Question:
About pros' bodyfat percentages
I feel this needs to be said, considering the ludicrous estimates that sometimes get posted on this board. Okay: the look of a pro at 12% bf, for example, is going to be way different than that of your average guy at 12%, that is because this is a PERCENTAGE of his total bodyweight. Therefore, a 300 lb. pro at 12% will have 36 lbs. of fat on him, whereas a 200lb. average guy will only have 24 lbs. of fat on him. Assuming these guys have roughly the same size frame, the pro will look smoother than the average guy at the same bodyfat percentage.
On the other hand, the 300 lb. pro will actually have much more fat at 4% bodyfat than would the 200 lb. average guy. The pro would have 12 lbs. of fat on him, while the 200 lb. guy would have 8. Therefore, it is much more conceivable for a pro to get down to those low-1 digit bodyfat percentages than your average guy. It seems like most people have a picture of bodyfat percentage in their head based on what average people look like with said bodyfat %.
I see what your saying.
But even though the pro is 300 lb with 36lb of fat - he also has a bigger surface area for that fat to cover. The 200lb guy has 24lb of fat, so less - but he has less surface area to cover - so when it comes down to it, they still have the same ratios of fat on their body and the same vascularity etc.. ?
also, some of the fat is inbetween the muscles, not all of it is under the skin.
although volume increases faster than surface area.
I see what you're saying too, but I also agree with the larger surface area point. What I disagree with is when you say pros look smoother at 12% than the avg guy. I think pros look more defined with higher % of fat than the avg person simply because of the size of their muscles. Ruhl's shoulders are gonna have that ridge between the tricep and delt at a much higher % of fat because of the sheer bulging size of the delt and tricep muscles, whereas the avg guy would have to be very trim to get that ridge in that spot. Same goes for chest and most other muscle groups. Hope that makes sense.
I see what you're saying too, but I also agree with the larger surface area point. What I disagree with is when you say pros look smoother at 12% than the avg guy. I think pros look more defined with higher % of fat than the avg person simply because of the size of their muscles. Ruhl's shoulders are gonna have that ridge between the tricep and delt at a much higher % of fat because of the sheer bulging size of the delt and tricep muscles, whereas the avg guy would have to be very trim to get that ridge in that spot. Same goes for chest and most other muscle groups. Hope that makes sense. x2, bigger and more separated muscles means more visible muscles.
X3
The bigger you are GENERALLY the better you can look at normal bodyfat ranges...
I used to get sweated in my college gym at like 17% bodyfat and 260-270 lbs....Dont ask me but apparently guys liked the way i looked because they kept asking me for advice and where to get juice and stuff even though i was clueless about training for the most part and had never even seen a steroid.
x4!
I see what you're saying too, but I also agree with the larger surface area point. What I disagree with is when you say pros look smoother at 12% than the avg guy. I think pros look more defined with higher % of fat than the avg person simply because of the size of their muscles. Ruhl's shoulders are gonna have that ridge between the tricep and delt at a much higher % of fat because of the sheer bulging size of the delt and tricep muscles, whereas the avg guy would have to be very trim to get that ridge in that spot. Same goes for chest and most other muscle groups. Hope that makes sense. it exactly oppisite of what he said..:) but honest mistake im sure.
I see what the original poster is saying, because they are so huge, unless they are super conditioned, they look kind of chunky on account of the amount of bulk(muscle) they are carrying. not too mention many of them have distended abdomens
with regards to the "fat being spread out over a larger surface area so a certain body fat percentage actually does give an index of similar conditioning appearance between the average 200 pound joe and a three hundred pound pro" assertion...
that argument is doubtful. In most living creatures, surface area increases by the square as volume increases by the cube. This basic geometric ratio imposed by the limits of vascular systems is pretty much why most animal species are small in size...anybody that's been through freshman year premed biology has seen this before.
Taking this to the notion that pros look fatter at say 12% bodyfat than their non-pro 200 pound counterparts...36 pounds of body fat spread over a NOT significantly increased surface area vs. 24 pounds of body fat...there might actually be something to this notion that pros have to drop more fat to get the "ripped look"
However not all fat is stored subcutaneously. Vestigial fat, the crap that surrounds your internal organs and lines the boundaries of your peritoneum, will definitely be a factor at a bodyfat percentage of 12%....You ever seen an old dude with a bulbous gut that's "hard"/there's not a lot of apparent external skin-stored blubber? that's all vestigial fat in the abdomen.
The human body's pretty complicated.
Personally, I actually feel that pros look "fatter" more easily than regular folks.
Not sure why.
But 1 digit fat percentages sound pretty farfetched...
Personally, I actually feel that pros look "fatter" more easily than regular folks.
Not sure why.
But 1 digit fat percentages sound pretty farfetched... there is an illusion of them being fatter because you are really used to seeing pro bodybuilders at their 'ripped' contest shape.. you see Ronnie Coleman at 6-7% you'll think he's fat because your eyes are more used to his contest shape..
Who cares about if your 300 lbs you have like 12 more lbs of fat than a 200 lb guy? Just means 6 weeks more hard dieting to get rid of those 12 lbs.
Also when you look at top pro's in the offseason, they look much fatter than they are, they are smooth but mostly with extracellular water, due to the compounds and carb loading they have used in the off season.
