics I've seen

[QUOTE=JamesInLA]My guess is 15-17 based on where I was at 166 and accounting for you having more lean mass than me. I'm also 5'9" and started cutting at 182 in June.[/QUOTE]

I saw your pic and see what u mean... What weight were u in the pic u posted and do u have any before and afters? The people there said u were in the lower 20's in BF%.... Thanks

I'd get discouraged from putting a pic up here for a bf estimate...people usually guess all over the place.

My guess would be 16-17%, but we all store fat differently in certain places...so it is really hard to get an exact estimate

[QUOTE=lucious]I'd get discouraged from putting a pic up here for a bf estimate...people usually guess all over the place.

My guess would be 16-17%, but we all store fat differently in certain places...so it is really hard to get an exact estimate[/QUOTE]

Should running be sufficient for love handles? I heard if I work my obliques, that when I do lower my BF% I'll be too wide in the waist, making the "V" shape near impossible to acheive.... I heard to just work upper and lower abs. any comments on this???

[QUOTE=lucious]I'd get discouraged from putting a pic up here for a bf estimate...people usually guess all over the place.

My guess would be 16-17%, but we all store fat differently in certain places...so it is really hard to get an exact estimate[/QUOTE]

do u have your before and after fatass to buff pics? 40% - 15%? that would me motivating to see

16%

[QUOTE=bc_2005]Should running be sufficient for love handles? I heard if I work my obliques, that when I do lower my BF% I'll be too wide in the waist, making the "V" shape near impossible to acheive.... I heard to just work upper and lower abs. any comments on this???[/QUOTE]

I work them wiht a little bit of weight, since I like the look of really defined obliques. Its only if you continously up the weight to build the muscles like you would with your chest will it become too big.

As for the pics, I unfortunately don't have any of me circa 40%, I do have one of me in the low 30s, and I'll wait till im in the single digits with a tan and sixpack before making comparison, so it should be truly awesome.

[QUOTE=bc_2005]I saw your pic and see what u mean... What weight were u in the pic u posted and do u have any before and afters? The people there said u were in the lower 20's in BF%.... Thanks[/QUOTE]
My weight in the pics was ~163.

I believe the estimates in the thread were high. On that day, my Tanita scale indicated 18.7% (3-day rolling average) and calipers 17.7%; the average of those two is 18.2%. I had some definition that doesn't show well in the pictures.

That would give me a lean mass of ~133 lbs, which is roughly where I have been throughout my five-month cut.

From your pics, I'm guessing you have a bit more lean mass than I do. Your bis and pecs are clearly more visible. So if I guess that you have, say, 140 lbs LBM, at 166 pounds body weight, that puts you at 26/166 = ~15.7%

I don't have before/afters but I will take an updated set soon for posterity.