David Robson - Personal Transformation Two: Results After Week Five.

**webmaster** · 12-06-2005, 03:43 PM

The inspirational stories from interviews I have done in the past have prompted me to start my own quest. At this time I am setting some new bodybuilding goals for 2006. Check out part two of this great plan!

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/drobson130.htm

HOW TO REVIEW: Post Your Review Of This Article - CLICK ON POST REPLY BELOW! You do NOT need to be a registered member to post a reply in this section!

bhman6 · 12-07-2005, 08:02 PM

not to knock your development, but your 4.4% bodyfat doesn't appear to be accurate. What method did you use to test it?

12-08-2005, 09:59 AM

I agree about the bf %. The before pics at "8%" and the after pic at "4.4%" seem to be off quite abit. At 4.4% bf you would be able to see every lots of striations and much more vascularity. Just my opinion, based on lots of other photos I've seen of bf percentages.

12-08-2005, 09:34 PM

The separate body fat measurements were taken with the same device (Fat Track Gold) and under the exact same conditions. You cannot determine body fat by looking at a photo so the judgments given here are non-scientific. At this stage in the program muscle building and gradual losses in fat is the aim. The water retention will be addressed in the final six weeks.

Thanks

David Robson

12-09-2005, 06:09 AM

All I'm saying is that anyone who knows alot about bodybuilding, and you seem to know plenty based on the results you achieved in your previous competitions, should know that 4.4% is freakin' shredded......3-4% is about what the pros go into competitions at. I'm not knocking you or your program, you're doing great and getting great results.....I just think that with those unrealistic bf percentages, it might bump the credibility of your article just a little. Anyway, keep up the good work, I'm sure you will look awesome when you do hit 4% bf.

12-09-2005, 06:12 AM

Dude, at the rate your going.....cutting your bodyfat % in half in 5 weeks, you'll be at about minus- 5 % by the time you finish your program. Me thinks your caliper techniques are a wee bit shakey.

12-09-2005, 10:46 AM

Seriously, despite what the photos might depict, my skin is very very thin at this stage, and the calipers did measure 4.4 on all three attempts measuring the right side of the body (chest, waist and thigh). The Fat Track Gold were supposed to be the latest technology in body fat measurement so I used these, and they have been very accurate in the past. Thanks for the postive comments guys.

David Robson

TheSlash · 12-14-2005, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Seriously, despite what the photos might depict, my skin is very very thin at this stage, and the calipers did measure 4.4 on all three attempts measuring the right side of the body (chest, waist and thigh). The Fat Track Gold were supposed to be the latest technology in body fat measurement so I used these, and they have been very accurate in the past. Thanks for the postive comments guys.

David Robson

I always measured at 3-4% as well, and I can guarantee I was no less then 9-10. Check my sig.

I don't see cuts, striations on your chest, no close veins etc.. I too think you're doing a HELL OF A JOB, but I don't think you're single digit bodyfat yet. Close though, but don't think quite there.

Your article would be amazing if it wasn't for that bodyfat. 4% is stage ready, anyone who looks at that will say it's bull and discredit you.

Again, amazing job, you're looking impressive.

chickeneater · 12-14-2005, 05:22 PM

good looking physique for sure, but I agree that the 4-5% is way off, water retention or not.

12-30-2005, 09:50 PM

You can't estimate body fat percentages from looking at photos, especially with this type of direct lighting.

If you take a close look at the photo, David has no subcutaneous fat.

David Robson is a professional fitness trainer and expert. He is using a valid body composition measurement approach.

If he went through the final few days of contest prep, and was on stage under the proper lighting, his muscle definition would be very apparent.

bhman6 · 12-31-2005, 08:41 AM

I'm sorry but this argument is ridiculous

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/imag...robson130a.jpg
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/imag...robson130c.jpg

no way you are 4% by way of calipers...I've done literally hundreds of body compisition tests with calipers and can tell when a person gets close to 4%.

you should've performed a 7 site Jackson-Pollack test, not a 3-site test, as this can be several % difference in accuracy. Not only that, but skinfold techniques have to be performed by someone with a great amount of experience in doing them to be remotely considered accurate...and even if those conditions are met there is still a +- 3% margin of error...and there's no way you are 1% in the photos.

bhman6 · 12-31-2005, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Gastelu

You can't estimate body fat percentages from looking at photos, especially with this type of direct lighting.

If you take a close look at the photo, David has no subcutaneous fat.

David Robson is a professional fitness trainer and expert. He is using a valid body composition measurement approach.

If he went through the final few days of contest prep, and was on stage under the proper lighting, his muscle definition would be very apparent.

define professional fitness trainer and expert. I myself have degree in exercise physiology, not leisure studies, and have been a certified personal trainer for several years. I have competed in bodybuilding competition and trained numerous people for shows in which they either won or placed in their respective class.

I took a close look at the photos, and unless you can visibly see muscle seperation and striations there will be subcutaneous fat present.

And if these photos really are as bad as you say they are, why put them in the article to show how lean you are? Why not get better lighting.

Like I said before, great transformation so far