Accurate BF% for stats

[hardroad]

I've seen a lot of debate on this forums around actual BF% and that its usually a lot higher than most people think.

I just had a 7 point caliper check carried out by a exercise physiologist and came in at 6.03%.

There is a link that takes you to examples of BF% and I don't look like that on the pics of 6% though the physiologist said that water retention plays a large role in how you look and that the caliper test pushed the water out of the fat cells to give a truly accurate reading.

Would it be worthwhile getting a 14 point check or do most people just get a 7 point check?

I want to be as accurate with my stats to dial in my next cycle so just want others opinions.

Not sure where this thread should go but it's related to my next cycle plan anyway.

[songdog]

Post a pic bro.

[redz]

Doubtful on the 6% post up the pic. I don't have any faith in those calipers.

[hardroad]

The physiologist said a picture is very vague as it doesn't take into account a lot of factors. He laughed a lot when I showed him the link that gets posted up here and basically said it's no where near accurate to base yourself from a photo image of someone else as they can be easily mainipulated. these weren't the cheap looking plastic calipers you get free with your whey protein and the guy has a PHD in exercise physiology so I am inclined to believe him. Songdog what system do you use?

I feel more around 10% to be honest with what I thought was additional fat around my lower mid. As I used to be a lot larger the skin holds water to fill it from what he said.

Petz how do you measure yours? By rating yourself against a picture?

[Mr.BB]

The only accurate way to measure BF% is through dexa scan.

Calipers are as accurate as pictures, for what its worth.

[diesel101]

I know a couple of trainers that have competed in 20-30 shows each. I normally just have them take a look at me and let me know what there opinion is.

In my opinion body fat % really doesn't mean anything it all depends if you are satisfied with how you look.

Curiosity is the only reason I ever have them take a look to see what mine is at.

[NACH3]

The only accurate way to measure BF% is through dexa scan.

Calipers are as accurate as pictures, for what its worth.

Agreed here - dexa scan is definitely the way to go! Takes everything into account!

I've done calipers 4/8/12/16 point tests they're all +-3%... as suggested I'd use a pic if going by calipers or get someone who competed numerous times like Deseil suggested and they're pretty darn good getting you between 2% give or take

[balin]

If you have the same person do the measurements the same way ever time you check. Then the tests should be accurate to themselves witch would let you know how much muscle you actually gained. If the test is always off by the same amount does it really matter if you are really 8.3% as opposed to 6.7%.

[ScotchGuard02]

I've seen a lot of debate on this forums around actual BF% and that its usually a lot higher than most people think.

I just had a 7 point caliper check carried out by a exercise physiologist and came in at 6.03%.

There is a link that takes you to examples of BF% and I don't look like that on the pics of 6% though the physiologist said that water retention plays a large role in how you look and that the caliper test pushed the water out of the fat cells to give a truly accurate reading.

Would it be worthwhile getting a 14 point check or do most people just get a 7 point check?

I want to be as accurate with my stats to dial in my next cycle so just want others opinions.

Not sure where this thread should go but it's related to my next cycle plan anyway.

I did a caliper test and my bf was near 10% then I took a hydrostatic weigh test and my near 14.7%. The caliper test measures the fat under the skin. The hydrostatic weigh method measure fat that also internal to the body. For competition, it's the looks over the numbers. Check out this photo as a body fat measure.