Body fat makes such a MASSIVE difference
 

OK so an obvious comment, but I didnt realise just what a massively dramatic effect swapping a few lbs of fat for muscle could actually make. I was trawling through some of the classic bb'ers pic last night and came along this guy (Jules bacon - 1943 Mr America)

http://www.ifbbpro.com/wp-content/up...ulesBacon1.jpg

http://www.iron-age-classic-bodybuil...upper_body.jpg

Now by any standards he has an impressive physique. He is only 10lbs lighter than me, is almost the same height and a lot of his other measurements are identical to mine.

Bacon/me
height 5'7"/5.6"
Weight 175/186
Arms 15.5/15.5
Neck 15.5/15.5
Forearm 12.5/12
Chest 44/42.5
Waist 31/36.25
Thigh 23/24
Calf 15/15.5
Wrist 7/7
Ankle 9/9

I dont know whether to be happy that a lot of measurements are the same or depressed, as I am certainly no Bacon lol...

So i found some stuff about height to weight ratios, If you divide Jules Bacon’s weight (175 pounds) by his height (67 inches), you get this number: 2.61 (which is incidentely the lowest h:w ratio of all Mr Americas winners (Grimek was 3.2 !!!), this is assuming a 10% bf%

My ratio is 2.79, so this shows me 2 things, how much fat i am carrying and how much muscle i am not :(

So if you want to know (as a rule of thumb) how heavy you need to be to look like the guys from the golden era its simple, get your ratio to 2.6 at 10% body fat. DONE. :D

Carl.

Don't feel bad Carl. I'm around 10% now and here are mine.
Bacon/Carl/Rich
height 5'7"/5'6.5"/5'8"
Weight 175/186/150
Arms 15.5/15.5/16.25
Neck 15.5/15.5/15.5
Forearm 12.5/12/12
Chest 44/42.5/44
Waist 31/36.25/32
Thigh 23/24/19
Calf 15/15.5/14
Wrist 7/7/7
Ankle 9/9/8

My Ratio= 2.20
This being said my legs are atrophying.

Awesome stats Rich, again proves to point how much of a massive difference bf levels make. In side by side photos you would completely dwarf me, although there is only a few inches in it. But where I have an inch of fat, you have an inch of muscle... And thats the big difference !

You get guys talking about their 18" guns, but at a 20% bf it means jack. For a natural to have 16"+ arms at a low (8-10% bf) is a MASSIVE achievement, but most of the 'brahs' of this world just dont see it...

carl.

I hear ya. I know a few across the web that are this way.
I know one guy on F/B (not on here) that shouts 20" and he is at 30%. and he holds all his fat in upper body. lol Strip the fat and he is maybe 12"

30% is seriously unhealthy. 20" guns maybe, but what shape is his most important muscle of all in? You know, the one that pumps the blood to all the others :D

I agree, on the same aspect fat don't lift, isn't muscle and don't look good. Anyone can get fat and have big size and guns. Its big with the right kind of size, OR fat, never lifting guys would be winning all the Mr. O's and all the strongman comps and there would have never been gyms formed. ;)

Your point is a huge one Carl. Bodyfat makes a HUGE difference. It makes you look much bigger. I was sort of trying to make that point a few days back with a picture of a bodybuilder that was put on the site.

Looking big does not mean you are big, per se. It does mean you are probably shredded wheat though.

I know plenty of naturals that look big in person, and I know many, including a couple superstars in this industry, who wouldn't be mistaken for bodybuilders with their shirts on. (no disrespect meant to them...just stating that being ripped creates the illusion of size.)

If you can add 10-15 pounds of muscle from a normalized weight you will pretty much look darn impressive ripped.

it also pints out how far off some bodyfat calculators are. for example In the picture in my avatar I was estimated at between 12% and 14% i think. this gave me a LBM of (at the time) of about 160lbs. Jules in the pics is at about 9-10% and 175, putting him at a smaller LBM than I am in the Avatar... there is no way on this earth I am carrying more muscle in that pic than he was.

How many time do you see people saying they are 15% bf and 220lbs ??? thats a LBM of 187lbs which is pretty close to natural potential for someone of average height. for example Clarence Ross (Mr American 1945) was 5'10" and 185lbs at about 10% body fat...

http://www.ifbbpro.com/wp-content/up...renceRoss1.jpg

http://www.davidgentle.com/images/ross.jpg

http://image1.findagrave.com/photos2...1103393937.jpg

Moral of the story, dont worry about what bf% you are at, just pick a way of testing it and make sure it is moving in the right direction, other wise you are gonna go mad thinking why you dont look like Mr America when you have 'apparently' got more LBM than them AND a lower body fat ;)

Carl.

Don't forget that your LBM will drop along with bodyfat as you get leaner and leaner. So your LBM may be similar when at a heavier BF%, but it will go down as you lose weight and get lean.

Biggest problem is everyone does a "skin fold" test. This leaves out all the inner fat and only calculates the outer-just below the shin fat. This ends up being counted as LBM when it is fat. Here is a good read on it. Get in touch with your inner fat - Telegraph

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...6-_632205a.jpg