-
[QUOTE=Jaayfiish;1619876431]Ive been dieting for just about a year. Went from 290-191 currently.[/QUOTE]
21-23%.
The looser skin will make it harder to to pin down visually.
-
5'7" 175 lbs
Very very carb depleted (couldn't even finish my workout). Was 210 lbs at the start of covid. Am at the end of the 2nd of 2 12 week cutting phases since then. Another cutting phase is needed to be happy with what I see for sure (after a maintenance period) but I'm curious where my visual bf is at. The lighting here is pretty direct and merciless. I'm not sure why it looks so pink, I didn't touch it up at all.
[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/xCCmxTu.png[/IMG]
[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/jj48eYk.png[/IMG]
[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/4ciSaxY.png[/IMG]
-
[QUOTE=kanis999;1619926001]5'7" 175 lbs
Very very carb depleted (couldn't even finish my workout). Was 210 lbs at the start of covid. Am at the end of the 2nd of 2 12 week cutting phases since then. Another cutting phase is needed to be happy with what I see for sure (after a maintenance period) but I'm curious where my visual bf is at. The lighting here is pretty direct and merciless. I'm not sure why it looks so pink, I didn't touch it up at all.
[/QUOTE]
Around 20% +/-.
-
[QUOTE=xsquid99;1619938901]Around 20% +/-.[/QUOTE]
That's the same estimate I got when I was 35 lbs heavier lol. My waist is 33 inches and it used to be 40 when I was last told 20%. Not trying to attack, just genuinely confused.
Back nearly 10 years ago when I first started training, I got my bodyfat estimate on this same forum at nearly the exact same weight:
[IMG]https://imagecdn.bodybuilding.com/progress-photo/26170873/bb464ed3fe7645b8b8d8482713c6a334-610xh.jpg[/IMG]
I was told I was 20% then. This would be really bad because it'd mean I accomplished nothing in 10 years... Do you think the 20% from back in the day was higher?
-
[QUOTE=xsquid99;1619938901]Around 20% +/-.[/QUOTE]
Agreed
-
3 Attachment(s)
Body Fat Percentage?
Hi, everybody,
I am 5'10, 175 and the scale says I am 21 percent body fat, but I've been told not to trust them...
Thanks for the help!
Bowman Blocker
-
[QUOTE=bowman1274;1619942811]Hi, everybody,
I am 5'10, 175 and the scale says I am 21 percent body fat, but I've been told not to trust them...
Thanks for the help!
Bowman Blocker[/QUOTE]
21% probably isn’t too far off... I would have guessed ~20
PS - epic hair
-
[QUOTE=xsquid99;1619938901]Around 20% +/-.[/QUOTE]
You got a good amount of mass but your bf% is around 20% for sure. Too soft looking.
-
[QUOTE=kanis999;1619939821]That's the same estimate I got when I was 35 lbs heavier lol. My waist is 33 inches and it used to be 40 when I was last told 20%. Not trying to attack, just genuinely confused.
Back nearly 10 years ago when I first started training, I got my bodyfat estimate on this same forum at nearly the exact same weight:
[IMG]https://imagecdn.bodybuilding.com/progress-photo/26170873/bb464ed3fe7645b8b8d8482713c6a334-610xh.jpg[/IMG]
I was told I was 20% then. This would be really bad because it'd mean I accomplished nothing in 10 years... Do you think the 20% from back in the day was higher?[/QUOTE]
Your arms are raised up and you're flexing in that pic, which can make you look a lot leaner than you really are. My core looks a lot different in a front double biceps pose than it does relaxed with my arms to my sides.
I would never tell someone with a 40" waist that they are 20% bodyfat.
-
[QUOTE=bowman1274;1619942811]Hi, everybody,
I am 5'10, 175 and the scale says I am 21 percent body fat, but I've been told not to trust them...
Thanks for the help!
Bowman Blocker[/QUOTE]
I'd actually put you a little bit higher, maybe 23-24%.
-
[QUOTE=kanis999;1619939821]That's the same estimate I got when I was 35 lbs heavier lol. My waist is 33 inches and it used to be 40 when I was last told 20%. Not trying to attack, just genuinely confused.
Back nearly 10 years ago when I first started training, I got my bodyfat estimate on this same forum at nearly the exact same weight:
[IMG]https://imagecdn.bodybuilding.com/progress-photo/26170873/bb464ed3fe7645b8b8d8482713c6a334-610xh.jpg[/IMG]
I was told I was 20% then. This would be really bad because it'd mean I accomplished nothing in 10 years... Do you think the 20% from back in the day was higher?[/QUOTE]
Hate to be the bearer of bad news but you didn't accomplish much in 10 years. Look about the same which is good given that you are now 10 years older.
