How accurate are the electronic body fat meters It says I have

>>38870106
Thanks for the image OP
I now know I am definitely 14%.

Fat fuck

>>38870106
I would trust a doctor's test more than an image being shared on the internet...

File: IMG_20160927_162640922.jpg (1MB, 1944x2592px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1944x2592px

also 5'11

bf% estimate?

ignore the jizz stains

>>38870164
Who cares.

For real. What will that number do for you?

>>38870164
Why do retards do this with their shirts? You're just stretching it out and looking retarded in the process.

If you want fat indicator look up the US Army/USMCs taping. It's not that accurate but it's easy and give you a direction.

>>38870293
bf% is quite useful when bulking.
So you know when to stop.

>>38870305
Unless you're competing in a bodybuilding competition, its not. Set a goal weight and stop when you get there.
Or just say "I look skinny enough".

File: image.jpg (142KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 640x1136px

What's my body fat? 10%?

>>38870352
Are you trolling or serious

File: 1474940322513.jpg (147KB, 666x1000px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 666x1000px

>>38870352
<insert a picture with the fishing pole in the water>

>>38870352
Nice gyno, fag

>>38870352
8% desu

>>38870487
I'm with this dude.
I'd say around 8.32%

>>38870142

>Electronic test

Those give weird results and are extremely inaccurate.

I do them for giggles sometimes to show this.

Last bulk I had lost most definition and figured +- 20%.

Nope, 7.6%

Went in after my cut. 6 abs+, veins etc

>19.2%

Day after? 5.1%.
Day after that? 9.3

These things are rubbish.

>>38870498
>>38870487
way too high. Probably more like 6.88%

>>38870106
nothing can beat the calipers

>>38870352
>>38870570
I think I have he opposite problem feeling like I'm a lot fatter look better then this guy by a lot though

>>38870164
shoo shoo hungry skelington

>>38870352
are you crazy?10%...
you are more like 5-6% almost competition ready!

>>38871836
I'm hardly a skeleton bro

That photo set is inaccurate, I'm nearly the same measurements as you, got tested as 26.8% and looked about 17%

That photo set is inaccurate, I'm nearly the same measurements as you, got tested as 26.8% and looked about 17%>>38872854
Also I got tested using a DEXA scan. Accurate as fuck

>>38870352
similar body type here.
I'd say around 20-24%

>>38870387
AAAAAAAAAAND BOOM goes the dynamite.

>>38870570
its about water percentage in the body, the lower it is the more it skewers your results

>>38870570
Maybe try not being poor.
My scale cost $80 five years ago, has no systematic error (compared averages with a DEXA scan) and very little statistical variation (other than the actual change in fat in my body during the day).

>>38870106
>Start measuring every morning after peeing to have an idea of variation
> Do a dexa and compare with the meter
>???
>Profit

File: homie.jpg (25KB, 441x411px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 441x411px

>>38872162
yet you are hardly fat or hardly built. you are hardly a man, shoo shoo mediocre martin

>>38870164
It makes no difference what your body fat is you have no muscle.

>>38870106
>How accurate are the electronic body fat meters
More accurate than this picture.
The people who make these pics don't actually know the bfs of the bodies in them, they're just estimates

File: image.jpg (92KB, 634x601px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 634x601px

Advice for being less fat?

>>38876562
Eat less

>>38870304
i used to always do this when i was a kid cause i thought i looked like gotenkz from dragonball

>>38876562
Don't be fat.

I don't have a pic but what percentage am i? 5'9 135 pounds. InB4 skelly.

>>38870438
that's not gyno, genius