[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
Looks photoshopped to me.[/quote]
What does? Or are you just being sarcastic?
[quote]Ecchastang wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
Looks photoshopped to me.[/quote]
What does? Or are you just being sarcastic? [/quote]
The numbers, the crease in the paper, and your name are clearly photoshopped.
j/k Thanks for updating your thread. FTR, I was a doubter, so great job.
You certainly have ‘Top shelf’ aesthetic genetics. Few men could appear as athletic as you do at 155 lbs. I was suprised to see you are actually sub 8%; but don’t find it unbelievable. Your bodyfat seems to be evenly dispersed, which would make a big difference.
Well done!
What’s the advantage of being 7% bodyfat when you don’t look like you’re 7% bodyfat? I think I may be missing something.
Your letter says that hydrostatic testing is the gold standard… that isn’t correct. Too many variables that can change the measurement (e.g. inability to fully exhale air).
Also, it could just be a coincidence that your skin caliper measurements lined up so well with the hydrostatic testing. I would actually assume this is the case because as Dr. Pangloss mentioned, using skin folds as an absolute measurement of body composition is unreliable.
If you really want to prove it to yourself (and everyone else apparently), you should get a DEXA scan, which IS the gold standard. It will also tell you where your fat is. From your pictures, I would say 9-11%. Perhaps your upper body is 10% (or “looks” 10% as most people have said), but your lower body has very little fat; depending on the amounts, you could very well have 7% TOTAL, but given the images we have to work with, it doesn’t appear that way.
Anyway, not trying to say you or your results are wrong, simply offering my point of view on the situation. I had a DEXA scan last week and it was 10.5%, and I’m about the same leanness as you. I also received a BodPod scan (9.5%), and a K40 scan (lean mass > actual mass…). When I was 7-8%, I was extremely vascular, which I don’t see on you. Again, different people, but that’s what I see.
Regardless, good build and solid bench. I just wish you would post your deadlift and squat numbers when you’re constantly boasting your bench numbers ;). Just kidding, I saw your post about your hip issues.
Oh, Dr. Pangloss, I’ll update that body composition thread soon.
[quote]DoingWork421 wrote:
What’s the advantage of being 7% bodyfat when you don’t look like you’re 7% bodyfat? I think I may be missing something.[/quote]
First off, I never said there was an advantage. This only came up because the OP said they were my height, 175 at 10-12%. I made the statement that that would be a freaking huge build, and said I was 149lbs at 7%. People on here immediately tried to discredit me and my skin caliper tests. I took it to heart, even though I know that bodyfat percentages and how they look can vary greatly based on visceral, subcutaneous, body hair, tan, lighting, dehydration, etc. When I saw the opportunity to test hydrostatically, as was recommended by several users, I did it…and actually expected to be closer to 9% based on comments on here. The only advantage I can actually think of is if you are lifting in a particular weight category, a higher percentage of muscle would help. Other than that, I don’t care, as I will never compete in bodybuilding, and am satisfied with the way I look. Its not great, but I feel its better than average. It was never about me trying to boast, it was about commending the OP on being my height with much more muscle.
[quote]baugust wrote:
Your letter says that hydrostatic testing is the gold standard… that isn’t correct. Too many variables that can change the measurement (e.g. inability to fully exhale air).
Also, it could just be a coincidence that your skin caliper measurements lined up so well with the hydrostatic testing. I would actually assume this is the case because as Dr. Pangloss mentioned, using skin folds as an absolute measurement of body composition is unreliable.
If you really want to prove it to yourself (and everyone else apparently), you should get a DEXA scan, which IS the gold standard. It will also tell you where your fat is. From your pictures, I would say 9-11%. Perhaps your upper body is 10% (or “looks” 10% as most people have said), but your lower body has very little fat; depending on the amounts, you could very well have 7% TOTAL, but given the images we have to work with, it doesn’t appear that way.
