Realistic, sustainable low "everyday" bodyfat percentage for 35+ year old male?

[bradandblake]

****types are bunk but genetics aren't.

[Luclin999]

I don't think you parsed that correctly. He's not saying it's always better to have more muscle no matter how much extra fat you carry. What he is saying is "no matter what bf% you happen to be at" having more muscle usually looks better than having less muscle.

In other words, the guy who is 6'0 and 140 at 10% body fat won't look as good as the guy who is 6'0 170 at 10% body fat, and the guy who is 6'2 and 180 at 20% body fat won't look as good as the guy who is 6'2 220lbs at 20% body fat. He's comparing people at the same body fat percentage, whereas your example didn't do that.

Exactly.

Which is why I was saying that for the OP, the BF % he finds both aesthetic and sustainable would be in part dictated by just how much muscle/lean mass he has on his frame.

Very little point in being at 10% if you look like a skeleton when that lean.

[stealpulse]

****types are bunk but genetics aren't.

This. We're all different. Age is also important. Most of my life I've had trouble keeping weight on. Now at the age of 44 I finally purposefully avoid eating too much, as not to put on fat.

[induced_drag]

The big part missing....is maintaining low bodyfat is not all that challenging when you carry relatively little mass. The further you are in your development, the more fine the edge you ride is.

To be a guy 5'9 175lbs and single digits. Heck, I think I could do that without training. Just eat less and train however I felt like. Now trying to do it carrying almost 25lbs more LBM, and it is not even in the same universe of magnitude of difficulty. (and I have an advantage of having artificially stable hormone levels). Prior to that I had trouble hanging on to 195 and lean and dieting would bring me down in the low 190's.
The further out your development, the quicker that mass will drop away as you try to lean out.

There is a formula that sums it up well.

Skinny with abs = easy
Higher bf and muscular = easy

Lean + muscular = MUCH harder than just the sum of the two.

[stealpulse]

To be a guy 5'9 175lbs and single digits. Heck, I think I could do that without training. .

LOL thanks a lot!! But yeah it's true, I have a hard time adding mass beyond 180 without adding fat to go with it.

[induced_drag]

LOL thanks a lot!! But yeah it's true, I have a hard time adding mass beyond 180 without adding fat to go with it.

I was not meaning that as a dig for anyone. Truth is, a lean guy 5'9 170 is a "Big" guy. I am lucky enough to be blessed with genes to gain mass pretty easy, but I have never been a naturally lean guy. It has taken a lot of work on my part. My first diet down to 10%-ish (as an adult) brought me down into the high 170's (from 205). But I had a good amount of training in my youth which rebounded with some quality mass pretty easy.

For most people, just dieting in the 5'9 range would yield a 150 lb lean guy. Maybe 160 if they are lucky.

[ChristianMR]

As many have said, the answer will depend on the individual. I personally find that attempting to go below about 12% reduces my libido, which I've always assumed reflects reduced testosterone (but I can't prove that). I don't consider a reduced libido "sustainable."

To put it another way, when my wife is trying to get in my pants every night and I'm usually saying "no," it means I'm looking good, but something is horribly wrong with my hormones.

[DuracellBunny]

As many have said, the answer will depend on the individual. I personally find that attempting to go below about 12% reduces my libido, which I've always assumed reflects reduced testosterone (but I can't prove that). I don't consider a reduced libido "sustainable."

To put it another way, when my wife is trying to get in my pants every night and I'm usually saying "no," it means I'm looking good, but something is horribly wrong with my hormones.

Off the top of my head (I can guarantee somebody will correct me if I am wrong) hormone production is "normal" in the 12-18% range and starts to change when you move either side of those numbers (the further you vary from those numbers, the greater the potential variance in a variety of hormones), with all of the standard individual variations. Dropping below 12% could have negligible affects on some, whilst it could indeed cause drooping in others.

[bradandblake]

I usually hit the "wife don't touch me stage" around 9-10% bf and below. I also have problem putting size on after about 195 pounds. I go on a relatively modest diet (actually high calorie for most) and I'll lose 10 pounds very quickly. Currently at 200.

[Bo_Flecks]

Off the top of my head (I can guarantee somebody will correct me if I am wrong) hormone production is "normal" in the 12-18% range and starts to change when you move either side of those numbers (the further you vary from those numbers, the greater the potential variance in a variety of hormones), with all of the standard individual variations. Dropping below 12% could have negligible affects on some, whilst it could indeed cause drooping in others.

