I will be 76 this coming November. I have been working out since I was 14. Still going at it even though arthritis has slowed me down a tad. I generally stay around 7 to 8%. Any lower then that and I feel like crap. I weighed 149 when I left the Army at 20 and at 75 I am still 149. I am actually under weight by about 6 lbs. To me quitting is not an option. When I kick the bucket I hope to be buried with a couple of dumbbells😁
The overestimation of lean body mass and the underestimation of body fat is so true. I felt like I was getting quite lean, and worrying like "I don't want to lose too much anymore, but those abs are still not clear". I have come to the conclusion I am now at around 20%, and would be better off losing another 20 lbs (meanwhile keeping up my resistance training and protein intake of course).
@@gummy5862 Your response makes me think you, just like me, overestimate how 'fat' you need to look to be 20%. Some people start seeing some abs at 20%. If you have 'layers of fat', you are probably higher.
I recently got back into my workouts consistently like I used to. Last October I weighed 360. I tured 52 today and just weighed myself for the first time in a while and I'm now down to 283! Progress comes with dedication and discipline for sure.
I'd say face looks great at low body fat %. Look at models. You get a lot of cheekbone and jawline definition. Just be careful and eat and sleep well not to end up looking like a crack head.
This was pretty accurate I went from 37% bf to around 25% in 9 months according to my dexa scan and am a 36 in waist. Even though my main goal was to loose weight I still put on muscle during this period.
15% is by far the better look than 7-8, and tou can still eat within normal foods and not drive yeself insane with diet and instead still drice thru the drive thru with vague abs, ill be majorly happy if i get back to that
@@Luebbe90 I agree, but very few can reach those lower (unhealthy) numbers, unless they are practically devoid of muscle. If it was common, there would be a lot more competitive bodybuilders.
You forgot to include legs in every pic, except for 4%. You can be 15% in your upper, and 8% in your lower and vice versa. People store bodyfat differently. It's not cause you are not ripped in the uper level according to your photoset, that your legs might not be ripped; it's not cause you are ripped in the upper, that your legs are ripped as well. Huge thing to factor in when measuring overall bodyfat.
Good point. People have different body fat distributions as I mention in the accompanying article => www.builtlean.com/body-fat-percentage-men-women/ -Marc
Come on, calling the 20% body fat before of John as "skinnyfat" is insane. You can clearly see he had a good deal of muscle, just with a slight (still healthy) layer of chub on top.. You can even see a shadow of his sixpack on the before photo.
This is actually good news for me. About six months ago I started working out again. I was that guy at about 25% body fat. Judging by the photos, vascularity, striations and muscle definition, I have more definition than 15% but not quite in that 10-12% range yet. Overall, I am happy to be rocking a six pack at 58 years old.
I can confirm this is accurate. I can also confirm that getting under 10 percent body fat is damn near impossible to get back to after bulking all winter.
It also varies where you store fat. I know I'm around 15% BF, but I'm more looking like the 10% guy in this video. I have almost no fat on my shoulders and arms, making them look very vascular and extremely lean. Lots of striations. However, my chest is a lot 'puffier' and most fat I store in my lower back / hips. Legs and upper back are also quite lean. According to online fat calculator I'm around 13.5%, my 'smart' scale says 14.9%. So I guess my own guess of 15% is close to accurate.
I was recently DEXA scanned at 12.3% body fat and, respectfully, I am significantly leaner than your example of 10-12%. I think it's important to mention that your total muscle mass has a massive impact on your appearance at a particular body fat percentage. For example, a 15% BF individual with very little muscle mass won't look amazing, but a 15% BF with a lot of mass could look like a top 5% physique. Keep in mind, as you mentioned at the start, it's body fat percentage, not absolute weight. So if you have 10kg of fat on your 80kg body (12.5%), if you put on an additional 10kg of muscle but the absolute weight of the fat status the same, your BF% drops to 11% even though you haven't actually lost any fat.
@@SwayPromo Yeah, sure. Like most people don't want to have 20 million. Only cause they will never reach it. Everything that's out of sight, you never want it. Lmao.
@@robbertag808 Ummm.... its unhealthy to be really lean. Like 4% bf lean or something. You do know that? I myself am a carnivore and I can go almost as lean as I damn well want. I'm staying at the 10-12% mark cause I think thats the healthiest range.
10-12% Is the best for me. I sat in a bodpod and was told i was at 11% back in 2019. I was running every other day I did basic calisthenics on other days. I felt super light on my feet, I had a ton of energy, didn't feel crazy hungry, and i slept really well. I'm guessing im in the 18-20% range now and I feel sleepy all the time.
