- 12-29-2004, 12:02 PM
- 12-29-2004, 12:27 PM
12-29-2004, 12:35 PM
12-29-2004, 12:54 PM
12-29-2004, 03:36 PM
Looking good after going through what you say you did. How much weight have you gained back since then?
12-29-2004, 04:07 PM
12-29-2004, 04:46 PM
Sorry to hear about the broken arm and the 22lb loss.
You will get it back MUCH quicker than it took to get it the first time.
I am not too sure about the 7% BF number. I realize the pics are not too good and the flash flatens you out.
To give you an idea this is approx 12%.
This is an example of approx 7%
Keep us updated on your comback and best of luck
12-29-2004, 07:18 PM
He was huge, and will probably be huge, but now hes just a big (())......And with a 475 bench, where are your pics...Originally Posted by Rebel
12-29-2004, 07:22 PM
You are probably right, I took the digital deal and it said I was a nine, But then I did it again like a week later and said I was 6, and I knew that was far too low. So I just Kinda picked inbetween. I dont really care about my body fat though, as I am too skinny as it is. I gained about 20 lbs back. Ill post new pics around feb or march and I promise the differences will be seen!Originally Posted by CROWLER
12-29-2004, 07:40 PM
Those numbers are off bro. The pics you posted don't match up with 12% and 7%. There more like 7% and 3-4%Originally Posted by CROWLER
12-29-2004, 07:51 PM
Ok if you say so.Originally Posted by jminis
BTW the % BF for those pictures are from the ACTUAL person in the pictures.
It is interesting that YOU can tell what their BF% is by a picture better than they can determine THEMSELVES
So if a person was to be considerably lower in BF than the one YOU say is 3-4% BF then what would they be 1%??
12-30-2004, 01:33 AM
looking very proportioned pirate.
deadlifts could definately harden your lower back up some. upper back looks good, nice detail. and i'm not sure about the genetic factor, but your lats would look better if they swept down a little lower. perhaps, some bent over barbell rows.
everything looks good IMO. i'd say you're in between 7-9%. if you can keep that bf and put on about 20lbs, you'd look awesome.
i miss my abs.
12-30-2004, 01:47 AM
12-30-2004, 02:21 AM
I personally don't agree with many of skips readings on BF%.Originally Posted by CROWLER
I agree with jminis (and Matthew D for that matter).
BTW, do you know if skip takes all of his measurements hydrostatically??? If he doesn't, his measurements can be way off!
Also, you cannot guage one person's BF% measurements to anothers. I.E. Skip has tiny waist, ankles, legs, etc, etc...so, his think layer of fat can make up a much larger percentage of his body that that same thin layer would make up (in %) of a much larger person with the same layer of fat. Get how that works??? Hope so ....
EDIT: BTW, looking great pirate!
12-30-2004, 02:35 AM
12-30-2004, 02:42 AM
don't want to get too involved in this little dispute, but it sounded as if you were insulting jminis for his opinion on judging bodyfat. by emphasizing 'YOU' in your statement twice, it's taken as pretty sarcastic towards a mod that was just stating his opinion. not an attack bro. don't take it that way. just stating what i observed. we should live and let live a little bit more around here. we can't always tell what is meant by typing in a block.Originally Posted by CROWLER
12-30-2004, 03:33 AM
No personal attack Crowler, I used the word dick to mean being overly sarcatic when it was not called for... I was under the impression that you were belittling one of the members (jminis) that was trying to help.. Now if that was not the case, I apologize. Now if it was the case.. the the comment sticks..
And Pirate... good job.. you are looking lean, no matter what the bf% your think you are.. and I think you are less than what you think you are personally
12-30-2004, 06:37 AM
Pirate... I agree with the other bros that put you around 7%. To me you actually look lower. I diddn't say anything before,but after this little dispute, I thought I would chime in. I have had my fat tested by the same person with the same calipers for 3 yrs. Over those 3 yrs I have tested at 12%, 7.5%. and 5% respectively. The last time I tested at 5%, I imediately picked up a dijital and tested at 8.5% That piece of crap is consistently 3 to 4 % > than what the calipers say. Dijitals in fact, are not reccomended for heavily muscled individuals anyway. The added muscle throws off the reading. So, if your dijital reads 9%, you can bet your ass you are lower than that. The pics point to that fact as well.Originally Posted by Pirate
12-30-2004, 08:02 AM
pirate looking good, I would rather start again like that than 20% or so 20-30 lbs heavier.
youll get back soon,
as far as the fat dispute, those one dudes pics, I would say 8or9 in the outside pic
3-4 oiled up, no way hes 12 in the outside pic, no way..... unless hes hiding 10lbs of fat on his ass.
and i doubt he hydrostatically tested, i could be wrong though.
12-30-2004, 08:34 AM
Garrrr!...You be lookin' mighty good thar! Should take ya no time for the matter to get back to where you needs to be. Now get back to swabbin' the deck ya scaley-wag!
12-30-2004, 12:29 PM
12-30-2004, 12:58 PM
01-20-2005, 03:23 AM
01-20-2005, 07:11 AM
01-24-2005, 07:21 PM
Thanks for all the responces guys. My countdown for new pics is march 1rst. The changes will be seen.
Similar Forum Threads
- By hamper19 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 15Last Post: 09-20-2015, 08:24 AM
- By windwords7 in forum PicsReplies: 40Last Post: 05-08-2006, 07:44 PM
- By Pirate in forum PicsReplies: 30Last Post: 03-02-2005, 11:45 PM
- By jweave23 in forum PicsReplies: 9Last Post: 01-03-2003, 02:02 AM
- By sage in forum General ChatReplies: 6Last Post: 11-21-2002, 04:13 PM