August Most Improved Competition

[Quester]

I agree with OBS regarding scientific (actual) BF%. BF% isn't a measure of aesthetics therefore, using a picture to compare to isn't at all scientific.
-For instance, a larger frame (bone structure) will decrease BF% simply because one has more LBM (and not even muscle-just the other parts), but you may not see this from an aesthetic standpoint. If BB comps were based on science they could just take dex-scans and measurements and send the results in from home.
-Another for instance, A small tennis ball with a thick cover over it has a higher percentage of cover-to-mass versus a much larger ball with a cover of the same thickness.
-That being said, "these competitions are in the style of BB-comps, aesthetics is the focus.
-Perhaps you guys are arguing over two distinct things: the appearance of BF v actual BF?

[NACH3]

I agree with OBS regarding scientific (actual) BF%. BF% isn't a measure of aesthetics therefore, using a picture to compare to isn't at all scientific.
-For instance, a larger frame (bone structure) will decrease BF% simply because one has more LBM (and not even muscle-just the other parts), but you may not see this from an aesthetic standpoint. If BB comps were based on science they could just take dex-scans and measurements and send the results in from home.
-Another for instance, A small tennis ball with a thick cover over it has a higher percentage of cover-to-mass versus a much larger ball with a cover of the same thickness.
-That being said, "these competitions are in the style of BB-comps, aesthetics is the focus.
-Perhaps you guys are arguing over two distinct things: the appearance of BF v actual BF?

Not true dexa scans are the way to tell actual bf %! It's the most consistent and accurate way weigh telling bone structure along with bf% as well as visceral fat and muscle - look at the color coding it tells it all!

[Obs]

Not true dexa scans are the way to tell actual bf %! It's the most consistent and accurate way weigh telling bone structure along with bf% as well as visceral fat and muscle - look at the color coding it tells it all!

Nach they are all accurate to +or- 1%
Those old arguments are angry people who didnt like what they saw.
People are genetically dispositioned to store bodyfat in different areas. PERIOD

Quest is dead on. You cant look at someones legs and judge their upper or vice versa. Different people have different fat storages.

[Obs]

Attachment 170332
Give me this guys bodyfat percentage

[Capebuffalo]

Attachment 170332
Give me this guys bodyfat percentage

Give me this guy body fat percentage

[Obs]

Give me this guy body fat percentage

Sorry cape you will need to do a little more work to get that guys bodyfat %.
With proper diet and less beer and good training... We will get you there.

[NACH3]

Sorry cape you will need to do a little more work to get that guys bodyfat %.
With proper diet and less beer and good training... We will get you there.

Not bad there tbh!

[Obs]

Attachment 170333
Any questions?
Body parts mean nothing for total bodyfat percentage. A scan is the only way and the rest is guess.

[NACH3]

Attachment 170333
Any questions?
Body parts mean nothing for total bodyfat percentage. A scan is the only way and the rest is guess.

Your absolutely right!

[NACH3]

Nach they are all accurate to +or- 1%
Those old arguments are angry people who didnt like what they saw.
People are genetically dispositioned to store bodyfat in different areas. PERIOD

Quest is dead on. You cant look at someones legs and judge their upper or vice versa. Different people have different fat storages.

They are all not accurate to +-1 except Dexa scan! Bod pod +-3% calipers at a 6pojnt hold is +-6% 5% minimum so I don't k ow where your getting your numbers - then there's calipers at a 10-12-16point spot so you tell me what's the accurst?! Firstly not the calipers second only not the bod pod but lastly dexa scan firstly and second to that would be hydrostatic weighing - so your research - no one said one person holds their bf in one section that's ridiculous to even say! It's called diet and training - got that!

[Obs]

They are all not accurate to +-1 except Dexa scan! Bod pod +-3% calipers at a 6pojnt hold is +-6% 5% minimum so I don't k ow where your getting your numbers - then there's calipers at a 10-12-16point spot so you tell me what's the accurst?! Firstly not the calipers second only not the bod pod but lastly dexa scan firstly and second to that would be hydrostatic weighing - so your research - no one said one person holds their bf in one section that's ridiculous to even say! It's called diet and training - got that!

I dont understand what you are saying but you said something nice before that so ok.

[Quester]

I dont understand what you are saying but you said something nice before that so ok.

.lol

[NACH3]

I agree with OBS regarding scientific (actual) BF%. BF% isn't a measure of aesthetics therefore, using a picture to compare to isn't at all scientific.
-For instance, a larger frame (bone structure) will decrease BF% simply because one has more LBM (and not even muscle-just the other parts), but you may not see this from an aesthetic standpoint. If BB comps were based on science they could just take dex-scans and measurements and send the results in from home.
-Another for instance, A small tennis ball with a thick cover over it has a higher percentage of cover-to-mass versus a much larger ball with a cover of the same thickness.
-That being said, "these competitions are in the style of BB-comps, aesthetics is the focus.
-Perhaps you guys are arguing over two distinct things: the appearance of BF v actual BF?

In bold - how isn't bf% a roll in aesthetics??? That's all aesthetics's is/are?!?! Get down to a specific bf% and win a comp easy as 123! That's not that scientific if you ask me?! I'd like to hear your opinion as I respect it