How accurate is pic related?
Found this and I always believed 14-16% looks leaner than pic related...
I've always wondered, are pics like these flexed or unflexed?
>>36521437
>How accurate is pic related?
Short answer: it's useless.
Long answer:
Since we're talking about measurements it's appropriate to bring up some high school science definitions again.
Accuracy is how close a given measurement is, on average, to a true value.
Precision is how much difference there is between individual measurements.
So there's a chance that this image is "accurate" in that each of the individuals shown might have the body fat percentage reported. But that's irrelevant to trying to decide what body fat somebody else is by just looking. Guessing based on how someone looks is neither accurate nor precise in estimating body fat.
There are both systematic (subcutaneous body fat distribution varies between people, visceral and subcutaneous proportions vary, absolute fat mass has more to do with appearance than relative fat mass, etc) and random (lighting, angle, water retention, glycogen state, etc) errors in this method.
I've seen people that look like 30% but by dual water weighing were actually 22%, I've seen people that look like 10% but by accurate testing were 16%.
The deal is, if you want to be healthy, aim for between 12 and 17% body fat. If you want to look a certain way, diet until you look that way.
Not too accurate. Everybody has bf in different places, to where someone with even high percentages with good genetics, may look better than you.
>>36521437
There's different amounts of lean mass there so it is useless. If you want an accurate read, shell out the money for a DEXA scan and stop reposting shit images
>>36522424
they're flexed for sure
>>36522587
>The deal is, if you want to be healthy, aim for between 12 and 17% body fat. If you want to look a certain way, diet until you look that way.
this autist gets it
