Natural Bodybuilders' Contest Condition

Training Bodybuilding
1

Is there a reason natural bodybuilders cut down to the same sorts of BF% as non-tested competitors? I know and train with some lifelong natural lifters who are properly big guys and look great, exactly how I aspire to look. But then you see these pics from Natural Physique Association or BNBF shows and the competitors seem to lose huge amounts of mass to get down to really low bodyfat. Why don’t natural competitors compete at a more reasonable bodyfat, say around 8%? In this condition differences in size and symmetry can still be judged, and the competitors can still maintain a decent amount of mass.

Its a legit question, I’m not running anyone’s achievements down, so can someone explain this to me?

2

Bodybuiling judges have standards. A certain level of conditioning is expected at different levels of competition. If it were up to the competitors there would be no question that you’d see higher levels of bodyfat as the standard.

3

I agree.

4

If you only had to be eight percent nearly anyone would be able to compete.

5

This is precisely why many people choose to use steroids. As a natty you just cannot be super lean and “huge” at the same time.

6

[quote]Chi-Towns-Finest wrote:
If you only had to be eight percent nearly anyone would be able to compete.[/quote]

not necessarily. very few guys get down to a true 8% and even then, to compete with a natty pro at that bf, they would have to be huge and very well proportioned.

7

I can’t venture a figure on assisted athletes, but I’ve always heard that even if you do everything correctly, you will lose 1/4 of your ‘weight loss’ from lbm. Factor in the condioning that the judges look for, and you’ll answer your own question.

S

8

I think it is more complicated than that.

When having substantial fat, indeed only 1/4 of the weight lost might be lean body mass.

But when dropping down for example the last 10 lb for a competition, without drugs and for the moment ignoring water weight (so, I mean 10 lb before drying out), the ratio is far worse.

9

Cutting down to bantamweight so my experience is a little different than you normal sized folks.

Went from 143lbs and 8.8% to 161lbs and 9.5% in less than a year. Cut down to current 149lb and 5.7%. So we’re talking 12lbs total loss, only 7lb of fat. Ever since dropping under 10lbs of fat left it’s been much harder, near impossible, to lose fat without also losing lean mass.

My only supps have been whey and BCAAs. In fact the first 5lbs were pretty much all fat. Would like to get under 5% just to say I’ve done it, but only 3 weeks out…hell that’s only a pound of fat…:wink:

10

[quote]BantamRunner wrote:
Cutting down to bantamweight so my experience is a little different than you normal sized folks.

Went from 143lbs and 8.8% to 161lbs and 9.5% in less than a year. Cut down to current 149lb and 5.7%. So we’re talking 12lbs total loss, only 7lb of fat. Ever since dropping under 10lbs of fat left it’s been much harder, near impossible, to lose fat without also losing lean mass.

My only supps have been whey and BCAAs. In fact the first 5lbs were pretty much all fat. Would like to get under 5% just to say I’ve done it, but only 3 weeks out…hell that’s only a pound of fat…;)[/quote]

You’re competing in The Shire Classic, no? :wink:

11

This is interesting (to me):

I’ve been puzzled for a while by figures cited for bodyfat percentage when taken from skinfolds. Some have reported contest-condition figures considerably higher than what I’d figure makes sense judging from their pics in that condition; CT has said that natural contest condition requires being 3 mm or less in every measurement, which I certainly don’t think is understating the need but it’s hard for me to see how 3 mm could appear very ripped let alone shredded; and my own calculated figure has always struck me as ridiculous.

The last being something that I’ve noted on my profile page: I’ve given calculated percent bodyfat, as there is an entry for it, but mentioned that I considered the calculation an underestimate.

Because according to the calculators, my ordinary walking around condition is from the high 5%'s to the mid 7%'s, but I am at best moderately ripped at the lower figure and somewhat cut at the higher, no better than that.

Now, I have to admit I use an online calculator rather than solving the equations myself. I did have a cheap electronic caliper that did the calculation itself and gave the same figure as the online calculator with a regular caliper, but I didn’t care for the electronic one as it was less precise.

Anyway, to write this post I wanted to plug in 3 mm (CT’s example maximum skinfold thickness for natural contest condition) for every measurement of the 7-point equation and using age 25 as an example, knowing I’d get an absurdly low figure, and much lower than anyone reports.

Sure enough, the 7-point calculator on the website I use: Body Fat Calculator

gives 1.7%: an absurdly low figure. It claims to use the Jackson-Pollock equation, which is the most standard one.

But wanting to double check for the post, I tried another site with the same data: http://www.dietandfitnesstoday.com/skinfold7Site.php

and got 2.8%. Huh?

And the same data plugged into this third one:

http://sportsmedicine.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=sportsmedicine&cdn=health&tm=59&f=10&su=p284.9.336.ip_p736.8.336.ip_&tt=2&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http://students.ithaca.edu/~dcassel1/SkinFold.html

gives 6.6%.

While this one: http://sportsmedicine.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=sportsmedicine&cdn=health&tm=13&f=10&su=p284.9.336.ip_p736.8.336.ip_&tt=2&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/BodyComp.html

gives 3.4%.

Now, only the first specifies that it is using the Jackson-Pollock equation. Maybe the others are using different equations and not bothering to specify what they use. But two of them cite Jackson-Pollock as a reference, so that would not make too much sense.

But at any rate, these are four quite different answers from the same data, spanning quite a range.

