The pictures you’re speaking about didn’t show up when I clicked so I can’t really say… But 20-25% BF is fat to very fat.[/quote]
I just attached the picture.
I would say that 20% by most photos I’ve seen is fat. Per this picture, guy’s still got (barely) visible abs at 20%.
So, I don’t necessarily mean 20-22% by any measurement other than what this photo claims.[/quote]
Thanks for the picture reference, makes things a lot more clear. IMO, the look of the guy at “20%” would be tops. That’s a little too soft for my liking but nothing unreasonable.[/quote]
Gregron, I hate to ask should I bulk or cut. BUT, I respect your opinions, and I never have gotten the impression that you say anything to lead someone in the wrong direction. If a guy is underweight for his height (his goal weight) but is around the 20%-25% bf look would you think it would be better to maybe get down to the 15% through a moderate cut, then start over on a better designed ‘bulk’, or increase his work load at around the same calories.
What would you recomend to someone who was at 200#s and his end goal is 220#s 15% per picture, but is around the 20%-25% range per picture? I just would like your opinion, I wont take it anyway other way than it’s your opinion.[/quote]
Well the human body functions better and is healthier at lower BF% (not talking contest lean here) so, IMO, your body is in a better state and primed for muscle gains. You always here about the great “rebound” effect that guys get after competing right? Well I think that is partially attributed to their lower than normal BF%
If someone is 20-25% and was planning on adding size I would think that dropping a bit of BF first would be a good idea for more than one reason. First of all your body would be more “primed” to gain muscle as well as the lower BF% will make it easier to accurately asses how much muscle vs fat you are gaining while on your bulk.
This is just my opinion but I’m happy to help.