Fat calipers say 12-13%, what do you say?

[lucidz]

I have some loose skin from weight loss around my lower belly that's hanging on and kind of makes it ugly down there, but what do you guys think of my BF level?

Im pretty good and consistent with fat calipers (i think...) and put myself at 12.8% last week.

[romajc]

No offense... but I would say a bit higher

[stingray72]

I have some loose skin from weight loss around my lower belly that's hanging on and kind of makes it ugly down there, but what do you guys think of my BF level?

Im pretty good and consistent with fat calipers (i think...) and put myself at 12.8% last week.

Im not great with guessing body fat levels but it looks like you might be right to me.

[lucidz]

No offense... but I would say a bit higher

Its no offense to me. I'm trying to be realistic about it. Where would you say i am?

[blacksage83]

Its no offense to me. I'm trying to be realistic about it. Where would you say i am?

You didnt ask me ;-)

BUT I think you are between 15% and 20% I would guess closer to 20% than 15%, but my opinion might change if I had more pictures. But in my opinion, 12.8% is not right. There is nothing wrong with following that number and making sure it is trending in the right direction. I have some accu measure calipers and an app that uses my waist (taken at the navel) height and weight to computer my BF. They both have me at 11% or so, but I know I am closer to 15% if I am lucky.

[EthanHun]

Looks higher on upper teens 19-20% BF. Are you doing 3 point test or multi point caliber tests?

[jlsnyderTypeR]

Your calipers are off and I would guess in the 18-20 range, but the number is just not that important at this point.

[vismal]

Agree with others, 18-20. Calipers are worthless IMO. So is caring about body fat % really. You are either lean enough for your liking in which case you can bulk or maintain or you still want to get leaner and you should continue cutting. The number will never change how you look.

[lucidz]

Agree with others, 18-20. Calipers are worthless IMO. So is caring about body fat % really. You are either lean enough for your liking in which case you can bulk or maintain or you still want to get leaner and you should continue cutting. The number will never change how you look.

I am not lean enough for my liking, but the reason i care about the bf% is for calculating my macros.

There is a huge difference between the calorie needs of 12% vs 18%.

I didn't realize I was so high. I guess I can cut at a much harder deficit than I have been and not worry..

[jlsnyderTypeR]

I am not lean enough for my liking, but the reason i care about the bf% is for calculating my macros.

There is a huge difference between the calorie needs of 12% vs 18%.

I didn't realize I was so high. I guess I can cut at a much harder deficit than I have been and not worry..

Not really!! There are multitude of other things impact your calorie needs. Stop wasting your time worrying about a number and let time and the mirror be your friend!

Exactly how long have you been training and dieting?

[TheNobodyThere]

Side pick and back pics would help. Judging by that one front pic I would say somewhere around 13-18%.

[Serpentarius]

There is a huge difference between the calorie needs of 12% vs 18%.

like 30 calories. And you wont really have to adjust them ever as long as you are in a deficit.

[FitnessBlue]

Never tested bodyfat percentage, for a couple reasons.

1: Too much variance

2: Does it matter? I just make a goal to be as shredded as possible year round. Let the compliments work as confirmation

Not like you can go up to a girl and be all "hey baby...just got my bodyfat tested, I am 11%".

[lucidz]

Not really!! There are multitude of other things impact your calorie needs. Stop wasting your time worrying about a number and let time and the mirror be your friend!

Exactly how long have you been training and dieting?

I really am not worried about a number, i'm more trying to be precise with numbers regarding how much protein to get per day and how many calories. I know that the actual number means nothing. Most people underestimate or don't understand body fat anyway. It appears I really underestimated my own. The reason I started the thread at all is that i made a thread a few days ago saying, this is what the calipers say but it seems like I really still have some problem areas and I don't think that only 5 lbs of loss is going to solve them. Sounds now like its more like 10 lbs of loss. Thats probably more realistic. Que sera sera.

Right now i'm doing about 1700~ calories a day and about 160 gr protein.

I've been training for about 10 months now. I started cutting first of January. I did a lot of calculations based on where I thought I was with my body fat last may, but it looks like those numbers were pretty wrong. I did a bulk last year and perhaps I should have kept cutting, but I was much scrawnier than I am now and was skinny fat.

[stingray72]

like 30 calories. And you wont really have to adjust them ever as long as you are in a deficit.

This is correct. it only takes like 3 calories per pound of fat daily to maintain it.

[AncientYouth]

. Sounds now like its more like 10 lbs of loss. Thats probably more realistic. Que sera sera.

.

to get truly ripped more like 20-25lbs

[lucidz]

to get truly ripped more like 20-25lbs

well all i can do is keep cutting. not sure I want to go much farther below 170.

[jlsnyderTypeR]

I really am not worried about a number, i'm more trying to be precise with numbers regarding how much protein to get per day and how many calories. I know that the actual number means nothing. Most people underestimate or don't understand body fat anyway. It appears I really underestimated my own. The reason I started the thread at all is that i made a thread a few days ago saying, this is what the calipers say but it seems like I really still have some problem areas and I don't think that only 5 lbs of loss is going to solve them. Sounds now like its more like 10 lbs of loss. Thats probably more realistic. Que sera sera.

Right now i'm doing about 1700~ calories a day and about 160 gr protein.

I've been training for about 10 months now. I started cutting first of January. I did a lot of calculations based on where I thought I was with my body fat last may, but it looks like those numbers were pretty wrong. I did a bulk last year and perhaps I should have kept cutting, but I was much scrawnier than I am now and was skinny fat.

