Ideal Body fat % range

[RacerXfan]

So we all lift and diet in the hope of getting a killer body right ? Well i was wondering what everybodies opinion is when it comes to body fat % and what their ideal level is / what they think is the most aesthetic. I for one will admit , i think anything under 8% looks pretty horrible and un-natural , and i dont really envy bodybuilders with 5 % bf much ... lol
Im gona say 9 - 11 % is the ideal range in my opinion , and id be happy with that ....

[Christaras9]

10-12% is ideal for me.
Right now i want to get to 13-14%

[RacerXfan]

vai vai , me lene stavros, exeis rep for me ??
lol , para boli re

(I'll rep back )

[Christaras9]

Done,now let's see what other's have to say about ideal bf%

[lee__d]

i voted 9-10%, maintainable and visually astethic. of cuorse i wuold rely on a mirror more than a number (on an individual basis)

[HeavyMetalLover]

Somewhere around ~9% to ~11%. It depends on a lot of factor. How the muscles shape out, how much muscle mass, height, face shape, etc.

[egobeater]

Seasonal, i.e. shirt on in winter versus shirt off in summer at the beach.

But I went with 11-12% since 10-12% wasn't an option.

[msm00b]

Depends on musculature. Most US guys would look better at 12-14% than 8-10%. Pro bodybuilders on the other hand much look a bit large and cumbersome in the 14% range.

As for me, my end goal is 9% after I finish putting on the 15-20lbs of muscle that make up my long term goal. Might I look better at 6-8? Maybe under the unlikely circumstance where I had a photoshoot - but 9% is not only comfortable to maintain - you look better in clothes.

At my leanest I looked small in my medium clothes. Adding just 1-2% bodyfat meant I was filling out my clothes better - frankly tight in all the right places (chest/shoulders/sleeves).

So yeah, answer depends on the persons physique.

Arnold looked his best at 6%.

[illiniStrive]

Depends on musculature. Most US guys would look better at 12-14% than 8-10%. Pro bodybuilders on the other hand much look a bit large and cumbersome in the 14% range.

As for me, my end goal is 9% after I finish putting on the 15-20lbs of muscle that make up my long term goal. Might I look better at 6-8? Maybe under the unlikely circumstance where I had a photoshoot - but 9% is not only comfortable to maintain - you look better in clothes.

At my leanest I looked small in my medium clothes. Adding just 1-2% bodyfat meant I was filling out my clothes better - frankly tight in all the right places (chest/shoulders/sleeves).

So yeah, answer depends on the persons physique.

Arnold looked his best at 6%.

^ This. A lot of people, were they to cut to 9% would just look super skinny since they don't have the musculature to support the look.

And on the other side, someone with a decent amount of muscle (NOT talking pro bb'ers here) can get away with a higher bf percentage.

[th3pwn3r]

Arnold looked his best at 6%.

I don't think Arnold was ever leaner than 6% if he was even that low. I'd have to look at pictures but in comparison to the freaks of today Arnold would be soft and a fattie INCOMING NEGS!

[illiniStrive]

^ And yet he looked 100x better than Jay or Ronnie.

INCOMING NEGS

[msm00b]

^ And yet he looked 100x better than Jay or Ronnie.

INCOMING NEGS

I completely agree.

Leaner isn't always better looking just like bigger isn't always better. Compared to today's big names; Arnie was less of a builder and more of a sculptor. I wonder if he'd have pushed himself larger if they'd had the roid cocktails back then that they do now.

[jon1995]

but jay takes nano vaper and cell-tech hardcore -___-

[th3pwn3r]

I completely agree.

Leaner isn't always better looking just like bigger isn't always better. Compared to today's big names; Arnie was less of a builder and more of a sculptor. I wonder if he'd have pushed himself larger if they'd had the roid cocktails back then that they do now.

C'mon man, you know BIGGER is BETTER Arnold was a bit retarded in the methods he used to get where he made it for a bit, drinking all night long until he passed out, training legs 6 days in a row. Just crazy stuff all together. I lol'd at the roid cocktails. I'm not really hating, if it weren't for Arnold inspiring me through his movies when I was a little kid I may have never cared to ever start training period.

but jay takes nano vaper and cell-tech hardcore -___-

Haha, it really makes me laugh because my best bulking results were during my use of a Muscletech stack =/ Cell-Tech and their protein, whatever the hell it was called back then, I think it was Nitro-Tech.

