Do you believe this photo is reasonably accurate?

Those of you who have had body fat measured other than by a home scale, do you judge this photo as reasonably depicting body fat percentages?

o6xmnu0osdvy.jpeg

Replies

  • Johnd2000
    Johnd2000 Posts: 198 Member
    14-15% looks pretty accurate, to me. I’m a shade under 14% (by calipers) and would say I’m very slightly leaner than the picture.
  • JustSomeEm
    JustSomeEm Posts: 20,193 MFP Moderator
    Let me just stop you guys for a moment and point out that we have rules, which include things like:

    2. Treat others with dignity, compassion and respect
    I WILL:
    I will SHOW RESPECT.
    I will show kindness.
    I will respect that MyFitnessPal has a zero-tolerance policy for hate speech.

    I WON’T:
    • I won’t be a bully.
    I won’t belittle others.
    I won’t make any derogatory references to sex, gender, age, weight, body type, disability, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation.
    • I won’t stalk other members. This includes stalking a poster through the forums, posting about past events gone sour, divulging personal information, or spreading gossip or rumors.
    • I won’t make stereotypes against other members.
    • I won’t post discussions or comments that incite racism, bigotry, hatred or physical harm to any individual or group.
    • I won’t endorse violence against any person or group, even if couched in humor.
    • I won’t publicly post information that poses or creates a privacy or security risk to any person (i.e., by publicly posting any person's contact information on the forums).

    and

    3. No Trolling
    I WILL:
    I will stay on-topic in an existing discussion.
    I will report trolls instead of engaging them.
    • I will contribute politely and constructively to a discussion, or move on without posting.
    I will ignore users.

    I WON’T:
    I won’t troll.
    • I won’t flamebait.
    I won’t call someone out.
    I won’t police other members.
    I won’t feed the trolls.
    I won’t take a discussion off-topic, it’s considered hi-jacking.

    It's Wednesday, and I don't have the energy to be witty. If your post was 'cleaned' from this discussion and you don't understand why, shoot me a PM and I'll be happy to discuss.

    Em.
  • jdog022
    jdog022 Posts: 694 Member
    @JustSomeEm Wasn’t me was it?
  • jjpptt2
    jjpptt2 Posts: 5,650 Member
    If you carry your fat similarly to how those models do AND you have a similar amount of muscle mass as they do, then yes... it's pretty accurate.

    But if you carry your fat differently OR have meaningfully more or less muscle mass, then they can be rather misleading. Since most people aren't those models, pictures like these can be hard to use as anything more than interesting trivia.
  • mitch16
    mitch16 Posts: 2,113 Member
    jdog022 wrote: »
    No. 3-4 percent is way more shredded and frankly a step from death. That guy is probably closer to 8 or 9 and scale up from there

    ETA: interestingly the first 3 probably have the same BF % but the amount of muscle they have makes them seem different.

    Yeah, I don't think people should be consciously striving for 3-4% BF--that just screams body dysmorphia/eating disorder...

    To your other point, I think this graphic would be way more impactful if they used the same person at the various percentages, but that's probably too much work and would take too much time (photos over the course of several years). But the huge differences in body types/musculature make this misleading.
  • pierinifitness
    pierinifitness Posts: 2,231 Member
    This article uses the same two people to give a timeline of different bodyfat percentages, so it's probably better for discussing this subject:

    https://www.ruled.me/visually-estimate-body-fat-percentage/
  • Keto_Vampire
    Keto_Vampire Posts: 1,670 Member
    edited January 2019
    3-4% more like 6% nit-picking; but overall ok estimation. Agreed, 1st 3 pics likely all very close to each other for BF% (hard to tell without seeing legs, back, etc.)

    3-4% More like this guy named Andreas Munzer (literally died from being shredded to death from the cocktail of androgens & diuretics needed to maintain such a ridiculously low BF % finally catching up with him):
    j2dhyvrz3w7f.png

    BF% pics can be deceiving as BF location is very genetic (6-7% photo - note lack of leg striation (could be that he is not posing properly though) vs. very low BF% in torso). Usually BF% is underestimated focusing too much on "shredded" bodyparts vs. whole body BF% distribution (esp. for people with non-existent abdominal fat yet may have more lower back fat, thigh fat, glute fat, etc.).

    Tanning & lack of bodyhair as gives a more bias perception of BF vs. photos without tans, without shaving (not to mention lighting & angles, photshopping can contribute to these grand illusions as well...)
  • pierinifitness
    pierinifitness Posts: 2,231 Member
    edited January 2019

    Deleted