# BF% And Hydrostatic Weighing - I've lost my faith...



## Tall (Aug 14, 2007)

Have a look at this link so what Hydrostatic weighing shows 11% and 18% bodyfat to look like...

http://barrysbodytransformation.blogspot.com/2008/04/little-history.html

If thats 11% BF then I must be 6% bodyfat.... Jeeees....


----------



## Slamdog (Jun 11, 2007)

~I know i'm more than 20% but my arms are leaner than his 10%...

my belly is bigger than his before pic though.....


----------



## wogihao (Jun 15, 2007)

TH&S said:


> Have a look at this link so what Hydrostatic weighing shows 11% and 18% bodyfat to look like...
> 
> http://barrysbodytransformation.blogspot.com/2008/04/little-history.html
> 
> If thats 11% BF then I must be 6% bodyfat.... Jeeees....


Well you cant polish a turd,

It looks much worse because he is a skinny/fat person. theres no lbm there.

But yea somthings up with there tank....


----------



## banderbe (May 4, 2008)

Hi everyone, thanks for visiting my body transformation blog.

The photo from Jan. 2007 is not 11% body fat. It is actually less than 11%. The hydrostatic weighing I did was done in November.

The weighing was done in an olympic swiming pool by a professor who does weighing all the time for athletes and other competitors who need to know their body fat. If it were wrong I'm pretty sure they would have figured it out after doing hundreds and hundreds of weighings.

I think it's true though that I didn't have a lot of muscle. The more muscle you have, the leaner you look. Someone at 220 pounds and 11% body fat will look WAY different than someone at 170 lbs. and 11% body fat. Also it's important to remember that genetics will impact the way in which your body distributes fat, and where it tends to prefer to mobilize fat from first as you lean out. As you can see from my side view photos my stomach is a problem for me.

Calling me "skinny fat" is pretty silly though. Just look at my "flexing" photo from January:










Sorry but that's not my idea of "skinny fat". I'm not saying I'm all muscular or something but clearly I've got a decent base of muscle for someone who has only been training for 8 months, AND was in a caloric deficit the entire time.

That said I've been on a bulking phase for the last month or so because obviously I realize I need to add more muscle.

Thanks though for driving lots of extra traffic to my blog.

Best regards,

Barry


----------



## nathanlowe (Jan 8, 2008)

TH&S, do you have an idea of my body fat levels from my pictures ?


----------



## wogihao (Jun 15, 2007)

banderbe said:


> Hi everyone, thanks for visiting my body transformation blog.
> 
> The photo from Jan. 2007 is not 11% body fat. It is actually less than 11%. The hydrostatic weighing I did was done in November.
> 
> ...


Congratulations you look like you just got liberated from a POW camp.

you dont train anthing but your bicep.

your fat % are just plain BS in that blog.

You are selling a ebook on how you acheved this epic condition! my god when will we see "Pub lad 2 the road to redemption!"

"Yea, after I cut out pork scratchings in favour of cheese and onion crisps I lost some weight but realy the key for me was cutting back from 8 pints of beer to 2 a night before tut game.."


----------



## banderbe (May 4, 2008)

wogihao said:


> Congratulations you look like you just got liberated from a POW camp.
> 
> you dont train anthing but your bicep.
> 
> ...


Let's see.. your opinion.. or a hydrostatic weighing done by a department head who has done it thousands of times using equipment used more times than that. Hmm... which am I going to believe?

To top it off you say I did bicep training. Actually I never did a single curl so you actually paid me a great compliment. I don't believe in isolation exercises. If you read the blog, you'd know that but your broken English leads me to believe you're probably border-line illiterate.

Perhaps you can share with us how much muscle someone should be able to build in a caloric deficit? Since you're obviously kin to troglodytes let me help you: ZERO.

Have a nice life.


----------



## wogihao (Jun 15, 2007)

banderbe said:


> Let's see.. your opinion.. or a hydrostatic weighing done by a department head who has done it thousands of times using equipment used more times than that. Hmm... which am I going to believe?
> 
> To top it off you say I did bicep training. Actually I never did a single curl. I don't believe in isolation exercises. If you read the blog, you'd know that but your broken English leads me to believe you're probably border-line illiterate.
> 
> Have a nice life.