Well, a lot obviously. As are most _big_ bodybuilders, it's pretty much mandatory nowadays for the big stages like Olympia - like it or not. These guys don't sit at that % bf all year long of course, only a couple a days for the big shows. Sitting at that kind of bf % is hella unhealthy. I explicitly mention "big" because clearly there are naturals out there as well, but in general; if you feel a guy (or girl) looks too big or shredded to be natty - they pretty much always aren't. Look at guys like Joel Kellet for reference in regards to what a natural would look like (even though plenty people debate wether he actually is lol...idk)
Usually 10-13% is Pro athletes or atheltes in general. I feel like anything higher is more for aesthetic then performance. I’m 6’3 185 and my BF is 12%.
@@X11CHASE no. I’m in D1 college atm and most guys are around 10-13 like I said. My sport is basketball. My friend plays football and his is 15%. Obviously it varies but athletes burn more so they need more and running on 3-5 wouldn’t be as effective
That's a great point. In general, yes, people are flexing in the photos. Some harder than others. So another variable is how hard someone flexes and if they are flexing.
It's the same guy. His name is James and he was a college classmate of mine. Even did a podcast with him => ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-iVcFADOSw-c.html&ab_channel=BuiltLean -Marc
Even as a trainer i get slight body dismorphia thinking im higher body fat than i always am but everytime i watch one video like this im like yup still in that 10-13%.
I had 30 % body fat many years ago now according to the body fat calipers I have 7.7% body fat but I doubt that I look more like your 12% body fat guy. I will get leaner eventually
6:27 Josh was 20% body fat? Doesn't look fat to me... 7:39 How are we supposed to know Nick was 25%? We literally can't see his body at all in the before pic.
Question, on those body fat pictures, it only considers the mid section as it seems. I have pretty much shredded legs, decent arms, some veins while working out but the mid section still is in the higher percentages. Does that change anything or is the rule of thumb always the midsection. Ty for ansfering in advance :)
According to research, around 12-13% is the ideal BF percentage for men, so really, as long as you're under 16%, you're good Plus it's not an insane level to retain
Aesthetically speaking between 10 and 15% seems to be the peek, anything under 10 is an acquired taste and over 20% you might need to start thinking about losing weight for health reasons rather than look.
Acording to calculators I have 15% bf but if I look in the mirror in good light I can say I'm ripped. I have quite a lot of vascularity especially on forearms and the separation of it's muscles. If I would compare myself to some pictures I would have to say 10% bf or even less. It's really hard to say. I want to do dexa scan but it's very expensive for me. I want to start lean bulk and before that I wanted to know my bf %.
Why bother, all means of measurement are prone to some error. It's an estimate at best, even the most sophisticated scan, not "the "real' number". Visually, a great deal depends on hydration, carbs and salt consumption (a gram of glycogen retains 3-4 grams of water, salt also make your body retain water). The most important consideration for overall health is not to have too much visceral fat, have enough muscle, and not to be skinny fat.
I honestly dont know what i am i think im 15 i have a bit of fat in my lower back and stomach but my abs are coming through and very vascular arms with shoulder separation i carry all my fat in my stomach and a little bit in lower back tbh this is all pretty confusing
I use the body fat marine calculator. Now I watch your video's and I get the impression that calculator gives too low figures. According to that website I am at 14% but looking at your pics I would say I am around 18%. What is your opinion on the marine body fat calculator?
If I'm not mistaken, the body fat calculator you are referring to uses the circumference method by measuring body parts, then inputting the data into a calculator. It's not the best. Body fat caliper is better or Dexa scan.
Total body fat % relation to a "fit look" is rather similar to BMI relation to "obesity". Generallly correlated, yet poorly indicative. 1. Your height, skeletal structure and muscle mass matter A LOT in determining how you may look at different body fat % compared to how other people look at exactly the same body fat %. Your body fat% can be quite low, yet you may simply look like a twig. Or it can be pretty high, but you look like a unit, because you pack a lot of muscle, have thick bones and have a wide frame. On the other hand, your muscle mass may be well developed in some areas and underdeveloped in others. 2.Body fat distribution patterns vary significantly from person to person as well: different people differ in how they preferentially store more fat in some locations than in others. Bottom line: 2 persons with truly identical total body fat % may look VASTLY different. Chasing a certain body fat% itself is generally not the best idea. It is more reasonable to instead focus on building more muscle and losing fat by setting realistic fitness goals to satisfy your aesthetic preferences yo the extent it is achievable in the context of/based on your particular genetics and overall body structure.
In the video thumbnail, that is not 15% body fat that guys about 9% body fat or 10, he's just appearing in normal lighting. He's almost the same as the guy in the middle at 8%. You can see how far off these percentages are in lighting. 15% is lean but with flat stomach and less muscle definition, it is 5% away from having no muscle definition and a soft look at 20%
I think the caliper is an awesome way to track your results to some extent. I doubt that you get the most precise results but you're going to see if you're heading in the right direction. I for example am at 11 - 12% when believing the caliper but I'd guess that I'm actually 2% higher. Doesn't really matter in the end though as long as the results/looks are good. I aim to be at 6-8% when looking at the caliper.
