Poll: Abs vs. body fat. What % were you when yours appeared?

indextwo
indextwo Posts: 10 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I'm in a little bit of a quandary: When I started trying to lose weight (over 6 years ago) my original goal was 147lbs, which was what I weighed when I was 21. I have now passed that point (hooray! kinda), but my goals have changed in the meantime; 15% body fat, or visible abs - whichever comes first.

Now, I definitely still have a layer of blubber still covering them up, but according to various measurements I should either be pretty close to, or past the magical 15% mark at which you can see something: I have two sets of scales (my original Salter ones and a new FitBit Aria) which measure my body fat at between 14.3% - 16.6%. I've also tried my mom's scales which measure me at around 16%. I am aware that bioelectrical impedance measurements have a variability of 2-3% but all of the ones I've used have been consistent within themselves, so I would have said a body fat measurement of 14%-17% was reasonable.

So, my point! I'm wondering what kind of variability in body fat you experienced when/if your abs or other muscle definition started to show. What kind of body fat percentage did you have? Do you know?

I'm very interested because I've seen some pictures of people claiming to have a body fat of 7% and no abs (their readings might be slightly off...), and others of people with an apparent body fat of 16-18% looking way more shredded then me.

For science, here I am at 146lbs with somewhere between 14.3% - 16.6% body fat. Apparently. I am not a huge fan of this picture.

ef7pmor3g59e.jpg

Replies

  • usmcmp
    usmcmp Posts: 21,219 Member
    I have lots of volume in my abs, so I can see them at 23% (I'm a female, just in case someone is confused....there's always one). I'm 5'9" and 195 pounds at the moment, mine are still fairly visible. I like mine better when I'm around 18%.
  • usmcmp
    usmcmp Posts: 21,219 Member
    indextwo wrote: »
    I'm very interested because I've seen some pictures of people claiming to have a body fat of 7% and no abs (their readings might be slightly off...), and others of people with an apparent body fat of 16-18% looking way more shredded then me.

    Wanted to comment on this. Some people genetically do not get much abdominal muscle volume. They may never have a 6 pack due to genetics. A person could be at 7% and not have visible abdominal separation due to genetics. Also low body fat doesn't mean they have abdominal muscles.
  • indextwo
    indextwo Posts: 10 Member
    Yep, totally agree with that point: in that particular instance the guy had posted a picture and... it was extraordinarily unlikely that he was 7% body fat, unless it was a really terrible picture :/
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    edited October 2014
    I can see some abs at higher-than-average bodyfat % in my opinion/estimations. In the 16-18% range I can still see the top 4, obviously covered up. I'll see if I can find an old pic where I'm in the mid to upper teens with some abs.

    EDIT: Here is a relaxed and flexed shot, this is an older pic from about a year ago. I'm likely at least 15% in this photo if not slightly above. Now to be clear this is not a 6 pack -- far from it. But you can see some ab muscle at relatively higher bodyfat levels.

    wvka0vklqh1t.jpg
    j1f82lq92b0b.jpg
  • indextwo
    indextwo Posts: 10 Member
    edited October 2014
    Personally, I'd call that a 6 pack! Well done!
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    indextwo wrote: »
    Personally, I#d call that a 6 pack! Well done!

    It's really not, honestly. This is just what my abdominal area looks like when I'm at the end of a bulk. I really think it's genetics to a large degree. I appreciate the comment though and I'm not replying like this to be rude/etc.

    We were just discussing this on Sara's wall in fact. There's a genetic component involved where some people can get some ab separation at relatively high levels of bodyfat and others just can't. I just tend to see abs at fatter/higher bodyfat levels.
  • indextwo
    indextwo Posts: 10 Member
    I think that's kind of what I was trying to figure out. I've had the 15% figure in my head for over 6 years, and I think given the point that I'm at now, I'll probably need to revise that, but I'm not 100% what to - maybe 12-13%. Personally I'd choose 12, but only because I dislike odd numbers, and especially primes :neutral_face:
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    SideSteel wrote: »
    indextwo wrote: »
    Personally, I#d call that a 6 pack! Well done!

    It's really not, honestly. This is just what my abdominal area looks like when I'm at the end of a bulk. I really think it's genetics to a large degree. I appreciate the comment though and I'm not replying like this to be rude/etc.

    We were just discussing this on Sara's wall in fact. There's a genetic component involved where some people can get some ab separation at relatively high levels of bodyfat and others just can't. I just tend to see abs at fatter/higher bodyfat levels.

    You should post the pic of your reflection in the car!!! lol. Looked 20% and still had abs. :p

    On the flip side I do not get ab separation even at a low body fat even though I tend not to carry too much fat on my abdomen. I have pretty developed obliques and top abs, so they show even at a relatively high bf, but just do not have the tendons to make that '6-pack' visible even at a pretty lean BF% (18%). I would have to develop my ab muscles a lot to make up for the genetics and am still not sure if they would show much.

Categories