So, the pisslord just got his bodyfat tested with a Dexa scan and he's 17%...

>18-20
Looking at 28 easily

pls no bully

69 like your mom xd

>bodyfat estimations taken by doctors in a controlled setting isn't accurate
>but my unsourced estimations anonymously posted on an egyptian masturbation technique forum is 100% trustworthy
calipers can be accurate, assuming you aren't super bloated and do it right.

Your face is visible in the mirror

I know but it's blurry as fuck so I don't care.

>28

But he looks leaner than Janoy, who is 17%.

you literally can't eyeball BF%, that's the jake.

Anytime you get a "BF Estimate" on Veeky Forums it's just some random ass guess based on some arbitrary infographic.

Well it doesn't matter.
Either you are fat and look like shit or you are not fat and look good.

Strong signs that you are way too fat:
>your chest is non existent because covered in fat
>love handles
>you have a belly
>you have arm flab
>your legs are fat

That's the thing, though. At 17% Jason is in a healthy bf% range, medically speaking. Yet, he looks like shit.

You fucks really think he's 17% whos the actual dumbass here

>Dexa scans and anything that detects body fat are not accurate at all

It's called DEXA, because it's Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry, you imbecile.

academic.oup.com/biomedgerontology/article/59/8/B796/709275/Dual-Energy-X-Ray-Absorptiometry-Measured-Lean

>spelling out the acronym makes the method accurate

There is no reason to be above 10%

You're actually, clinically retarded, aren't you?
Do you have no actual idea what absorptiometry is?

There is if you're training for any kind of actual sport or athletic activity.

He actually looks pretty decent in his recent videos. I think that's just a really unfortunate picture.

Nope dont care and nice excessive comma use dumbass

>youtube.com/watch?v=nXV5Xng65UA

Fuck off, shitposter.

Ok fair enough thats ~17 the pic in OP was misleading

Almost all endurance athletes are low BF %.
You know why? Because most of them have to carry their bodyweight and being fatter just makes it harder with no benefits.

Powerlifters aren't athletes btw. Neither are strongmen

>Does Veeky Forums just massively overestimate bf%?
Absolutely. I've seen jacked 14-15% bf guys posted here in one of those bf% chart images who were labeled as 20-25%. People here are delusional.

>DEXA scans aren't accurate
t. ignorant fuck

Dexa scans can up to 5% wrong so he's actually 12-22%. I reckon closer to 20.

If he's mid 20s then I'm 40% easily and I'm a 175lbs 6'0" skinnyfat.

The expert says

>Like I said it's hard to visually gauge bodyfat
>Visually, I had you at around 20-22%

checkm8 nerds

And what about fighters, you fucking retard.

No, that pic is misleading because he's sucking in his gut and using lighting. My pic is from a video where he's not taking advantage of myspace angles and lighting. The video is from 2 days ago btw, so it's recent.

You guys are retarded. Obviously you look a lot leaner when you have a pump and you're flexing, estimating bodyfat from pictures is stupid, especially when your references are pictures of other dudes after a pump and flexing.

Pretty much all olympic level sprinters have abs, even most females have some sort of definition in their stomach at least.
It helps to have some fat if you are a marathon runner for example, but in short spurts sports, specially sports where you need to be fast or sports with weight classes it pays to be lean.

Connor would rape that bitch and he is low bf

>Dexa scans can up to 5% wrong

You're thinking of calipers.

Yeah, but in all strength-related sports it pays to be a bit chunkier, even Oly lifting. Same goes for all combat sports, except they have weight classes, so they're forced to cut a certain amount of fat and keep as much muscle as possible.

Nah point stands dexa/ other methods are not accurate at all theres just no way to gauge bf

Source? It's more precise than calipers anyway because there can't be any human errors

Veeky Forums is generally clueless, like all fitness forums. We ignore science when it goes against dogma and we believe all kinds of bullshit.

And no, you cannot estimate bodyfat just from looking. Look up people who did DEXA scans or hydrostatic tests on youtube. Their bf% doesn't correlate with their looks at all.

It's all snake oil, smokes and mirrors. All of it.

Is that guy mentally retarded or do all Americans speak like that. Slur, high-pitched voice?

not in the am bro he's 6% max dorian yates shreds

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24914773
It's 5.7% for pencil beam and 2.5% for fan beam when measuring fat mass. So if this guy is at 17% there's an error of 5.7% * 17% = 0.969% at worst. He's between 16.03% and 17.97% and you're retarded.

Dexa is not reliable

Bro...

frauds have a vested interest in claiming ultra low bf% is actually 14% so they can try and trick people into thinking they're natty and sell them supplements

>DEXA is often referred to as the “gold standard” of body fat measurement, butresearch showsthat itcan be just as wrongas any of the other methods on this list.

>One studyfound that DEXA can be off by up to 10 percentage points.Twoothersfound DEXA’s error rates to be upward of 4 points.

