Ideal Bodyfat Percent?

Bigger Stronger Leaner
61

[quote]Gmoore17 wrote:
Just to add some personal experience to it, as everyone is different, I will say that

< that lean (ie my avatar) was too lean for me.

I’m not naturally a lean guy, I grew up a chubby gamer, so it’s harder for me to get and stay lean (harder than, say, my brother, who grew up playing lots of sports all the time, and I’ve never seen him without abs). When I got to a few % above that I felt great, and lifts had stayed pretty much where they were. The last 8 pounds or so, some of my lifts, especially my bench, plummeted, and I felt terrible, no energy, no motivation, etc.

I was also very very busy at the time, so life stress probably had something to do with that as well. I do believe I lost some muscle there, and I probably should have stopped it at the 8 pounds or so heavier mark, it wasn’t really worth it for me as I was not dieting for a show or anything, but I did learn some about my body, so there ya go.[/quote]

Interesting. I’ve had many friends who dieting down to a point where they were very lean and most noticed the same thing. It seems everyone has a bodyfat range their body is fairly comfortable in and when dipping below that some negative side effects start

62

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]jskrabac wrote:
This thread just confirms how stupid BF numbers really are. Several posters in here clueless as to what 8, 12, 15, etc really look like, yet they have made a ton of progress just fine. See. Doesn’t matter.

For anyone who thinks 8-10% is maintainable year round, go get the hydrostatic weighing, be humbled, recalibrate, move on. [/quote]
Maintaining 10% year round is impossible?[/quote]

Just not feasible. Though I imagine what you are picturing as 10% maybe I see as 12 or 13. My opinion changed when I got the underwater weighing. 8% is truly shredded.

63

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]JBL5 wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Damnit spidey you have not been near 15[/quote]

lol I think I’m probably around that now. Maybe I just don’t know Bf% well lol[/quote]

No sir 11-12[/quote]

I find it interesting that the click of people on this board who are so quick to deem ProfessorX 30% body fat (when he clearly isn’t), will then jump at the chance to tell their buddies that they are not even near to 15%.

(This is in no way a criticism of your physique, Spidey. I’ve been following your thread and you have made great progress.)[/quote]

Easy on the grouping ppl hot I’ve never said x was 30%. And someone with a full 6 pack and spiders separation is not 15%. Especially when their frame is not even close to filled out. No offers e spidey. [/quote]

No offense either way guys. I’m neither as big nor as lean as I intend on being, so if ya’ll were being critical it wouldn’t matter anyways haha.

64

[quote]jskrabac wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]jskrabac wrote:
This thread just confirms how stupid BF numbers really are. Several posters in here clueless as to what 8, 12, 15, etc really look like, yet they have made a ton of progress just fine. See. Doesn’t matter.

For anyone who thinks 8-10% is maintainable year round, go get the hydrostatic weighing, be humbled, recalibrate, move on. [/quote]
Maintaining 10% year round is impossible?[/quote]

Just not feasible. Though I imagine what you are picturing as 10% maybe I see as 12 or 13. My opinion changed when I got the underwater weighing. 8% is truly shredded. [/quote]
I’m with ya Jakey Boy.
Most people do not have a legitimate grasp on how lean those numbers are and arbitrarily throw out numbers.
10% is very very lean.
Not “cool guy with some beach abs” lean but “Damn!” kinda lean.
IMO, 10% year round is doable but wouldn’t be easy unless you were lucky enough genetically.
8% is shredzville

65

[quote]jskrabac wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]jskrabac wrote:
This thread just confirms how stupid BF numbers really are. Several posters in here clueless as to what 8, 12, 15, etc really look like, yet they have made a ton of progress just fine. See. Doesn’t matter.

For anyone who thinks 8-10% is maintainable year round, go get the hydrostatic weighing, be humbled, recalibrate, move on. [/quote]
Maintaining 10% year round is impossible?[/quote]

Just not feasible. Though I imagine what you are picturing as 10% maybe I see as 12 or 13. My opinion changed when I got the underwater weighing. 8% is truly shredded. [/quote]

Post pics of 8, 10, 12% please. I want to see your expert eye

66

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]jskrabac wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]jskrabac wrote:
This thread just confirms how stupid BF numbers really are. Several posters in here clueless as to what 8, 12, 15, etc really look like, yet they have made a ton of progress just fine. See. Doesn’t matter.

For anyone who thinks 8-10% is maintainable year round, go get the hydrostatic weighing, be humbled, recalibrate, move on. [/quote]
Maintaining 10% year round is impossible?[/quote]

Just not feasible. Though I imagine what you are picturing as 10% maybe I see as 12 or 13. My opinion changed when I got the underwater weighing. 8% is truly shredded. [/quote]

Post pics of 8, 10, 12% please. I want to see your expert eye[/quote]

I’d rather not. It’s a meaningless debate, especially when we all seem to agree on a good level of leanness to maintain in the off-season.

But for the hell of it, I think of Christian Bale in American Psycho as around 12%, and that Spidey is around 15% as he stated.

67

[quote]jskrabac wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]jskrabac wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]jskrabac wrote:
This thread just confirms how stupid BF numbers really are. Several posters in here clueless as to what 8, 12, 15, etc really look like, yet they have made a ton of progress just fine. See. Doesn’t matter.