I have found this to be true. During contest preps, I started using DAA and and an anti-E to keep my hormones from tanking. It has made a difference in the drooping department at very low BF%s. Believe me, that is an important difference.

[yepitsme]

I have found this to be true. During contest preps, I started using DAA and and an anti-E to keep my hormones from tanking. It has made a difference in the drooping department at very low BF%s. Believe me, that is an important difference.

I'd be interested to know what products you recommend but that probably isn't allowed here.

[ChristianMR]

I have found this to be true. During contest preps, I started using DAA and and an anti-E to keep my hormones from tanking. It has made a difference in the drooping department at very low BF%s. Believe me, that is an important difference.

Good to know. What do you use for anti-E, and how long do you keep taking DAA?

[Bo_Flecks]

Good to know. What do you use for anti-E, and how long do you keep taking DAA?

These are the only two things I have found to work. Once again, I will preface this by saying that the only time I have found a T-booster or Anti-E worthwhile is when I am in the last stages of a contest prep. Anytime other than that, attempting to move my T-levels around in the average range makes no difference whatsoever. In general, all this combination does is keep the hormone levels from tanking when I get to the 7-8% level of body fat. This combo is basically a PCT.

I take two capsules in the morning, and two capsules in the afternoon. It is probably not necessary to split it up in that manner, but some of the guys I talked to do it that way so I thought I would not buck the system, and it has worked very well.

For the Triazole, I take two capsules in the morning, and one in the afternoon along with the DAA.

The Triazole will control any boost in estrogen that comes from the test boost. The good thing about Triazole is it does not wipe out your estrogen like some other AI's. If that happens, you get issues like achy joints, etc. Triazole has also been shown to be an effective test-boosting agent on its own.

The protocol is to run the DAA for two weeks, then AFTER two weeks on the DAA start the Triazole...run the DAA a total of 10 weeks and then CONTINUE the Triazole for two weeks after you have stopped the DAA. This is because the DAA will continue to keep levels elevated for some time after you quit taking it.



ETA: lmao at the size of those pics

[yepitsme]

Thanks Bo_Flecks!

[Bo_Flecks]

I'd be interested to know what products you recommend but that probably isn't allowed here.

Thanks Bo_Flecks!

I've bought both products in the BB.com store many times. Availability of specific brands sometimes changes due to deals BB.com can (or cannot) get from vendors.

The mods only get jumpy about boosting T-levels when the discussion gets into the varying methods available out there. That's not what I'm advocating here. As a matter of fact, I think under normal circumstances, messing around with OTC test boosters is pretty much a waste of time and money.

But for the purpose of maintaining reasonable hormone levels while on a deep cut, the combination of DAA and an Aromatase Inhibitor has been shown to be very helpful in maintaining normal sex drive.

[BJE]

Theoretically at least it should be easier to maintain a low body fat percentage if you have a higher amount of lean body mass due to an increase in the basal metabolic rate.

My body fat has probably been under 10% most of my life but my libido has never been in the wife do not touch me mode. In fact just the opposite would be my libido is insatiable.

[ChristianMR]

Thank you, sir.

[VonP77]

Thanks for the input, everyone! I'm shooting for 12%. Thanks again

[Mojoke]

The big part missing....is maintaining low bodyfat is not all that challenging when you carry relatively little mass. The further you are in your development, the more fine the edge you ride is.

To be a guy 5'9 175lbs and single digits. Heck, I think I could do that without training. Just eat less and train however I felt like. Now trying to do it carrying almost 25lbs more LBM, and it is not even in the same universe of magnitude of difficulty. (and I have an advantage of having artificially stable hormone levels). Prior to that I had trouble hanging on to 195 and lean and dieting would bring me down in the low 190's.
The further out your development, the quicker that mass will drop away as you try to lean out.

There is a formula that sums it up well.

Skinny with abs = easy
Higher bf and muscular = easy

Lean + muscular = MUCH harder than just the sum of the two.

Please aware us on the finer grains of leaning out

[induced_drag]

Please aware us on the finer grains of leaning out

I don't understand what you are asking. ...

[Mojoke]

To be a guy 5'9 175lbs and single digits. Heck, I think I could do that without training. Just eat less and train however I felt like. Now trying to do it carrying almost 25lbs more LBM, and it is not even in the same universe of magnitude of difficulty. (and I have an advantage of having artificially stable hormone levels). Prior to that I had trouble hanging on to 195 and lean and dieting would bring me down in the low 190's.