-
[QUOTE=mikey09120;1619991081]Hate to be the bearer of bad news but you didn't accomplish much in 10 years. Look about the same which is good given that you are now 10 years older.[/QUOTE]
Here's a side by side of the same pose
[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/qwtaLkD.png[/IMG]
Yeah its not much, but its clear that left is significantly fluffier (maybe 10+ lbs more fat, which would mean right has 10+ more muscle). Right side is also the most carb depleted I've ever been just about. But alas these are probably mostly ego defenses and I should probably be thankful I don't look worse 10 years later.
To be perfectly transparent, I lifted for only 5 of those 10 years. 4 in the beginning, which got me to my profile pic, 4.5 years off after back injury and drinking a lot towards the end, then 1.5 years recently of looking to recomp back into shape. I guess I'm mostly just butthurt I'm not back to my profile pic yet after the last year or so. Everyone says you regain lost muscle very quickly after time off, but its not coming back quick. Perhaps because I was so fat that my hormones were messed up.
Regardless, everyone I know IRL is telling me I look way thinner now than I was earlier this year, without me having to tell them I'm on a diet so /shrug
-
[QUOTE=kanis999;1620007621]
To be perfectly transparent, I lifted for only 5 of those 10 years. 4 in the beginning, which got me to my profile pic, 4.5 years off after back injury and drinking a lot towards the end, then 1.5 years recently of looking to recomp back into shape. I guess I'm mostly just butthurt I'm not back to my profile pic yet after the last year or so. Everyone says you regain lost muscle very quickly after time off, but its not coming back quick. Perhaps because I was so fat that my hormones were messed up.
Regardless, everyone I know IRL is telling me I look way thinner now than I was earlier this year, without me having to tell them I'm on a diet so /shrug[/QUOTE]
You look great for having endured all that. You don't look anywhere near 20% in your profile pic. A cut would get you there.
-
[QUOTE=AdamWW;1619655581]I'd agree with this.[/QUOTE]
I'm genuinely confused. I agree with this too, but in another thread I thought the OP was 13-15% while you had him 4-5% higher. This guy clearly has more muscle mass, but more favourable fat distribution IMO.
-
Height - 180 cm
Weight - 77 kg
https: //imgur. com/a/IOpXZU6
Also i got some rib flare i'm quite sure if that affects anything
-
[QUOTE=Moelijk;1620196101]Height - 180 cm
Weight - 77 kg
https: //imgur. com/a/IOpXZU6
Also i got some rib flare i'm quite sure if that affects anything[/QUOTE]
24%
-
Oct check
Its been a few months since last check. I estimate about 12%. New pics in gallery. One flexed, one relaxed side and relaxed front.
40 years old
155 lbs
5'8"
Thanks in advance.
-
[QUOTE=Mateo217;1620211971]Its been a few months since last check. I estimate about 12%. New pics in gallery. One flexed, one relaxed side and relaxed front.
40 years old
155 lbs
5'8"
Thanks in advance.[/QUOTE]you have ab veins but still look soft. 12% sounds accurate. The goat bf%
Great job bro! Any lower and you'll get more ab veins and more of a grainy look but itll be a battle. You can continue to cut or bulk. The world is your oyster.
-
[QUOTE=RapidFail;1620190641]I'm genuinely confused. I agree with this too, but in another thread I thought the OP was 13-15% while you had him 4-5% higher. This guy clearly has more muscle mass, but more favourable fat distribution IMO.[/QUOTE]
Because it doesn't matter WHERE the bodyfat is... we're talking about total body fat.
If someone has a blurry 2-pack but it's completely even, and another person has a 4-pack but a massive mound of fat on their lower abs, I don't SUBTRACT the massive mound of fat...
-
[QUOTE=kanis999;1619939821]That's the same estimate I got when I was 35 lbs heavier lol. My waist is 33 inches and it used to be 40 when I was last told 20%. Not trying to attack, just genuinely confused.
Back nearly 10 years ago when I first started training, I got my bodyfat estimate on this same forum at nearly the exact same weight:
[IMG]https://imagecdn.bodybuilding.com/progress-photo/26170873/bb464ed3fe7645b8b8d8482713c6a334-610xh.jpg[/IMG]
I was told I was 20% then. This would be really bad because it'd mean I accomplished nothing in 10 years... Do you think the 20% from back in the day was higher?[/QUOTE]
19-20% now.
Since you were flexing in the blurry, old picture, it made you look leaner than you actually were.
-
[QUOTE=bowman1274;1619942811]Hi, everybody,
I am 5'10, 175 and the scale says I am 21 percent body fat, but I've been told not to trust them...
Thanks for the help!
Bowman Blocker[/QUOTE]
21-22%
-
[QUOTE=Junsuiakai;1620221041]you have ab veins but still look soft. 12% sounds accurate. The goat bf%
Great job bro! Any lower and you'll get more ab veins and more of a grainy look but itll be a battle. You can continue to cut or bulk. The world is your oyster.[/QUOTE]
Thank you! Now that summer is gone, maybe I'll add another 200-300 cals and see what happens.