For anyone who thinks 8-10% is maintainable year round, go get the hydrostatic weighing, be humbled, recalibrate, move on. [/quote]
Maintaining 10% year round is impossible?[/quote]

Just not feasible. Though I imagine what you are picturing as 10% maybe I see as 12 or 13. My opinion changed when I got the underwater weighing. 8% is truly shredded. [/quote]

Post pics of 8, 10, 12% please. I want to see your expert eye[/quote]

I’d rather not. It’s a meaningless debate, especially when we all seem to agree on a good level of leanness to maintain in the off-season.

But for the hell of it, I think of Christian Bale in American Psycho as around 12%, and that Spidey is around 15% as he stated. [/quote]

Come on if you gonna make that kind of statment that you did I am genuinely curious. Also describe why and what you are judging based off of. Other wise you first statment holds no water at all

I do agree that the numbers are meaningless and as long as you happy where you are at for you goals a number doesn’t matter

68

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]jskrabac wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]jskrabac wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]jskrabac wrote:
This thread just confirms how stupid BF numbers really are. Several posters in here clueless as to what 8, 12, 15, etc really look like, yet they have made a ton of progress just fine. See. Doesn’t matter.

For anyone who thinks 8-10% is maintainable year round, go get the hydrostatic weighing, be humbled, recalibrate, move on. [/quote]
Maintaining 10% year round is impossible?[/quote]

Just not feasible. Though I imagine what you are picturing as 10% maybe I see as 12 or 13. My opinion changed when I got the underwater weighing. 8% is truly shredded. [/quote]

Post pics of 8, 10, 12% please. I want to see your expert eye[/quote]

I’d rather not. It’s a meaningless debate, especially when we all seem to agree on a good level of leanness to maintain in the off-season.

But for the hell of it, I think of Christian Bale in American Psycho as around 12%, and that Spidey is around 15% as he stated. [/quote]

Come on if you gonna make that kind of statment that you did I am genuinely curious. Also describe why and what you are judging based off of. Other wise you first statment holds no water at all

I do agree that the numbers are meaningless and as long as you happy where you are at for you goals a number doesn’t matter
[/quote]

I was just irritated that night from something that happened IRL, so it may have come out more condescending than I intended. I base my assessment off of vids I’ve seen of underwater weighing as well as my personal experience. I’ve always been a math guy and really good with quantitative stuff…weird stuff too, like guessing people’s weight, age, guessing the dimensions of a room, number of people in a crowded room, etc.

69

12-15 and still have a few beers and pizza,
agree with the guys above to be below 10% is to much work

70

I will have to say, for me, getting a low BF% is pretty easy, and I can maintain it. Like when I had no muscle in HS, or last year I cut to at least what I would think was 10% or below, and maintaining it was quite easy IMO, just used CBL and only being busy at night kept me from binging every night. Just was difficult to gain much muscle that way. So I think it’s different for everyone.

71

Think it should go without saying that if you’re naturally lean, leaning up is easier, or if you’re naturally stocky, gaining muscle is easier, etc… My question is, with all of the talk on “set points”, is there any validity to rewiring your body’s natural tendency? Example: take a skinny kid who “bulks” for over a decade maintaining 20-ish percent bf the entire time. Will he have rewired his body and now have a hard(er) time getting and staying lean? I personally think “yes”. Thoughts?

72

To answer the OP I think 12-14% is achievable and aesthetically pleasing enough for me and is what I am aiming for with my next ‘bulk’.

*EDIT - not that I’m aiming for that bf% just that I hope not to exceed it

73

614×714 101 KB

And for what it’s worth here is a pic I copied and saved for reference, it may be useful here…

74

[quote]lemony2j wrote:
And for what it’s worth here is a pic I copied and saved for reference, it may be useful here…[/quote]

I disagree personally with multiple pics on there

75

In my eyes the first two are close to the same one with much more vascularity. 10-12 seems closer to the 10. Considering serratus and obliques are out and that’s mostly relaxed pose. 15 and 20% pics are very similar in bf and 12-13 ish IMO. Both have abs not flexed but lack a lot of muscle. Shit the 20% might even be leaner than the 15% guys. It’s a non flattering shot and he is white as paper

76

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]lemony2j wrote:
And for what it’s worth here is a pic I copied and saved for reference, it may be useful here…[/quote]

I disagree personally with multiple pics on there[/quote]
Which ones?
I think the 10-12 photo is more 12+ish.
10 is leaner than that photo.

77

Disregard

78

Really would need to see back and legs though.

79

I just think everyone is fat and liposuction is the only real solution.

80

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
However, when you consider that Shelby has progressed from a Bantamweight (if I’m not mistaken) to lightweight, to middleweight, to light heavyweight competitor in a relatively short (IMO) period of years while competing, you can ponder whether it was due to repetitive periods of ‘holding weight’ and attempting to increase his body’s set point, or simply his intelligent, methodical and I would assume fairly continuous use of certain ,ahem, supplements over such a timespan that allowed his dramatic transformation (Palumbo was very subtle about pointing this out in a video interview when Shelby turned pro).
S[/quote]

First point: Set points isn’t always about holding a certain weight for a long period of time. That time would be relative and many times as I have written involves STILL GAINING only to a slower rate to maintain that set point above a certain threshold.

Second point: This is for people who plan on making huge changes in muscular body weight in relatively shorter periods of time…so pointing out that this worked for him doesn’t seem to show fault.

Third point: Steroid use wouldn’t change the basic concept at all with regards to how the body responds to large changes in muscular body weight over the long term.