This, my question was... what did you do specifically to make it work and get lean and muscular at the same time? You say it is much harder, so what specifics, tweaks, whatever did you do to make it work?

I'm clueless in cutting since I'm permabulking but will no doubt need this later on.

[induced_drag]

This, my question was... what did you do specifically to make it work and get lean and muscular at the same time? You say it is much harder, so what specifics, tweaks, whatever did you do to make it work?

I'm clueless in cutting since I'm permabulking but will no doubt need this later on.

I did not do them at the same time. I gained weight, and then lost weight, over and over till I got here. Besides the 8 years of training in my 20's and the jump start that gave me, it took me 3 straight years of planning and tracking every meal. There was not a week that went by over that period where I remained the same weight. I was always either going up or down.

Through each successive surplus/deficit cycle, the margin for error decreased and the net LBM gains diminished. Going further and further took several orders of magnitude more discipline. When I first started, I could run larger deficits and not worry too much about mass retention.

What I am saying is the further to the limit you are pushing your LBM, the tighter the margins are to retain it in a deficit. It is different for everyone how much mass they can carry, but the same rules apply. If you try to push it further, it is harder to hold on to lean.

Heck, same is even true of the IFBB guys. Even with super cocktails, they drop LBM when trying to get super lean.

[Jbizzlechizzle]

Most people that think they are 17-18% are more like 25% too.

And most people that think they're 10-12% are 15-18%. It's all relative...

I think a reasonable and healthy bf% to keep year round is in the 12-18% range. Depending on a lot of factors, some people look better at 18% than others do at a lower bf%.

[DuracellBunny]

And most people that think they're 10-12% are 15-18%. It's all relative...

I think a reasonable and healthy bf% to keep year round is in the 12-18% range. Depending on a lot of factors, some people look better at 18% than others do at a lower bf%.

A lot of it is down to Hollywood, where actors make absurd claims and people get warped perceptions. Stallone claimed that he was 3% in The Specialist.

[yepitsme]

Most people that think they are 17-18% are more like 25% too.

Since I suck at visually guessing body fat percentages I thought this video was interesting.

[Luclin999]

Since I suck at visually guessing body fat percentages I thought this video was interesting.

Testing results in the video seemed wonky.

No way that one guy around the 11:54 mark was "9.8%".

[ElrondHubbard]

Interesting how much variation in appearance there is at the same levels of bodyfat.

[BJE]

I've read the the only accurate method to test body fat is dissection.

In the video the results did not seem consistent.

I use fat calipers and always get a reading that seems too low so I add my own correction factor to make the results more reasonable. With my calipers I test at about 6% which is unrealistic. Therefore I add a couple of percent and say 8%. Maybe I'm at 10%, I don't know. However my method is consistent so I use it to measure fat gain or loss.

I think the body fat number isn't really very important. What is important is that you maintain a level that you are happy with regardless of the number. If it says 16% and you think you are lean enough then good for you. If it says 8% but you are still fat then lose fat until you are happy with your leanness.

[induced_drag]

People are missing a big point here which some have picked up upon. Different bodyfat percentages look different on people. There are all different ways people carry fat. Visceral and inter-muscular are not measured in calipers. Sub-q can have different distribution patterns...etc.

I am way leaner than I look. It sucks really. About a year ago when I was fatter than I am now I'd say most people would have said I was 12-15%. I would caliper at 9% range, but I actually hydro-d at 7.5.

I just carry my fat all in bad places. But even in a "bulked" state (30lbs heavier than I am now, my thigh skinfold never goes above 5mm.) Carrying almost all my fat in my torso means I have to drop real low to get decent abs.

On the flip side, I have seen dudes with abs and barely a hint of leg definition. People would look at them and say they were 10% all day long. But my guess is they are probably more like 15+. The legs have a lot of surface area to carry fat on....and the stupid thing is most people think an "ab shot" is all that is needed to assess body fat.

I've read the the only accurate method to test body fat is dissection.
.

Um...DEXA scan works pretty darn good. Sees through your body without having to cut it open

[Luclin999]

but I actually hydro-d at 7.5.

Biggest problem with Hydro-immersion (which I think also played into the video above) is breath volume.

With hydro, the most accurate estimates will come from a person that has evacuated as much air as is physically possible from their lungs and then submerged themselves. However, many people are not capable of doing so and will still hold some air in their lungs before going under almost on an instinctive level. That added volume will cause an under estimation of the total lean mass in the final calculations.