Fuck this thread I’m not coming back in here again.
still? holy shit, I second this guy ^
drama is entertaining
Just because…
[quote]imhungry wrote:
Just because…[/quote]
Aww! Lookit it’s wittle teeny claws! So cute!
[quote]BeefyBoy wrote:
I know several women with 1.5%-2.5% body fat. My wife hits 1.7% body fat while she’s on her period.
It’s funny how just making a claim doesn’t make it true…
You don’t just go around making claims and then tell people, “if you don’t believe me, go do your research, it’s all there to back me up”
[/quote]
This isn’t even really worth posting. But Beefyboy is SOOOOOOOOOOOO aggravating. Even for a nice Canadian like me. lol “My wife hits 1.7% bodyfat on her period”??? WTF I thought you didn’t think it was possible for women to hit 3%? You said it yourself. You didn’t think it was possible, but asked for proof from a cited journal…as if anyone thinks your worth the time. lol
There is NO way that woman is under 3%, no fn way.
raaarrrr, so annoying.
[quote]pushmepullme wrote:
[quote]dianab wrote:
Gotta agree with Debra on the trolling and general bullshit we’ve all seen from Oleena in the SAMA forum, I mean come on girl, with your track record, try as I might, I can’t take you seriously. And honestly on a woman at 3%, we would be able to see her pancreas secreting insulin. Even with bad lighting.[/quote]
LOL.[/quote]
X2!!
the only thing that amazes me about this thread is how a blatantly obvious situation (the fact that the girl in the pics is NO WHERE NEAR 3%) can still genaerate this number of responses , oh crap i’m making it worse. regardless no one who has been involved with fitness or bodybuilding for ANY length of time would beleive for one second she is under 8-9% and thats being generous.
She looks great…as a matter of fact about perfect, but it ceratinly isn;t 3% which produces a grainy, striated, anatomy chart look…hell her quads are not even completley seperated???
pic is of alex azerian at 3% now this condition is nearly impossible to achieve even for many pro males, to look at the pics of that female and even use the term 3% in realtion to the pics is an insult to anyone that has ever actually done it
[quote]Oleena wrote:
So the girl at my work brought in her papers today from the hydrostatic bodyfat measurement tests. I asked her how it was possible for her to be at 3% when top bodybuilders compete at higher bf%. She replied that her trainer told her pro body builders have mature muscle that actually starts storing pockets of fat within the muscle. Now, I have no idea whether this is possible or true. She said that because her muscle is new, it’s harder packed.
On one hand, I could see how this would be possible as the body does tend to adjust to the conditions it’s given and if you deprived it of fat for long enough, it might try to store it in weird places (the way that my arm bone gained an extra calcium coating when I was in kendo because it was a target and was constantly hit in drills). But once again, I’d need more proof that this was possible.[/quote]
Does this mean Oleena wins?
[quote]CostalChic wrote:
[quote]BeefyBoy wrote:
I know several women with 1.5%-2.5% body fat. My wife hits 1.7% body fat while she’s on her period.
It’s funny how just making a claim doesn’t make it true…
You don’t just go around making claims and then tell people, “if you don’t believe me, go do your research, it’s all there to back me up”
[/quote]
This isn’t even really worth posting. But Beefyboy is SOOOOOOOOOOOO aggravating. Even for a nice Canadian like me. lol “My wife hits 1.7% bodyfat on her period”??? WTF I thought you didn’t think it was possible for women to hit 3%? You said it yourself. You didn’t think it was possible, but asked for proof from a cited journal…as if anyone thinks your worth the time. lol
There is NO way that woman is under 3%, no fn way.
raaarrrr, so annoying.
[/quote]
no but seriously.
beefyboy was being utterly sarcastic. see the next line down, where he says, “making a claim doesnt make it true.”
congratulations for making yourself look like a fool.
3% BF
End of Thread
Now that is awesome. (Not the picture)
Wait I ruined the end…hold on…
End of Thread
[quote]brandon76 wrote:
Wait I ruined the end…hold on…
End of Thread[/quote]
fuck u brandon 
I held off on this because of the supposed ‘end of thread’ but now I’ve got to say it.
WTF Loudog! WTF? you have some seriously disturbing pictures on your computer. What are you? Just…awwww…ewwwwwwww…and yuk. I still havent recovered from your picture in the other thread and now this.
A little late on this thread… Beefyboy is on the right track, but here’s why he’s not quite there.
You’re saying somebody should cite a paper that’s proven “women can’t get down to 3% body fat”. But that paper isn’t out there, and probably never will be. In science, the burden of proof isn’t in finding what you CAN’t do, but what you CAN do.
Somewhere out there is probably a paper that states the lowest observed body fat % in a female… it comments on how low you CAN go, but I guarantee you it doesn’t end by saying “the women in this study got as low as 4% body fat, and no women anywhere can ever get lower… period.”
We can say to the OP, “if she got to 3% then prove it” but he can’t say back to us “prove that she didn’t!”… science doesn’t work that way.
[quote]Killa Cam wrote:
A little late on this thread… Beefyboy is on the right track, but here’s why he’s not quite there.
