I dunno man, I know of nati’s competing at around 4%(thats what they tell me) but i know Prisoner on here is untested and competes at 2%. It’s difficult to scrutinize, but I think peopel can tell that non-tested are a bit leaner than nati’s.
Am I the only one who’s heard so called ‘experts’ saying that anything under 3 or 4% and you’re actually dead? To be honest, I have no clue what my % was for my last show, but damn if my feet didn’t hurt when standing for lack of proper fat padding on the bottoms -lol.
S
No, it’s true, when speaking of ACTUAL amount of bodyfat, directly measured.
Which can be done only by chemically rendering the body.
Which requires being dead.
The value given of 3% is based on the fact that for example your cell membranes must contain fatty acids.
That is not to say that a method that ESTIMATES bodyfat, such as hydrostatic weighing, cannot yield a value below 3% for a healthy person. As mentioned previously, even negative percentages have been calculated from underwater weighing.
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
Am I the only one who’s heard so called ‘experts’ saying that anything under 3 or 4% and you’re actually dead? To be honest, I have no clue what my % was for my last show, but damn if my feet didn’t hurt when standing for lack of proper fat padding on the bottoms -lol.
S
[/quote]
I’ve heard it also. But I’ve also read some of Prisoner’s posts where he said he’d need to come in as close to 2% as possible to compete for a pro card. Who knows how accurate any bf% test is though.
The whole problem with bodyfat % is that realistic means of measurement such as skinfold and maybe hydro are just not very accurate when it comes to the minute changes in a bodybuilder. Once you get down to that 4-7% range or whatever small changes in bodyfat make a much larger change in the mirror. There are hundreds of skinfold calculations that can give you huge ranges.
To circumvent this issue you could simply go by a “sum of skinfolds”. Beverly International states in their workshop that for men the sum of 6 skinfolds (chest, tri, scap, ab, illium, thigh) should be 30 or under to be in “contest shape” (blasted Scap keeping me at a 35!)
Another problem lies in the technician and the tools. Unless you’ve done at least 500 skin fold tests you’re not yet considered a reliable technician. Some calipers are also either pretty cheap or not accurate enough. The Lange is used often, stocked mostly in college Ex Phys labs, but it’s only accurate to 1mm. Harpenden makes the best and they are accurate to within .1mm
From all this it seems clear that an accurate assessment of BF% is difficult to come by, so how do judges quantify the condition they are looking for in a competitor? Is there room in the judging to lose marks on condition but compensate with size and symmetry or does a bodybuilder completely put himself out of the running by coming in at a slightly higher bodyfat that his opponents?
The whole thing just strikes me as odd. A high profile natural contest recently invited Men’s Health to do a shoot of the competitors as soon as they left the stage in typical MH cover model clothes (ie, jeans and no shirt). The idea was to show how a contest ready natural bodybuilder is basically the MH cover model look most men apparently aspire to. I applaud the attempt to make bodybuilding more mainstream but this is anathema to me, its just not what a bodybuilder should be aiming for in my humble opinion.
A contest ready natural bodybuilder is in no way the men’s health cover model. When I was in ‘contest shape’ I had veins running through my medial delts and upper chest, spider web patterns etched across my side leg shots, sopme feathering in my VL, and abs ridges deep enough to pass for ice cubes. I would say the average cover model on a ‘mainstream’ fitness magazine is a good 10 weeks out of a show.
S
There’s a different between “contest ready” the morning of the contest and “contest ready” immediately after the night show after ingesting food and water. So…when talking about “contest ready” we need to make sure we’re talking about the same thing. Just bodyfat readiness? Or water depleted?
[quote]BantamRunner wrote:
There’s a different between “contest ready” the morning of the contest and “contest ready” immediately after the night show after ingesting food and water. So…when talking about “contest ready” we need to make sure we’re talking about the same thing. Just bodyfat readiness? Or water depleted?[/quote]
In the context of the MH photo shoot I don’t know the answer to that, only that competitors were asked to do it after stepping off stage. I thought the whole thing sounded terrible, but I’ve heard nothing about it since so I assume nothing came of it.
Stu, looking at your photos I’d say you were easily under Beverly’s 30mm 6 site rule. You freakin won!..so you had to be cut like a knife.
As far as the MH photo shoot goes my bet is that it’s stepping off stage after the night show…by that time the dryness isn’t as prominent as it would be for the prejudging in the morning. “Conditioning” can change pretty dramatically from one moment to the next depending on water/mineral/carb intake.