[jon1995]

Haha, it really makes me laugh because my best bulking results were during my use of a Muscletech stack =/ Cell-Tech and their protein, whatever the hell it was called back then, I think it was Nitro-Tech.

Yes thats what it is my friend has it sadly lmao the people at gnc conned his dad into buying it for him.

[msm00b]

I dunno man my bulk is coming along phenomenally and the only thing besides creatine I'm supplementing with is chocolate chip cookies.

I might crack 300 in under a month at this rate

[OtisBecker]

I dunno man my bulk is coming along phenomenally and the only thing besides creatine I'm supplementing with is chocolate chip cookies.

I might crack 300 in under a month at this rate

You don't look bulky at all (your pics) Have you gained any weight since you bulk? What rep range do you train in?

In a way it sucks being a big guy. I can see myself having to get down and extra 2-3% if I ever want to see shredded

[th3pwn3r]

You don't look bulky at all (your pics) Have you gained any weight since you bulk? What rep range do you train in?

In a way it sucks being a big guy. I can see myself having to get down and extra 2-3% if I ever want to see shredded

Being a bigger guy helps if you want to look shredded. The more muscle you have the better. Of course big can mean big due to having lots of fat OR big due to have lots of muscle mass.

[msm00b]

Yeah I'm up several pounds - sporting a fuzzy 4 pack but ironically vascularity in shoulders hips and arms is as crisp as ever. No clue when I'll pull another hard cut. If my relative definition stays about where it is I may just hold the line until Xmas. I think it's safe to say that I may never drop below 150 ever again; I was 140 in my January pics, 144 in my predeployment photos.

Training range excluding bodyweight exercises: 6-8 reps upper body; 8-12 lower body.

[OtisBecker]

Yeah I'm up several pounds - sporting a fuzzy 4 pack but ironically vascularity in shoulders hips and arms is as crisp as ever. No clue when I'll pull another hard cut. If my relative definition stays about where it is I may just hold the line until Xmas. I think it's safe to say that I may never drop below 150 ever again; I was 140 in my January pics, 144 in my predeployment photos.

Training range excluding bodyweight exercises: 6-8 reps upper body; 8-12 lower body.

Thanks. And good luck in your bulk

[OtisBecker]

Being a bigger guy helps if you want to look shredded. The more muscle you have the better. Of course big can mean big due to having lots of fat OR big due to have lots of muscle mass.

A long time ago, a trainer stated very simply, to get good def. you only have to do two simple things..gain muscle and lose fat. I am about 16-17% now and will just keep going....down, that is.

[kmal2t]

ideal? 5-6% sure..that'd be nice...reality? Maybe like 10%

[kennknee]

^ And yet he looked 100x better than Jay or Ronnie.

INCOMING NEGS

I completely agree with IlliniStrive and msm00b, Arnold was better and more of a sculptor.
I personally want to cut to 9%, but only after bulking at 12%. I may change my mind when I get there. The mirror doesn't lie.

[csb5731]

I think it will really depend on the individual's fat-storage disposition. Some guys can look good at (my guess) 12% or so body fat – not super-defined in any one region, but no “trouble spots”. But I've seen guys with incredibly shredded arms and vascular legs, but with a good dose of stomach fat, and I'd be surprised if they were over 10% BF.

But the confounding issue is even figuring what %BF you really are or what somebody else is, because different test methods can give wildly different figures.

So I'm going to say the ideal bodyfat is whatever percentage the individual can wear proper-fitting clothes without their gut or back-fat hanging over their waistband.

[th3pwn3r]

I think it will really depend on the individual's fat-storage disposition. Some guys can look good at (my guess) 12% or so body fat – not super-defined in any one region, but no “trouble spots”. But I've seen guys with incredibly shredded arms and vascular legs, but with a good dose of stomach fat, and I'd be surprised if they were over 10% BF.

So I'm going to say the ideal bodyfat is whatever percentage the individual can wear proper-fitting clothes without their gut or back-fat hanging over their waistband.

I have never seen anyone who had shredded arms and vascular legs while having lots of fat on their mid section. You probably have a different definition for what shredded is in your mind.

Haha, most people will have to get to the single digits of BF to avoid having guts or love handles. Of course tighter fitting boxers, briefs, pants or shorts will make it more of an issue, I'm sure you know what I mean.