Why do you write on things that have not worked for you? your body is testiment to all thats wrong with keyboard warriorhood. Your pimping ebooks and methods that you yourself have failed to apply.

How can you stand there and preach to people looking so... so average.

Perhaps if you spent more time in the gym and less time pimping the ebooks and bloging you would have had more time to practice what you preached. instead you are a skinny/fat nothing that Mr muscle would own in a posedown.

Can I ask about your e-lifts? how has the focus on heavy compounds helped your strenght? No doubt Andy Bolton is ****ting a brick over your progress...

You see when you said you focused on the compounds I fail to see this in your body - there is no core development, your midsection is underdeveloped and hideing under a thin/fat layer. you lack the neck, back, lats, legs for me to have said you did the compounds. As i said before the only bodypart that seems to have been training is your biceps, however thats makes sence now because of all the dictionary reading and typeing about your non-existant gains you type in your blog.

Hydro weighting is a sound method but then to pimp the ebook that your a affilate for you could have changed the amounts to suit yourself. where is the report that states the BF% or did the boffin high five you and chest bump on the way out "yo bro, your 11% props.."

In summary why would anyone listen to anything you have to say about training?


----------



## banderbe (May 4, 2008)

wogihao said:


> Why do you write on things that have not worked for you? your body is testiment to all thats wrong with keyboard warriorhood. Your pimping ebooks and methods that you yourself have failed to apply.
> 
> How can you stand there and preach to people looking so... so average.
> 
> ...


And again I'll ask, how much muscle can you build in a caloric deficit?

My goal over the past year has been to burn fat, and preserve muscle (what little muscle I have).

I did that! The methods I advocate worked perfectly for my goal. My goal was NOT to build muscle, only to keep from losing muscle, which I did.

In March I stopped dieting (and I admit I think now I dieted too long), and then I slowly brought my calories up to maintenance.

I have been "bulking" for about a month. So, my current goal is to build muscle while keeping fat gains minimal.

Your criticisms will apply if I look the way I do now in another year.

As it stands, your criticism only exposes your total ignorance of my stated goals and progress towards those goals.

In summary, LOTS of people who want to lose fat will listen to me. People seeking to bulk up should probably go elsewhere. My blog has been a FAT LOSS blog.

So now that you understand what my goal has been for the past year, tell me what I've been doing wrong? I'm always interested in learning and improving so please enlighten me.

Again: The goal of fat loss is 1) fat loss and 2) muscle preservation.

I succeeded on both counts.

P.S. - If you'd like me to post a scan of the Hydrostatic report I'd be happy to do so.

Oh, and by the way I see that you followed the link for the Burn The Fat Feed The Muscle book. Thanks! I get paid for every click through. :bounce:


----------



## wogihao (Jun 15, 2007)

banderbe said:


> And again I'll ask, how much muscle can you build in a caloric deficit?
> 
> My goal over the past year has been to burn fat, and preserve muscle (what little muscle I have).
> 
> ...


But the thing is your were burning more than just fat, you lost what little muscle you had at the begining - thus why even though you can see your ribs through your skin you still have a belly..

Thus the diet was not optimal sure you droped weight but then so would anyone on a callorie deficit its unaviodable the trick is to burn fat and not lean muscle/bone minerals.

Im still confused how your use of compounds benifited you? theres no core development that I can see, no back, no legs, no traps the halmarks of a good compound routine even if you were loseing weight you would still have developed these tell tell signs. Maby you beleve the preacher curl to be a compound? I ask again what are your numbers in the compound lifts that you say are the cornerstone of your aproach?

Dont worry about the click throug, I give money to the poor and needy all the time (im not religious but I try and do some good you undrestand.) Im glad I helped you scrape togeather some money for some cell tech.

If you could post the scan of the report that would be great.

My advice to you on your bulk is eat some food, drink your callories if nessary add some weight to the bar in a program of progressive resistance. Maby GVT would be good for you or the 20 rep squat program.


