or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Health & Body › I'm getting fat.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I'm getting fat. - Page 11

post #151 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by m@T View Post
should i time him out for quoting this pic again? I'm drunk now and it hurts my eyes even more when Ive been drinking.

post #152 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle View Post
You have no muscle mass in your chest, back and shoulders. My suspicion is, even at your young age, your body fat percentage is pushing 20%, or higher (it should be around 12% to 14%, or even lower...you are a guy, not a gal!).
His bodyfat is in the mid-high 20s, conceivably the low 30s. People greatly underestimate what someone at <18% bodyfat looks like, and almost everyone underestimates their own bodyfat. Considering he has almost no muscle mass I'm leaning towards the upper-end of my guesstimate. Someone at 12% bodyfat is going to be pretty much shredded. Even caliper measurements tend to be inaccurate because of how poorly they are used by untrained fitness "professionals." This is pretty much what 13ish% bodyfat looks like: The one thing I'll say to everyone who's been thin all their life: it's very likely that you will gain weight when you age (as level of activity declines, but portions stay the same), and if you have no appreciable muscle mass it's going to go straight to your gut, and it will be exaggerated by the fact that you are poorly built. Flat chest + slight gut = bad, somewhat built chest + slight gut = barely noticeable. Although everyone knows that gaining muscle can make dealing with clothing more difficult (pants esp.), if you can maintain some semblance of muscularity throughout your life any weight gain will be far less exaggerated on your frame.
post #153 of 167
That's sub-10% bodyfat unless he has gobs of fat on his legs.
post #154 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post
That's sub-10% bodyfat unless he has gobs of fat on his legs.
32 on the left, 14 on the right. That's Dave Tate, measured by people who know what they're doing, a bit under 10%. You can see that despite the lighting and his "pose" there is significant definition in the abdominals, there is very little fat on the upper arms or in the forearms and there appears to be no extraneous fat left in the shoulders. A little over 20 on the left, 5ish on the right (an extreme example): 0% bodyfat is death, being 100% lean mass is essentially impossible. Bodybuilders in competition can and do reach around 3 for short periods of time by going to absurd lengths. The photo I posted was posted by someone who claimed he was measured at around 12% bodyfat, and looking at his upper arms and his lower abdominals you can see that he's not sub-10. There is also minimal vein definition near his forearms. Like I said, everyone greatly underestimates what certain bodyfats look like. I used to underestimate mine, I have a friend who does strength and conditioning consultant work and he underestimated his until he took a hydrostatic test.
post #155 of 167
Where do people take these hydrostatic tests?
post #156 of 167
Completely agree with eidolon here. 12% bf is not "normal", it's very lean and clearly below average. There was another thread where someone stated that obesity is best measured as bf > 15% - that's just insane
post #157 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by cldpsu View Post
Where do people take these hydrostatic tests?
Kind of depends. Some athletic departments have them (and also plenty of research universities for other purposes, but I don't know how easy it is to get access to as a member of the public), there are private training facilities that have them, I suppose some gyms might have them but I don't know of any in the South Florida area that do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gdl203 View Post
Completely agree with eidolon here. 12% bf is not "normal", it's very lean and clearly below average. There was another thread where someone stated that obesity is best measured as bf > 15% - that's just insane
That's very much insane, because 15%-18% is considered the livable, in-optimal-shape bodyfat range for men over the course of a lifetime (18-22% for women). 18% bodyfat is good shape for someone with a fair bit of muscle mass, much less 15%.
post #158 of 167
I'm going with 27% body fat, you chubs. Nice puffies, fat body.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eidolon View Post
Kind of depends. Some athletic departments have them (and also plenty of research universities for other purposes, but I don't know how easy it is to get access to as a member of the public), there are private training facilities that have them, I suppose some gyms might have them but I don't know of any in the South Florida area that do.
I would contact universities. They should have DXA scanners (which will also give you bone density and can break down lean/fat mass by body part; probably easier than a hydrostatic) I think ours charged $100 for analysis a few years ago.
post #159 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by eidolon View Post
Like I said, everyone greatly underestimates what certain bodyfats look like. I used to underestimate mine, I have a friend who does strength and conditioning consultant work and he underestimated his until he took a hydrostatic test.