If the guy he shows at 4:55 is 10% I am about 9%. But when I compare myself to pictures on google I am between 10-12%....so one of them is not accurate.
I’m 280 lbs Type 2 non insulin dependent diabetic, probably 40% body fat, give or take. My goal is to get to 10% in the next 18 months. It’s tough because when we exercise our blood sugar spikes. And I don’t want to start taking insulin. So I’m going low carb and lifting 3 days a week, and doing cardio 3 days a week. We shall see. My sugars are already improving. And I’ve lost a little weight.
That 30% body fat made me literally cringe because I used to be there 10 years ago. After 10 years of training I couldn't imagine being that size again
I would love to have your physique. I want to look clean and I kind of see I’m 56 now I left every day. I know I’m a struggle with muscles, but I have my belly if you give me advice, ideas or suggestions what I can do to help.
Hey Geno - thanks for the compliments! Definitely check out the BuiltLean website and use the search bar to dive deeper. Also, this is a very simple video that captures the essence of my get ripped strategy => ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-hj_PGkqDAqc.html&ab_channel=BuiltLean%C2%AE
Hey, thanks for the video I’m wondering has there been any studies on? What’s the healthiest range to be and not? Not what looks the best but what is the best for optimum health that’s what interest me. I’m about 12% so I’m pretty happy with that but I am wondering what is the best for health
@@BuiltLeanTV hey, thanks for the link. So I think I'll just stop at 12% at 61. I'm not going to get any jobs modeling and if it's a good, healthy weight then I'm happy again. Thanks for the link
Thank you very much for mentioning the Indian gentlemans height and weight at that low body fat percentage. I’ve currently dropped from 227 to 195, but I’m 6’4”, so worried about losing too much weight and being a skeleton. If he was in the 140’s at 6’1”, and looked like that, I think I’ll look good if I drop to 180. I’ll keep going and see!
Is it possible that the cheap home scales are way off? According to the pictures i look like 10-15%, because i clearly see muscle definition, seeing my 4 upper abs, but my scale says 23,4%.
I dunno man, I find these so unrelatable to myself. Like even just looking at my abdominal area, I go from looking like 15-20%, the upper row of abs clearly visible, then the area below the belly button. Man, if I hold it up it could easily pass for 40%. What's up with that.
It's really quite misleading to call it body fat %, because what it really is is just a comparative index. Nobody actually knows what a given % looks like, and our estimations could be way waaay off. Like more than a factor of 2 off in either direction. All we can say with pretty good certainty is that someone looks less fat than someone else
I thought 180lbs was my ideal body weight, looks like 160lbs is going to be closer to ideal. I was very heavy a few years ago. I looked at what I eat and made some decisions on what was worth it to put in my mouth.
It would have been nice to cover the body fat of powerlifters and the world's strongest man as well. Here in this photo with 19.5" post-workout biceps, my body fat is around 20-25% I would say and I am at 265 lbs and 6' tall. Yet look at the arm and leg definition. I had just lifted somewhere in the 150,000 to 180,000 total pounds of weight.
Based off your video I'm like 30% body fat but when I had my body fat measured with the pinch thing it was like 22, unfortunately I carry all my fat in my tummy, my legs, arms, and back are lean but my belly is big but I think it's because I'm still trying to lose weight
It doesnt matter how much weight i lose my abs are not visible. Its kinda easy for me to lose weight, so i tried losing more than necessary and i was 69kg slim af and abs were not visible. But i dont want to be like a stick. Now im like 76kg working out and all. Would be nice to hit 80kg. But probably for me to make abs visible need a strict diet which will not happen
calling 10 % range wrong by about 4 percent. Your 10 is 12-15% not to mention where are the legs. you can't accurately rate without this taken into consideration. everyone carried weight in different places
I'm sorry but this is wrong, this is very personal and depends a lot of factors for example on where your fat is stored. I'm 176cm, 94 kg, around 18% bf and I look really good, because a lot of muscle and my fat is on all my body, not just concentrated in one place.
My weighing machine says im 23.5% body fat but I look much better than that. I look a little better than the 20% example you showed here. 32 inch waist pants fit loosely on me
Thats a lot of bullsh1t. Looks of said bf% depends on how much muscles do you have under that fat (muscular 15% or skinny fat 15% or not the same), and where fat gets stored is depending on genetic. So all will look different wil teh same % of bf...
notice how the 25% guys look so much better after weight loss than the 20%. I don't think I've ever seen a less than 20% body fat guy who never trained, look better by losing more weight.
I would disagree, I think that we are using the metrics comparing to steroid users. 4% should not enter in discussion and 8-9% would mean shredded, we should start from there cuzz it's the most one can achieve naturally.