----------



## Tall (Aug 14, 2007)

Barry,

The main issue is that the HS results show you at 11% BF yet you are still holding back fat, have a visible layer of fat over your abs, and have some love handles. You are wearing cycling shorts which doesn't give us a great idea of your leg condition.

While I am very away everyone is genetically different and stores fat in different ways, people are always keen to establise aproximate baselines based on the mirror as to how well their condition is doing, as BF% calipers are still an estimate.

I'd guess my BF% was approximately 14% - but I look considerably leaner than you. I have a visible layer of fat over my abs, although the top two rows are slowly coming through, all 4 heads of my quads are visible when tensed, as is the split in my calves. No separation in hamstrings is visible.

Hence my comments on how I have now lost faith in the HS method, and I shall continue to stick my finger in the air.

In terms of a calorific deficit you refer to bodybuilders losing muscle while on a cut. That is indeed correct, but you are incorrectly skewing the results as you have not considered when muscle loss will occur.

BB'ers look to get to < 5% BF, the vast majority will be assisted. There is no reason why anyone should be burning muscle going from 18% to 11% BF - assisted or not.

Even VLCD's (800kcals per day) - which I dislike - have been shown to be protein sparing when combined with resistance training.

My sincere advise is that you go and do some solid research.

Reading your posts you clearly do not understand how the human body can burn fat even with a calorific excess. Mark Sisson was correct, you amigo were wrong.

Dropping carbs to correct levels, and increasing fats will place the body in a state of ketosis, which will then oxidise lipids from the adipose tissue. Where a ketogenic diet is concerned it is possible to build muscle tissue, increase strength and burn fat at the same time even in a calorific excess. This is because the whole calories in should be less than calories out idea went out with all the dodgy research on CHOL back in the 80s.

The issues with Keto diets are that carbs are addictive and impact on dopamine regulation, so most people struggle on low carb diets - think of the insulin response when you walk past a donut shop for example.

If you wish to sell a credible ebook, then do more research and stop picking fights with guys who actually do know what they are talking about amigo.

There are many ways to skin a cat while dietting.


----------



## banderbe (May 4, 2008)

I appreciate the advice you guys tried to give me but you all come off like a bunch of ****ing assholes.

Have a look at my blog, where I've posted my latest photos.

I still want to add a lot more muscle. Now please continue talking ****.

Oh yeah, I would like to add that I think you all were right my body fat % was much higher than 11%. The hydrostatic weighing was wrong. I don't know why or how but it was definitely wrong.

I would say I am probably slightly under 11% now and I'm about 12 pounds heavier than I was back then. It's been a good year.

http://barrysbodytransformation.blogspot.com


----------



## Robbie (Dec 31, 2007)

Does % really matter?

I think what matters more is, scales, mirror how much you can pinch.

% seems so inaccurate


----------



## GTP (Jan 22, 2009)

If you can pinch more than an inch....

Your a fat b*stard!!!(or a skinny tw*t with no muscle)

which one are you?:laugh:


----------



## Tall (Aug 14, 2007)

banderbe said:


> I appreciate the advice you guys tried to give me but you all come off like a bunch of ****ing assholes.
> 
> Have a look at my blog, where I've posted my latest photos.
> 
> ...


You look in much better shape in your photos.

However given the fact you slagged UKM off in your blog I doubt you will get much love here.


----------



## banderbe (May 4, 2008)

Tall said:


> You look in much better shape in your photos.
> 
> However given the fact you slagged UKM off in your blog I doubt you will get much love here.


Gee I wonder why I did that. It's all good though, take care. :thumb:


----------



## blarstawa (May 26, 2010)

I only have 8% body fat

it really annoys me cos im really not as weak as i look

it seems to be the same with me and my brother though

we are both very slim build but weigh more than you would think

is it just genetic ?


----------



## KRS (Nov 27, 2008)

blarstawa said:


> I only have 8% body fat
> 
> it really annoys me cos im really not as weak as i look
> 
> ...


High bone density will make you weigh more than appears.

Also muscle weighs more than fat.

PS, welcome to the board:thumbup1:


----------

