Okay, I can’t remember which training log it was where we got into a discussion about a coworker of mine who cut down to 3% bf for a bb competition, but pictures were requested, and it took me a second to track them down, but here they are:
Check out the definition in her back pictures. Crazy.
PS I confirmed last night that she did make it down to 3.1%, meaning she had 4lbs of fat in her entire body at the time. She said it’s pretty common for women in the elite levels to hit that.
I can’t see them. Try posting a link or something. Did she ever say what her mental state was like when she cut down this low?
[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:
Did she ever say what her mental state was like when she cut down this low?[/quote]
I believe it was “----u-----g------h-----” right before the ambulance was called.
Dubious. Top end female bodybuilders compete at 6% to 10% bodyfat.
A woman’s periods stop at 12%.
Not seeing anyhting.
me no see either!
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Right now I’m trying to get her to bring a print out of her bf% at the time of the comp to work and hold it up for a pic. Honestly, everything I’ve ever heard about it on my own agrees with what you all are saying. But she was getting dunked, and insists that she was at 3.1%. btw, this was her first competition.[/quote]
Hell, that looks like you in the pic, Oleena.
Obviously, that woman in the pic is NOWHERE near 3% bf.
ok. i see the pic. not a chance in hell she’s under 5%. probably not even under 10.
her glutes would be so striated.
anyways… MAJOR error on the bodyfat test.
hydro isn’t the most accurate. the fat xray thing is the way to go.
nice back tho! =+)
1.5% for each but cheek? 
She was definitely under 10%. The lighting in these pictures washes her out a bit. I would have been lucky if I could have even grabbed a pinch of skin. She was ridiculously tight. She looks much less cut from the waist down because her leg development is lagging behind her upper body.
[quote]imhungry wrote:
Oleena wrote:
Right now I’m trying to get her to bring a print out of her bf% at the time of the comp to work and hold it up for a pic. Honestly, everything I’ve ever heard about it on my own agrees with what you all are saying. But she was getting dunked, and insists that she was at 3.1%. btw, this was her first competition.
Hell, that looks like you in the pic, Oleena.
Obviously, that woman in the pic is NOWHERE near 3% bf.[/quote]
There’re 4 trainers at my gym who look like me. It’s pretty amusing. AS for the 3.1%, I can’t really argue without a picture of her printout.
whatever the case, she looks good! first show as an amateur?
She may have been recorded as 3.1, but that was definitely wrong. Reaaaaally wrong.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Although this is interesting. These are pictures of women competing on the national level (2009 NPC Nationals). Although they’re much more muscular, they aren’t more cut. Check out the creases between the muscles in these backs compared to the girl from my gym. I think her back skin looks much tighter than these women on the national level.[/quote]
They are different poses, so you can’t really compare them because they will look different. IMO the 2nd girl you posted (the one I’m quoting) is much more conditioned.
Even if the girl in your gym’s legs are lagging, it really wouldn’t make a difference with a 3.1% body fat test. 3.1% is 3.1, and then times a 1000 because it’s a woman.
Yep it was her first show. She’s only been lifting for about a year, she was a runner before that, and a fat mother of 2 before that. She used to be over 200lbs.
Regardless of the bodyfat, she looks very good and has had some amazing accomplishments.