Anyway, not trying to say you or your results are wrong, simply offering my point of view on the situation. I had a DEXA scan last week and it was 10.5%, and I’m about the same leanness as you. I also received a BodPod scan (9.5%), and a K40 scan (lean mass > actual mass…). When I was 7-8%, I was extremely vascular, which I don’t see on you. Again, different people, but that’s what I see.
Regardless, good build and solid bench. I just wish you would post your deadlift and squat numbers when you’re constantly boasting your bench numbers ;). Just kidding, I saw your post about your hip issues.
Oh, Dr. Pangloss, I’ll update that body composition thread soon. [/quote]
I am not going to argue with you. Like I wrote above, this was just to see because of what people said. My speculation is that you have more visceral fat and less subcutaneous fat. I do agree that skin calipers are better used as a gauge of progress than an absolute.
As to my deadlift and squat, I prefer to sleep at night than to try and lift heavy when I know it is bad for me. The head of my right femur is completely deteriorated, and due to two surgeries, I have very little range of motion in my right leg (mechanical, not tight tendons, ligaments and muscles). I have about 15% range from adduction, abduction, and from 0-degree extention to 90 degree flexion in my right leg, so to get to depth in squat I have to make up the range difference by rounding my lower back. I have done 245, but it isn’t worth it. It fucking hurts, and I don’t sleep that night without NSAIDS which I don’t like to take. With Deadlift, also due to ROM, I am doing something between a standard and a straight leg/romanian dead, because I cant squat down to grab the bar without rounding the back also. I can do 295 with a straight bar, and 345 with a trap bar, and those are increasing slowly, but I can’t handle volume without feeling the grinding in the bone and causing the aching at night.
Sorry to make this post sound like a rant. It wasn’t my intent. I do appreciate many of the posters on here, and feel like I am learning a lot.
[quote]Ecchastang wrote:
I am not going to argue with you. Like I wrote above, this was just to see because of what people said. My speculation is that you have more visceral fat and less subcutaneous fat. I do agree that skin calipers are better used as a gauge of progress than an absolute.
As to my deadlift and squat, I prefer to sleep at night than to try and lift heavy when I know it is bad for me. The head of my right femur is completely deteriorated, and due to two surgeries, I have very little range of motion in my right leg (mechanical, not tight tendons, ligaments and muscles). I have about 15% range from adduction, abduction, and from 0-degree extention to 90 degree flexion in my right leg, so to get to depth in squat I have to make up the range difference by rounding my lower back. I have done 245, but it isn’t worth it. It fucking hurts, and I don’t sleep that night without NSAIDS which I don’t like to take. With Deadlift, also due to ROM, I am doing something between a standard and a straight leg/romanian dead, because I cant squat down to grab the bar without rounding the back also. I can do 295 with a straight bar, and 345 with a trap bar, and those are increasing slowly, but I can’t handle volume without feeling the grinding in the bone and causing the aching at night.
Sorry to make this post sound like a rant. It wasn’t my intent. I do appreciate many of the posters on here, and feel like I am learning a lot.
[/quote]
There was nothing in my post that was written to initiate an argument, discredit you, or offend you, so I’m not sure why you responded the way you did. I never once said you were wrong, or your results not at least fairly accurate. I still believe that you would find your body composition to be slightly different (higher), and more accurate, if you received a DEXA scan, but I digress.
I’m also not sure what prompted you to “rant” like you did in the second part of your response… I specifically wrote “Just kidding, I saw your post about your hip issues.” Again, my intent in this thread was simply to add to the discussion, and propose an explanation for your results.
Also, in regards to the visceral versus subcutaneous fat, this may be true, but I think you’re also overlooking the fact that our distribution of body fat is not the same, and that you may have more body fat in your upper body (specifically abdomen) compared to I, thereby giving the appearance that I am leaner, when in reality we may be equal or you leaner. For a long time, I judged body composition solely on the appearance or lack thereof of abdominal muscles, but I realized that this just isn’t enough. I know plenty of people that are as lean as I am, if not leaner in terms of percentage, but are less “ripped” than I am.