I feel this needs to be said, considering the ludicrous estimates that sometimes get posted on this board. Okay: the look of a pro at 12% bf, for example, is going to be way different than that of your average guy at 12%, that is because this is a PERCENTAGE of his total bodyweight. Therefore, a 300 lb. pro at 12% will have 36 lbs. of fat on him, whereas a 200lb. average guy will only have 24 lbs. of fat on him. Assuming these guys have roughly the same size frame, the pro will look smoother than the average guy at the same bodyfat percentage.
On the other hand, the 300 lb. pro will actually have much more fat at 4% bodyfat than would the 200 lb. average guy. The pro would have 12 lbs. of fat on him, while the 200 lb. guy would have 8. Therefore, it is much more conceivable for a pro to get down to those low-1 digit bodyfat percentages than your average guy. It seems like most people have a picture of bodyfat percentage in their head based on what average people look like with said bodyfat %.
Answer:
I see what your saying.
But even though the pro is 300 lb with 36lb of fat - he also has a bigger surface area for that fat to cover. The 200lb guy has 24lb of fat, so less - but he has less surface area to cover - so when it comes down to it, they still have the same ratios of fat on their body and the same vascularity etc.. ?
Answer:
also, some of the fat is inbetween the muscles, not all of it is under the skin.
although volume increases faster than surface area.
Answer:
I see what you're saying too, but I also agree with the larger surface area point. What I disagree with is when you say pros look smoother at 12% than the avg guy. I think pros look more defined with higher % of fat than the avg person simply because of the size of their muscles. Ruhl's shoulders are gonna have that ridge between the tricep and delt at a much higher % of fat because of the sheer bulging size of the delt and tricep muscles, whereas the avg guy would have to be very trim to get that ridge in that spot. Same goes for chest and most other muscle groups. Hope that makes sense.
Answer:
I see what you're saying too, but I also agree with the larger surface area point. What I disagree with is when you say pros look smoother at 12% than the avg guy. I think pros look more defined with higher % of fat than the avg person simply because of the size of their muscles. Ruhl's shoulders are gonna have that ridge between the tricep and delt at a much higher % of fat because of the sheer bulging size of the delt and tricep muscles, whereas the avg guy would have to be very trim to get that ridge in that spot. Same goes for chest and most other muscle groups. Hope that makes sense. x2, bigger and more separated muscles means more visible muscles.
Answer:
X3
The bigger you are GENERALLY the better you can look at normal bodyfat ranges...
I used to get sweated in my college gym at like 17% bodyfat and 260-270 lbs....Dont ask me but apparently guys liked the way i looked because they kept asking me for advice and where to get juice and stuff even though i was clueless about training for the most part and had never even seen a steroid.
Answer:
x4!
I see what you're saying too, but I also agree with the larger surface area point. What I disagree with is when you say pros look smoother at 12% than the avg guy. I think pros look more defined with higher % of fat than the avg person simply because of the size of their muscles. Ruhl's shoulders are gonna have that ridge between the tricep and delt at a much higher % of fat because of the sheer bulging size of the delt and tricep muscles, whereas the avg guy would have to be very trim to get that ridge in that spot. Same goes for chest and most other muscle groups. Hope that makes sense. it exactly oppisite of what he said..:) but honest mistake im sure.
Answer:
I see what the original poster is saying, because they are so huge, unless they are super conditioned, they look kind of chunky on account of the amount of bulk(muscle) they are carrying. not too mention many of them have distended abdomens
Answer:
with regards to the "fat being spread out over a larger surface area so a certain body fat percentage actually does give an index of similar conditioning appearance between the average 200 pound joe and a three hundred pound pro" assertion...
that argument is doubtful. In most living creatures, surface area increases by the square as volume increases by the cube. This basic geometric ratio imposed by the limits of vascular systems is pretty much why most animal species are small in size...anybody that's been through freshman year premed biology has seen this before.
Taking this to the notion that pros look fatter at say 12% bodyfat than their non-pro 200 pound counterparts...36 pounds of body fat spread over a NOT significantly increased surface area vs. 24 pounds of body fat...there might actually be something to this notion that pros have to drop more fat to get the "ripped look"
However not all fat is stored subcutaneously. Vestigial fat, the crap that surrounds your internal organs and lines the boundaries of your peritoneum, will definitely be a factor at a bodyfat percentage of 12%....You ever seen an old dude with a bulbous gut that's "hard"/there's not a lot of apparent external skin-stored blubber? that's all vestigial fat in the abdomen.
The human body's pretty complicated.
Answer:
Personally, I actually feel that pros look "fatter" more easily than regular folks.
Not sure why.
But 1 digit fat percentages sound pretty farfetched...
Answer:
Personally, I actually feel that pros look "fatter" more easily than regular folks.
Not sure why.
But 1 digit fat percentages sound pretty farfetched... there is an illusion of them being fatter because you are really used to seeing pro bodybuilders at their 'ripped' contest shape.. you see Ronnie Coleman at 6-7% you'll think he's fat because your eyes are more used to his contest shape..
Answer:
Who cares about if your 300 lbs you have like 12 more lbs of fat than a 200 lb guy? Just means 6 weeks more hard dieting to get rid of those 12 lbs.
Also when you look at top pro's in the offseason, they look much fatter than they are, they are smooth but mostly with extracellular water, due to the compounds and carb loading they have used in the off season.