10 whole months, and you started your first cut after only 7 months.............what is your goal? Because unless you're just trying to decrease your pant size, the word 'cut' should not be in your vocabulary until you've had at least 2-3 years in the gym, AND, in my personal opinion, 5-6 years... The negative effects you are currently seeing are direct result to your lack of patience in this long journey.

[KidKhaleel]

18%

[lucidz]

10 whole months, and you started your first cut after only 7 months.............what is your goal? Because unless you're just trying to decrease your pant size, the word 'cut' should not be in your vocabulary until you've had at least 2-3 years in the gym, AND, in my personal opinion, 5-6 years... The negative effects you are currently seeing are direct result to your lack of patience in this long journey.

Not sure what, if anything, I was supposed to get from that post.

[chripspoe]

I don't trust them. I had mine done by my college and it said I was 4%, most dudes who get up on stage aren't even that cut.

[DevilDogNuts]

not hijacking, but I literally just posted my bulk progress: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=160894171, and I am around 18

[jlsnyderTypeR]

Not sure what, if anything, I was supposed to get from that post.

What was I supposed to get out of this thread?

My point is to stop cutting, because you have little to no mucsle mass! What's hard to understand?

[lucidz]

What was I supposed to get out of this thread?

My point is to stop cutting, because you have little to no mucsle mass! What's hard to understand?

So you're telling with someone who is at 18% to bulk? Just so I can be clear? Because that sounds asinine.

I also want to thank you for telling me i have little to no muscle mass. Thats pretty motivating, and you are a really good coach.

I didn't ask for any advice by the way. I merely answered the question about my training that YOU asked, which you then lambasted me for, over my answer.

So the unasked for advice along with a harsh judgement is pretty crappy. Especially coming from someone who is 42 and a cut 191 at 5'9. I'm pretty sure NO training regimen I could be on would match your results, catch my drift?

[jlsnyderTypeR]

So you're telling with someone who is at 18% to bulk? Just so I can be clear? Because that sounds asinine.

No, I'm telling you that cutting with little to no muscle is ASININE! I've been doing this for 25 years and I'm trying to save you from wasting another 10 months of your fitness career. But, HEY! Do what you want if you know better...

[FrancoTAU]

You're look exactly like me a couple months ago. I'm 5'10, similar build, similar age, and similar weight than. I thought I was lower bf at the time too, but I went from 180 to a current 168. I kept losing weight and no hint of abs the whole way down. I didn't think I would have to dip below 170 either, but it looks like I have to cut to 160 to get around 10% bf. If it makes you feel better, I don't look emaciated at all. I just look skinny with clothes now which is a bummer but only a temporary situation.

With hindsight and backing out the math, you're about 18% bf.

[Serpentarius]

You're look exactly like me a couple months ago. I'm 5'10, similar build, similar age, and similar weight than. I thought I was lower bf at the time too, but I went from 180 to a current 168. I kept losing weight and no hint of abs the whole way down. I didn't think I would have to dip below 170 either, but it looks like I have to cut to 160 to get around 10% bf. If it makes you feel better, I don't look emaciated at all. I just look skinny with clothes now which is a bummer but only a temporary situation.

With hindsight and backing out the math, you're about 18% bf.

thats actually a normal weight, most 5'10 need to get to 150 or so to be lean

[lucidz]

thats actually a normal weight, most 5'10 need to get to 150 or so to be lean

Well serp, if you recall a thread i made a few days ago, i was pondering the fact that I still had some real problem areas that I couldn't see possibly going away in just a few pounds. Sounds like I have my clarification on that now.

I don't think that 165lbs for my next target is awful . Like Franco said, its small, but its a reasonable starting point for a long lean bulk I think.

[jlsnyderTypeR]

I also want to thank you for telling me i have little to no muscle mass. Thats pretty motivating, and you are a really good coach.

I didn't ask for any advice by the way. I merely answered the question about my training that YOU asked, which you then lambasted me for, over my answer.

So the unasked for advice along with a harsh judgement is pretty crappy. Especially coming from someone who is 42 and a cut 191 at 5'9. I'm pretty sure NO training regimen I could be on would match your results, catch my drift?

I seriously wasn't trying to be a jerk, or offer unsolicited advice! You made this thread for reason, and by the context, I can only assume it was to find answers for personal improvement. Now, I apologize about my lack of tack, however, that is no reason to suggest that I accomplished my physique with pharmaceutical aids!

[lucidz]

I seriously wasn't trying to be a jerk, or offer unsolicited advice! You made this thread for reason, and by the context, I can only assume it was to find answers for personal improvement. Now, I apologize about my lack of tack, however, that is no reason to suggest that I accomplished my physique with pharmaceutical aids!

Well, being told you have no muscle mass, and told that you wasted 10 months of fitness is pretty hard to hear, and honestly, no matter what, I feel unfounded. I was 160~ and easily higher bodyfat than I am now last may. So while I may not have an incredible body, the implication that I wasted nearly a year of my life seems really over the top.

And I understand the conveyor belt mentality of giving advice on these forums. The nutrition forum is the same way. its part of why I stopped going there. I'm pretty good at dieting, so for me, needing to cut more would simply mean more time. You could argue I'm poor at bulking because I put on too much fat. But I do believe that considering i've got about 147lbs of LBM now, and I started with around 130, I did actually have a pretty successful bulk.

And I'm sorry if I took some of your statements a little too personally, and I'm sorry for implying your FFMI seems too high to have achieved naturally.