Bodyfat stimation?

File: 20170301_100359-1.jpg (785KB, 1218x1440px) Image search: [Google]

785KB, 1218x1440px

Heres a side pic

File: body-fat-percentage-men.jpg (650KB, 900x1215px) Image search: [Google]

650KB, 900x1215px

>>40547384
I would say 15%.

Hm hard to tell, something between 15< (>20%)

cut untill you feel ready to bulk, no need to reach a number of bodyfat (at first)

>>40547399

Feel flattered. Do you think that when I reach 10% I will have a nice ottermode body or I just dont have the insertions or whatever its called?

>>40547384
Are u really 147lbs??
I am 146lbs @ 5'11 i look much thinner then you what the hell

>>40547460
You don't have muscle, how will you have an otter mode

You have more pec muscle than you should at that height/weight. You'll probably look true otter at 10%. In a shirt, though, you'll look like a skeleton.

I think you've got a good plan, OP. Then bump the calories and get jacked.

>>40547523

Thanks mate. How long until 10% you think? 2 months?

>>40547485

Well the escale at my gym says I have that. Might weight myself in a different one to be sure now

File: IMG_20170214_123809.jpg (3MB, 2240x3968px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2240x3968px

>>40547384
No point in going to 10% BF if you have no muscles
Pic related is me 5'11'' at 175lbs, idk bf% but id say 13%, May look less because of the godly light

>>40547801

But if I start bulking now then i will only have more bf and more stomach to get rid of

Looking good btw

>>40547965
If you are at your very beginning, eating at a Small surplus and lifting Will burn fat and build muscle.

File: asfghdf.png (187KB, 283x466px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 283x466px

this was just perfect

No point in looking at percentages when you don't have any muscle. 15%->10% is only like 7lbs for you. Just do a lean bulk and then cut down.

>>40547485
>>40547384

He's either not 147 lbs, or he's not 5'11.

I weighted 146 at 5'11 a few months ago, and was thin as fuck.

File: 20170301_133535.jpg (717KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

717KB, 2048x1152px

>>40548257

Goddamn it. Here, 68kg, 149lbs, and I'm wearing my work boots that literally has steel in them.

As for my height, well, either the guy at the gym lied to me or he fucked up the measurement.

>>40549000

Are you shitting me why the fuck is it upside down it was normal on my phone

>>40547384
either your weight or height is wrong

>>40549187

Holy shit I already proved my weight, and the only way my height is wrong is if the guy lied or measured wrong.

>>40547384
Yeah, idk. 5'10 @160lbs and I look skinnier than you brah

Is your lower body nonexistent or just not pictured?

File: 27193f392fca2056e965c8a8725fe9a4.jpg (53KB, 537x720px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 537x720px

>>40547384
You still need to have abs for them to show. Obviously you have zero ab muscles. /fit/ seems to think bodyfat is all that matters (because half of them dont even lift) but you see fat powerlifters with visible abs because they're strong as fuck. at 15% BF you should be able to see something, hell even at my 20% you can see where my abs would be.

tl;dr work on your abs

>>40549000
what did he say in cm

>>40547384

I was 145 and 6'0 during college and was running D1 XC and track, and had significantly more definition than there is in this picture. Our sports med measured our bodyfat at the start and end of each season, and I was usually in the mid to high single digits (would not recommend, being that low fucks with a lot of other stuff).

>>40549318

180cm and according to this http://www.talentonline.co.nz/talent/heightconversion.html is 5'11

I lost like 15kg in these past 6 months. I just assumed that my stomach is still bg or something

>>40549302

Yeah but they roid

Well I guess I should have done more abs then

>>40549413
>le roid excuse
Whatever helps you rationalize being a DYEL

>>40549431

Cmon man they do roid

>>40547384
40% easily

>>40549231
dont get angry bro but youre more like 5'6 if your 147 and look like that

>>40549399
id recommend just measuring yourself to be sure.
cuz you do look 'big' (not muscle) for 147

5% body 95% fat

>>40548236
kek

Thinking you're 5'11.

Kek Nigger unless you're in a wheelchair and your legs are toothpicks you're probably more like 5'7 if your upper body looks like that while weighing under 150.

>>40549488

Hm will do. Better keep cutting then

you're either like 5'7 or you're lying about your weight

body weight % of probably like 20-25%

>>40548257
>>40549000

5'11" @ 68kg means BMI close to 18, bare minimum above being considered ill.
if thats true and you look like having 20% bf, damn, you have a big problem to deal

>>40549707

Well any ideas on how to deal with it?

>>40549858
check your height again retard

Sage

>>40547485
this. I'm 5'11 and 160 and I'm thinner

File: Capture.png (14KB, 608x491px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 608x491px

>>40549707
No it isn't.

Stop spreading misinformation.

68kg at 5'11 is perfectly healthy.

>>40547384
I'm 66 kg at 180 cm and I'm less than 10% bf. Started at 59kg 3 months ago. You prob have over 12%

>>40547485
thank god someone said this. I was thinking the same

>>40547384
Not even underweight bro. Your BMI is 20.5. I was under 135 and a bit taller than you and I looked a lot skellier than you and was slightly underweight.

>>40547384
holy shit OP you just arbitrarily mentioned your height (which doesn't even matter) and everyone is freaking the fuck out.

goddamn /fit/

friend, you are in no position to cut or bulk or any fancy bullshit. Eat 250 above your TDEE and start lifting.

you look 15% now but it doesn't matter.

>>40551817
And btw, I was perfectly fine being underweight lol. No health problems whatsoever, I just was really skinny.

>>40551855
If a fatty says something like that everyone here just freak out.
No. It is not fine. If it was fine wouldnt be called UNDERweight

kys