No, I don't greatly underestimate mine or anyone else's. In fact, I'm pretty fucking accurate with calipers and the ol' Jackson-Pollack formula -- always within 1-2% of hydrostatic weighing.

I'm basing shit on pictures, so naturally I'm a bit off in that regard. But when you say 'everyone underestimates body fat' you shouldn't be so hyperbolic.
post #160 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post
No, I don't greatly underestimate mine or anyone else's. In fact, I'm pretty fucking accurate with calipers and the ol' Jackson-Pollack formula -- always within 1-2% of hydrostatic weighing.

I'm basing shit on pictures, so naturally I'm a bit off in that regard. But when you say 'everyone underestimates body fat' you shouldn't be so hyperbolic.
I say it because if I say most people underestimate bodyfat then most people are going to read it and go "well, I'm not most people, hurf durf!"

If you use that method (3, 4 or 7) then you know what you're doing, but I said everyone to try and make it clear that pretty much everyone on the internet is way, way off in estimating bodyfat. I think it's clear enough that the person in the first photo really isn't <10% with the lack of definition in the lower abdominals, but I'm not trying to play "gotcha!" or anything. I am just making the point that most people greatly underestimate what certain bodyfats look like. The guy who said Conne is pushing 20 is way off--he's pushing 30. He also said people should be lower than 12-14%, and I know people in "performance" nutrition with good genetics who work with athletes 24/7 and have trouble maintaining 12% year-round.
post #161 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by eidolon View Post
His bodyfat is in the mid-high 20s, conceivably the low 30s. People greatly underestimate what someone at <18% bodyfat looks like, and almost everyone underestimates their own bodyfat. Considering he has almost no muscle mass I'm leaning towards the upper-end of my guesstimate. Someone at 12% bodyfat is going to be pretty much shredded. Even caliper measurements tend to be inaccurate because of how poorly they are used by untrained fitness "professionals."...

I am in complete agreement with your assessment, eidolon. Comments incorporated in my original post, were intended to apply the kinder, gentler approach...characteristic of us older folk. However, I don't know that 12% to 14% body fat is as extreme as you conclude. It's been quite a few years but, as a high school and a wanna-be college wrestler (I was dumped in the final cut), it was not an unusual condition for many of Penn States wrestling squad members back in 1968! An ectomorph can have a very low percentage of body fat and yet, never develope that ripped appearance.
post #162 of 167
Try Bikram Yoga. It's the fastest way to loose the gut.
post #163 of 167
Can anyone give some info on the impacts that high fructose corn syrup has on your body??? I went and threw out everything that I own that contains it, but this guy at a party last night told me they proved that its not bad for you....
post #164 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by JesseJB View Post
Can anyone give some info on the impacts that high fructose corn syrup has on your body??? I went and threw out everything that I own that contains it, but this guy at a party last night told me they proved that its not bad for you....
The difference between high fructose corn syrup and cane sugar is a 10% difference in the glucose/fructose balance (55 fructose/45 glucose in HFCS 55 to, in most cases, 50/50 for cane sugar). Fructose does not stimulate the response of leptin, which makes you feel full. But it's a 10% difference, which isn't really the issue. What happened is that corn production was subsidized by the government and cane sugar had tariffs placed on it, and the price differentials were so substantial that it became profitable for companies to totally retool production lines and the composition of foods to incorporate more HFCS. On the open market HFCS isn't very cheap, but the mass purchases made by food companies all have NDAs surrounding them and according to most people the total price paid by most corporations for HFCS is very low. What this led to was more sugar in all food. There's no real point running from HFCS, the composition isn't different enough to really mean shit. Over time that 10% might make a difference across large enough populations, but you're better off trying to mitigate your sugar intake in general.
post #165 of 167
Hey thanks for the response!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Health & Body
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Health & Body › I'm getting fat.