Ultimate Post Your Own Picture Thread - Topic

Me again, sorry for spam haha but this week was kind of special for me.

Got contacted by an independent show-biz woman who runs her own musicals/plays/theatrics. She needed a muscular guy that they could film flexing/posing shirtless for a thirty second commercial that will be broadcast/displayed in cinemas nationwide for two weeks.

First time I've ever done anything like that, absolutely zero experience in modelling, filming, or even posing/flexing. Never have I ever posed without looking at a mirror. So was a bit uncomfortable, but I think the result was pretty good despite the circumstances.

commercial will be available around November.

two pictures from that day, in the bathroom between the sets, half-natty lighting right there (yes I used a filter for one of the pictures, bcos Instagram reasons)

Started getting veins under my armpit, chest and now I got a thick one running down my obliques... Am I single digit yet?

Doesn't look so good on computer as it does on phone

the mirror was so damn tiny and so far away from the half-natty spot on lighting so I had to zoom in a lot.. hence blurry, but whatever

This post was edited by Crestron on Jun 22 2016 04:05pm

serialj0e

Member

Posts: 87,007

Joined: May 12 2013

Gold: 1,590.64

#21246

Jun 22 2016 04:09pm

Quote (Crestron @ Jun 22 2016 06:02pm)

looking cut mang gg

RewtheBrave

Retired Moderator

Posts: 27,588

Joined: Jul 5 2005

Gold: 505.00

Trader: Trusted

#21247

Jun 22 2016 04:28pm

Quote (Crestron @ 22 Jun 2016 18:02)

gz on the commercial work

solid physique there. pretty sure that's inside of single digits, but body composition is always weird to figure out from pictures

also compliments to other physiques posted recently -- and just for ppl posting for comments/etc

noob_whacker

Member

Posts: 15,942

Joined: Aug 11 2007

Gold: 8,221.76

#21248

Jun 22 2016 04:42pm

Quote (Crestron @ Jun 22 2016 06:02pm)

id guess 9 or 10 %

maybe a bit more idk. random guess

but nice work

post the video on here when u can?

maybe find it on youtube

Crestron

Member

Posts: 485

Joined: Jun 17 2016

Gold: 0.00

#21249

Jun 22 2016 04:57pm

Quote (serialj0e @ Jun 23 2016 12:09am)

looking cut mang gg

Thanks man :thumbsup:

Quote (RewtheBrave @ Jun 23 2016 12:28am)

Thanks

I measured 5.4% last week with a shitty fat caliper I bought online from China for like $1. I've tried using three site and seven site methods, get around the same results.

I don't know what's accurate, but I guess the only way of truly knowing is being dissecting and putting all of your fat on a scale :lol:

anyways if I'd guess myself based off of knowledge/experience probably 9-10% ish

RewtheBrave

Retired Moderator

Posts: 27,588

Joined: Jul 5 2005

Gold: 505.00

Trader: Trusted

#21250

Jun 22 2016 09:33pm

Quote (Crestron @ 22 Jun 2016 18:57)

anyways if I'd guess myself based off of knowledge/experience probably 9-10% ish

have you checked the "simple" tests on bodybuilding.com to add to the range of ideas you've tried?

also, consider investing in a fat analyzer, i.e., a handheld device as opposed to a scale. it's the familiar idea of shooting a current through the body and checking what's water and what's solid. i use one of those and you can get them for $20. accuracy varies , as with caliper testing and all the skinfold/tape/scale measures.

i assume that the fancy scales aren't 100% accurate, either. they just get to claim they have the best science and instrumentation because they're fancy.

i've also heard of some annoyingly complex methods of testing fat % by subtracting it from bone and fluid mass, which is next to impossible. it's a crapshoot.

where i'd cautiously estimate that you're a little under 10%, you've seen results around 5-6% and you've guessed you're @ 9-10%.

if all else fails i think the way to go is to look at a bunch of images that project the body fat % of the people in the images, just because that will be the perception people will have anyway. of course, most of the image sets i've seen really aren't spectacular, just because they vary a fair amount, and in several images i've seen, people who clearly have more bodyfat are listed as having less fat than people who clearly have more.

a reason why i don't trust any method but prefer the idea that a spectrum of results gives a plausible clue

Go Back To Health & Fitness Topic List