So if everyone is not using the same calculator, or themselves computing by hand from the same equation (Jackson-Pollock being, I believe, the most standard) numbers are not necessarily comparable at all.

So for example, saying that very few guys get to a true 8% may be quite valid when interpreted in the sense of using a calculator such as the one that calls all-3-mm “6.6%” when only 25 years old (it would call it much fatter if older), it’s quite invalid when interpreted in the sense of other calculators supposedly using the same equation, or also in many cases to hydrostatic.

For example, way back when, and I was no more than slightly ripped, in ordinary walking-around condition I tested at 6% by hydrostatic and 8% by Jackson-Pollock 7 point skinfold (not by any online calculator, but calculated by a UF professor using the equation.)

So by that interpretation of “8%” it’s not a hard thing at all, for a rather average person with regard to ease of getting or staying lean.

12

Hope and Competition.

If your at heavyweight and no you don’t stand a chance you may feel like you can cut down to light heavy and win. You sacrafice size but the thought is you’ll still have more size then those in your class.

The other half is you hope that you can get it right and be the first person in the world to lose an insane percentage of fat, and no muscle.

Last if you compete every year, you have only a short period of time to gain muscle and lose fat. So yeah you will lose most of what you got.

13

Cheers for the replies, some thought provoking stuff there. 8% was a bit of an arbitrary figure I pulled out the air, I just think the sacrifice of mass for leanness goes too far but I totally appreciate its all about the judging standards.

14

Bill,

The reason for the disparity between your figures is most likely down to the population that the equation was determined for initially is different from you. Although it has been quite some time since I looked at this stuff, Jackson-Pollock is generally applied to non-athletic populations. Different equations exist for athletic individuals, black & Hispanic populations, and the different genders too. Similar to different BMR calculations, there can be quite a lot of variability between scores when the results from one equation is compared to another. Some overestimate and some underestimate.

15

Dave, I agree completely with your point on different populations. There are some papers on that as well – one that sticks in my head for some odd reason is one on applicability of the Jackson-Pollock equation to Azerbaijan-Iranian adolescents (it was found not to work well.)

For sure this can explain the calculated result being probably wrong for me. Referring here to correct calculation with the equation.

You are raising a different point that it could be that these four different websites are using four different versions of the equation each aimed at a different population, without bothering to inform the user.

I suppose this could be. Though way back when I was taking exercise science courses, the ACSM book had only one equation for the Jackson-Pollock 7-point and I had thought that was all there was, that it was quite specific. And I haven’t recalled seeing a paper since that, if stating this equation was used, went further to say what version was used. But what you say could well be – that is not one of my fields and I could easily not be up on what may have changed there.

At any rate, this calculation disparity seems yet another factor throwing these calculated “percent bodyfat” figures into something that really is not very precise at all – yet most of us treat figures such as “5%” and “8%” as being rather concrete things. Although apparently the exact same skinfold measurements might generate 5% by one method that is called Jackson-Pollock 7-point, and 8% by another that is called the same thing!

16

Hi Bill,

Very good points. Again, like you, has been a good few years since I looked at this stuff, and I think the opinion of skinfolds as an accurate measure of bodycomposition has altered over the last few years, at least I know this is the case in the circles that I work in anyway. Here, instead, we simply use the sum of the seven sites as reference if we are tracking body composition alteration, disregarding the use of the equations as a measure of body density / bodyfat. We just use the mm per site, or total value.

There seems to be so much inter and intra individual variability to account for (as well as technical) that the reliability of the skinfolds, at least (anecdotally) from my own experience - and even when very experienced anthropometrists take the measurements too - is just not that good at measuring true bodyfat %.

Like your examples above, Ive seen some incredibly lean people register scores that vary pretty wildly, over the space of a week (think 3 - 5%), however visually do not appear to do so. Whether this is due to the use of wrong equations or technical imprecision I don’t know.

I guess the use of skinfolds are ok to provide a measurement of improvement if you are

17

I agree: it makes a lot more sense to leave it at the actual thing measured – the skinfold value, whether sum (and specifying how many points) or average – than to take that and perform a calculation on it to provide a probably-inaccurate and certainly unreliable “bodyfat percentage” estimate.

The average skinfold value, or the sum, I think provides both a better predictor of appearance, and if used as a goal, provides a better target.

By better, I mean more likely to be what the person had in mind to achieve.

18

I wonder if having your actual name for your forum name makes you more inclined to post smart stuff?

19

[quote]optheta wrote:
I wonder if having your actual name for your forum name makes you more inclined to post smart stuff?[/quote]

I would think it would prompt a certain level of accountability. Now, if you had to include your address and home phone number just think of the rampant brain-fest action. Hunger conquered, peace restored and 22" arms for all!

20

At the end of the day it comes down to the mirror not the bf %. I’m 5.7% according to one 7-site method but I know I really have a long way to go if I ever really want to be competitive…even in the Shire division!

It could also come down to simple distribution. Your chest and tri could come down to 3-4mm pretty easily but have a scap or illium that stays at 6-8 and as you continue to diet down it could be JUST those two sites that come down while the chest/tri stays the same.

My chest has stayed at a 4 for months while my illium and everywhere else has come down to 5-6 and my scap remains a freakin 8. Finally my chest has come down to 3.5 and everything else is a 5-6 while again the scap is an 8. I’ve got 3 weeks so I’ll get as ripped as I can and see what happens. It’s all a learning experience.

Going forward, I need to get out of the Shire division and get up to the Rugged Dwarf!..put on about 10-20lbs.