>This helps explain why manybodybuilders have been confused by DEXA scans doneat their absolute leanest that range anywhere from 6 to 10%.

>Here’s why DEXA isn’t as great as many people think:

>1) The machines’ accuracyisaffected by a number of variables, including gender, body size, body fatness, disease state, andhydration state.
>2) Different machines rely on different algorithms to convert the raw data into a body fat percentage, andsome are better than others.
>3) The X-ray type(i.e. fan or pencil beam)affects the test’s accuracy.
>4) Different machines can produce different results—even two machines made by the same manufacturer.

>Unfortunately, just there’s no way to really know ifthe results of a DEXA scan are truly accurate.

muscleforlife.com/how-to-measure-body-fat-percentage/

lolwut?

Brah you can't be this retarded

who gives a shit what number he is he still looks like a pathetic fat cunt in the mirror

he's just bloated and megadosing creatine.
water would read as lean mass, wouldn't it?

So it's (((them))) at it again.

Because muscleforlife.com is more reliable than pubmed. BTW 10% of 17% is 1.7%, so even in this case he would be 18.7% at most

Yes but that doesn't make you any less fat, fatty

olympic lifting also has weight classes

Because bodyfat percentages are all bro knowledge. Like those charts of random dudes that are labeled "this is 12%, this is 20%, this is 5%."

None of those dudes were measured with scientifically proven methods of studying body composition, and we're just made by random chucklefucks, possibly even DYELs. Further, people just have different bodyfat distributio and not everyone at the same bodyfat looks the same. Fucking Alan Thrall had upper ab definition above 20% bodyfat because he has big abs that go really high up his torso and weird bodyfat distribution.

When you see a guy get tested with an accurate measurement, he comes back with a bodyfat percentage, and it doesn't resemble those random charts you've seen on Veeky Forums over the years that inform you about bodyfat percentage, you should think "wow those charts were bullshit", not "wow these tests are bullshit."

Finally, a man with at least an average IQ on Veeky Forums.

Could coath karen finally be the one to get him to win anything other than last place?

You realise that there's no accepted way of getting a truly accurate bf% estimate and that different tehniques give different measurements?

>Pretty much all olympic level sprinters have abs, even most females have some sort of definition in their stomach at least.
Do you know why?

BECAUSE THEY ROID

THEY

USE

STEROIDS

st00pid

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24914773

tissues absorb, reflect, or let a specific amount of high energy photons through them. It's a method with very low margin of error. Think about it user, if I blast some fat with X-rays and get a specific pattern and intensity on the other side, then blast some muscles, bone, etc. and they all have a different profile, then I can just blast the entire body, examine the image that results, and determine body composition. It's a proven method and those bodyfat percentage charts are bro-science.

Maybe. He actually seems to be serious about it this time.

Nigger spotted

Lmao, you didn't even click the link. The article I quoted links to and gets it's information from pubmed: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10393132

>olympic sprinters have abs, therefore steroids

nattylogic

All Americans are like that мoй бpaтaн

He really looks like a fucking psycho when he's leaning out

>links to an article that has nothing to do with DXA scan machines' accuracy
How do we get rid of niggers on Veeky Forums?

How do I get a body like this?

this dude is 13% according to a dexa scan, he posted on his stories the result of the scan and posted this picture couple days later

>OBJECTIVE:

Estimates of changes in percentage body fat (%BF) from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), skinfold thicknesses (SFTs), bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), and body mass index (BMI; in kg/m2) were compared with estimates from a 4-component (fat, water, mineral, and protein) model (%BFd,w,m), a more accurate method.

Listen you dumb nigger, the article is EXPLICITLY a study of the accuracy of DXA compared to other methods of body fat measurement. That's what the fucking study was, you stupid waste of oxygen. I guarantee you clicked the link, saw the words "pregnant women" in the title, then closed out. If you read even one sentence, you wouldn't have made such an asinine, uninformed reply.

Never post here again. You're too stupid and self-satisfied for this world. Kill yourself.

no you humongous retard, the point was that the amount of muscle mass a sprinter wants can not be kept with as low of a bf% as they have without roids. If a natty wanted to be as fast as possible, he wouldn't be nearly as lean as they are

if you seriously think there exists a single track and field professional that doesn't roid you're beyond clueless

It only says "DXA overestimated decreases in %BF in the DO and DE groups". That research doesn't mention how accurate DXA scans are at measuring bodyfat while the article I linked about Australian football players does. Those 6 and 10% margins of error were pulled out of your ass, still waiting for an actual source.

they specifically mentioned percentage points, not percentages. That mean Jason with his 17% scan could possibly be even as high as 27%

>that study only talks about the margin of error for DXA
>it doesn't talk about accuracy
Your parents must be disappointed in you. You're a failure to your bloodline, being this stupid.

Shut up nigger