You’re saying somebody should cite a paper that’s proven “women can’t get down to 3% body fat”. But that paper isn’t out there, and probably never will be. In science, the burden of proof isn’t in finding what you CAN’t do, but what you CAN do.
Somewhere out there is probably a paper that states the lowest observed body fat % in a female… it comments on how low you CAN go, but I guarantee you it doesn’t end by saying “the women in this study got as low as 4% body fat, and no women anywhere can ever get lower… period.”
We can say to the OP, “if she got to 3% then prove it” but he can’t say back to us “prove that she didn’t!”… science doesn’t work that way.[/quote]
Actually it is. Let’s say someone comes up with a hypothesis. For instance: Every time I jump up on earth I come down. This person bases this hypothesis in a collection of data pointing towards this conclusion. Now, if there is no exact data that proves this hypothesis (let’s say no one ever tried jumping up), he would first have to do experimentation trying to prove that this actually happened. However, once he proved that it did, his peers would do two things. First, they would try to replicate his experiment. If they were able to do that, they would then try to find instances where the opposite was true (for instance, someone jumps up and doesn’t come back down). If over time no one is able to disprove this hypothesis, it becomes a law. So basically, yes, you need to have the proof that someone is able to get down to 3% if you say they do. However, if someone claims that it’s impossible to get to three percent, the only way that they can validate this claim is by first showing numerous examples of people dying trying, and then also proving that no one ever has (because if someone did, obviously their hypothesis no longer stands).
So much for the end of thread…later guys and girls.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Actually it is. Let’s say someone comes up with a hypothesis. For instance: Every time I jump up on earth I come down. This person bases this hypothesis in a collection of data pointing towards this conclusion. Now, if there is no exact data that proves this hypothesis (let’s say no one ever tried jumping up), he would first have to do experimentation trying to prove that this actually happened. However, once he proved that it did, his peers would do two things. First, they would try to replicate his experiment. If they were able to do that, they would then try to find instances where the opposite was true (for instance, someone jumps up and doesn’t come back down). If over time no one is able to disprove this hypothesis, it becomes a law. So basically, yes, you need to have the proof that someone is able to get down to 3% if you say they do. However, if someone claims that it’s impossible to get to three percent, the only way that they can validate this claim is by first showing numerous examples of people dying trying, and then also proving that no one ever has (because if someone did, obviously their hypothesis no longer stands).
[/quote]
So…logically…if…she weighs the same as a duck…SHES A WITCH!!
heh heh heh
heh
Sounds about right, and after all seeing that picture of Loudog’s there is no doubt in my mind about 3% or lower being possible…not appealing or healthy but possible non the less. I know this whole theread has to do with the claim of a 3.1% bf but maybe it doesnt really matter. The girl in the photo is looking great. If you have seen some pics of Pauline Nordin you’ll know that in her photos for the 2008 Flex magazine that she was lookin reipped. I’ll see if I can find out her BF and post
[quote]morepain wrote:
the only thing that amazes me about this thread is how a blatantly obvious situation (the fact that the girl in the pics is NO WHERE NEAR 3%) can still genaerate this number of responses , oh crap i’m making it worse. regardless no one who has been involved with fitness or bodybuilding for ANY length of time would beleive for one second she is under 8-9% and thats being generous.
She looks great…as a matter of fact about perfect, but it ceratinly isn;t 3% which produces a grainy, striated, anatomy chart look…hell her quads are not even completley seperated???
pic is of alex azerian at 3% now this condition is nearly impossible to achieve even for many pro males, to look at the pics of that female and even use the term 3% in realtion to the pics is an insult to anyone that has ever actually done it[/quote]
Her friend was probably suckered into something along with those colon-cleanse people.
She does look great, but she isn’t 3% and if her friend is a trainer, and she is a trainer… why didn’t they raise holy hell at the obviously flawed reading?
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]morepain wrote:
the only thing that amazes me about this thread is how a blatantly obvious situation (the fact that the girl in the pics is NO WHERE NEAR 3%) can still genaerate this number of responses , oh crap i’m making it worse. regardless no one who has been involved with fitness or bodybuilding for ANY length of time would beleive for one second she is under 8-9% and thats being generous.
She looks great…as a matter of fact about perfect, but it ceratinly isn;t 3% which produces a grainy, striated, anatomy chart look…hell her quads are not even completley seperated???
pic is of alex azerian at 3% now this condition is nearly impossible to achieve even for many pro males, to look at the pics of that female and even use the term 3% in realtion to the pics is an insult to anyone that has ever actually done it[/quote]
Her friend was probably suckered into something along with those colon-cleanse people.
She does look great, but she isn’t 3% and if her friend is a trainer, and she is a trainer… why didn’t they raise holy hell at the obviously flawed reading?
[/quote]
Update: The accuracy of the hydrostatic method for body testing has been a long argument at my work. The other day our resident marathon runner decided to dunk himself (he’s out of season and has a little beer belly in the works). He came up at 6%. Another guy who had a full 6-pack tested at 27%. We concluded that it’s pretty much like shaking a bf% magic 8-ball and calling that your percentage.