Search:

Sorry to bring in bad news, but that's impossible. What's your diet anyway?

9-10

8-9%. He seems not to be ready for the Olympia stage, but he looks BAWS other than that.

9-10%, family is right. To look cut, you need mass underneath, and that's what is lagging. Commit to bulking, thank me later.

11-12. That cut up look will come along with more mass (and some tan, youre pale). Youre already lean enough to look cut, try add abs training into play.

11%. At this point of muscle mass, there's no benefit in cutting further. Add mass, and you will look more ripped at the same BF.

More like 13ish. I bet it's unflexed.

13%

10% or even lower. Your abs are visible, but youre pale and mostly you dont have enough muscles on your midsection (nor anywhere else) hence they dont show up as they would. Calorie surplus, big ass...

13%.

13%ish. Pretty odd to say, as you have some loose skin and stubborn fat. I notice you were fatty.

<10%. I wouldnt cut, bulk instead. At your level of definition, even few pounds of LBM will make a hell of a difference. And yes, you'll be more ripped at the same bf.

13%

11-12

Yeah you got a lot leaner since last time, but guessing how much bf% you lost is too micromanaging for me. Deffly not <12 yet.

fact is, your pic is badly taken. Too direct lighting, I could guess you anywhere between 10 and 13.

8%, 9% at worst. Beautiful body, I wouldnt cut further. Anyway if you really want that low bodyfat, all you need is the smallest of deficits, 2-3x refeeds and that's it. But it isn't worth it.

^^
Rite Gordon, Im thinking of reviving back this shìt. ive got a whole lot going on recently, and started a bulk from Oct.1. Need to find progress pics though, theyre spread on two computers. And I...

^^Dunno man, calorie deficit is deficit regardless of how much it lasts. Then, you wouldnt have the metabolic down-tuning and adaptations related with prolonged periods of cutting, so IMO best bang...

Yup ^^^^