-
[QUOTE=AdamWW;1620222841]Because it doesn't matter WHERE the bodyfat is... we're talking about total body fat.
If someone has a blurry 2-pack but it's completely even, and another person has a 4-pack but a massive mound of fat on their lower abs, I don't SUBTRACT the massive mound of fat...[/QUOTE]
Fair enough - I just don't see that 'massive mound of fat'. I don't think anyone was suggesting that disproportionate fat distribution be discounted, rather included as part of the total.
For example, a guy could have zero ab definition and a midsection that looks about 20% bodyfat, yet have relatively lean, muscular-looking legs, arms and chest that are more indicative of sub 15% bodyfat. His actual bodyfat isn't going to be 20% or 14%, it's going to fall somewhere between the numbers, maybe 17%.
-
[QUOTE=RapidFail;1620249831]Fair enough - I just don't see that 'massive mound of fat'. I don't think anyone was suggesting that disproportionate fat distribution be discounted, rather included as part of the total.
For example, a guy could have zero ab definition and a midsection that looks about 20% bodyfat, yet have relatively lean, muscular-looking legs, arms and chest that are more indicative of sub 15% bodyfat. His actual bodyfat isn't going to be 20% or 14%, it's going to fall somewhere between the numbers, maybe 17%.[/QUOTE]
That same reasoning is why I consider myself to be at about 12% currently even though I still have obvious love handles/lower back fat.
[img]https://i.imgur.com/BzJTlNB.jpg[/img]
My upper torso and arms look like someone that would normally be at the 10% range, my legs look to be from someone at "12%" and my lower back from someone at the 16-17% range. but since my lower back is such a relatively small portion of my overall frame, IMO at least I feel like I'm about 12% when considered overall.
-
[QUOTE=Luclin999;1620254661]That same reasoning is why I consider myself to be at about 12% currently even though I still have obvious love handles/lower back fat.
[img]https://i.imgur.com/BzJTlNB.jpg[/img]
My upper torso and arms look like someone that would normally be at the 10% range, my legs look to be from someone at "12%" and my lower back from someone at the 16-17% range. but since my lower back is such a relatively small portion of my overall frame, IMO at least I feel like I'm about 12% when considered overall.[/QUOTE]you are older too. But when I hit around 10% my love handles started to drop rapidly so maybe losing another few lbs would get rid of them.
Also dont wear tight waisted shorts wear them lower so that fat will just fall.
-
[QUOTE=RapidFail;1620249831]Fair enough - I just don't see that 'massive mound of fat'. I don't think anyone was suggesting that disproportionate fat distribution be discounted, rather included as part of the total.
For example, a guy could have zero ab definition and a midsection that looks about 20% bodyfat, yet have relatively lean, muscular-looking legs, arms and chest that are more indicative of sub 15% bodyfat. His actual bodyfat isn't going to be 20% or 14%, it's going to fall somewhere between the numbers, maybe 17%.[/QUOTE]
This is kind of why I think the discussion around %'s is kind of useless...
There's so much individual variability, really we should just look at things as a range.. either you're in a position to cut, or you're in a position to gain...
The in-between might be someone around 15% who looks great at the beach, but isn't as defined as they could be... so you could do either.. slow gain, or cut a little and gain from there.
-
[QUOTE=Junsuiakai;1620258411]you are older too. But when I hit around 10% my love handles started to drop rapidly so maybe losing another few lbs would get rid of them.[/quote]
That is the plan, to see what happens with them when I drop to sub-155.
-
[QUOTE=Mateo217;1620211971]Its been a few months since last check. I estimate about 12%. New pics in gallery. One flexed, one relaxed side and relaxed front.
40 years old
155 lbs
5'8"
Thanks in advance.[/QUOTE]
Damn dude you look different in like every one of those pictures..... did you photoshop in a tan or something?
-
[QUOTE=AdamWW;1620259361]This is kind of why I think the discussion around %'s is kind of useless...
There's so much individual variability, really we should just look at things as a range.. either you're in a position to cut, or you're in a position to gain...
The in-between might be someone around 15% who looks great at the beach, but isn't as defined as they could be... so you could do either.. slow gain, or cut a little and gain from there.[/QUOTE]
Agreed, I just thought based on the other thread that perhaps you high-balled bodyfat estimates in general, but seeing your posts here I can see that is not the case.
-
[QUOTE=Luclin999;1620254661]That same reasoning is why I consider myself to be at about 12% currently even though I still have obvious love handles/lower back fat.
[img]https://i.imgur.com/BzJTlNB.jpg[/img]
My upper torso and arms look like someone that would normally be at the 10% range, my legs look to be from someone at "12%" and my lower back from someone at the 16-17% range. but since my lower back is such a relatively small portion of my overall frame, IMO at least I feel like I'm about 12% when considered overall.[/QUOTE]
Some of that looks to be loose skin too - I would agree with your 12% assessment. Not sure you have much to gain by cutting further - I would definitely lean bulk in your situation.
