DEXA scan accuracy and the 20% standard

[timelinex]

I wanted to preface this question by saying I am not exhibiting paralysis by analysis. I have decided to bulk regardless because I want to build a big LBM base before dieting. But I did want to clear things up and the most fitting category for this topic seems like nutrition.

According to SS literature a common rule of thumb thrown around of whether someone should eat a ton to progress or eat normally is 20% BF. What standard do you guys use for that BF%?

According to online pictures of different BF % , I would have guess I am at around 18% (16%-20% depending on which comparison I look at). Then I took a DEXA and it put be at a solid 25%, which blew my mind. That's with almost no visceral fat; So if anything, my visual estimation should have been higher than the actual result.

How much weight do you put on DEXA scan results and comparing them to your rule of thumb of 20%?

I'm 6ft ~197lb. Lift stat's:
Squats: 250x5x3
Bench Press: 235x5x3
DL: 290x5 (Had to take some time increasing flexibility before I could really go hard at this)

I know I am NOT cut, but is THIS really what 25% (with no visceral fat) looks like?

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

Yea 20-25% is about what I would guess based on those pictures with obvious recall bias on my part.

That said, you're undermuscled and so I would have no problems with having you gain weight.

The issue is, lots of people come into SS a little older and pretty untrained. Many have body fat >20% regardless of their body weight, you know? That's a hard issue to give a blanket recommendation for because it depends on a host of other factors as to what I would advise. That said, most people undergoing the SSLP shouldn't be trying to lose weight IMO.

[timelinex]

Yea 20-25% is about what I would guess based on those pictures with obvious recall bias on my part.

That said, you're undermuscled and so I would have no problems with having you gain weight.

The issue is, lots of people come into SS a little older and pretty untrained. Many have body fat >20% regardless of their body weight, you know? That's a hard issue to give a blanket recommendation for because it depends on a host of other factors as to what I would advise. That said, most people undergoing the SSLP shouldn't be trying to lose weight IMO.

OK sounds good. I guess I'm just a little surprised. I have always thought seeing any definition of abs is in the teens, but obviously I'm wrong. I guess I have always been "strong" for my muscle size ( Look at my chest size, but I can bench 260+). That probably has more to do with my CNS genetics and fiber ratio than amount of muscle I guess.

I started at 175lb, I am now 195ish, and my current goal is getting to around 220LB-ish before trying to cut 15% or so (power lifting meets are not my goal; Just general strength, health, & aesthetics). I figure that should give me a strong enough base at my height. I think the standard prescribed 1.0-2.0LB a week is probably to much for my BF%, so does 0.5-1.0 LB a week sounds more about right?

Thanks for the advice.

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

I think if you're on LP and underweight you should gain more weight than you think you should. Don't take this as a diss, but I think you'd be well served by getting much bigger and much stronger and the most efficient way to get there for you likely requires more weight gain than you think.

[timelinex]

I think if you're on LP and underweight you should gain more weight than you think you should. Don't take this as a diss, but I think you'd be well served by getting much bigger and much stronger and the most efficient way to get there for you likely requires more weight gain than you think.

Point taken. The wife and I have an appt with an ssc coach this upcoming Friday, so hopefully we will get our lift form dialed in and that will help my progression..

Thanks for your replies.

[nykid]

I think if you're on LP and underweight you should gain more weight than you think you should. Don't take this as a diss, but I think you'd be well served by getting much bigger and much stronger and the most efficient way to get there for you likely requires more weight gain than you think.

Given that he's at 25% now, how would you advise he approach this? Gain 1/2 lb per week for the next 1-2 years? And just live with being 30+% bf?

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

Given that he's at 25% now, how would you advise he approach this? Gain 1/2 lb per week for the next 1-2 years? And just live with being 30+% bf?

It depends on the individual's response and the context, so I can't make a blanket recommendation like that. In any event, LP only lasts like 12 weeks anyway so suggesting a 1-2 year process where weight gain is needed at a rapid rate is ill advised IMO.

[timelinex]

It depends on the individual's response and the context, so I can't make a blanket recommendation like that. In any event, LP only lasts like 12 weeks anyway so suggesting a 1-2 year process where weight gain is needed at a rapid rate is ill advised IMO.

Is 220lb at 6ft a good "generalized" goal to have before trying to lose some weight? (maybe down to 200-205? Before gaining again) I know I know, the novice phase ends when you can no longer keep adding the weight onto lifts easily. But even when you go into intermediate programming, you still need to keep gaining weight to progress. So the question is at what weight would I have a decent amount of muscle base to finally cut down and not look like a Somalian child.

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

Is 220lb at 6ft a good "generalized" goal to have before trying to lose some weight? (maybe down to 200-205? Before gaining again) I know I know, the novice phase ends when you can no longer keep adding the weight onto lifts easily. But even when you go into intermediate programming, you still need to keep gaining weight to progress. So the question is at what weight would I have a decent amount of muscle base to finally cut down and not look like a Somalian child.

It could be (220), but also may be significantly more or a little less. It's just hard to say from here.

[crookedfinger]

It could be (220), but also may be significantly more or a little less. It's just hard to say from here.

Am I wrong in thinking that a height/weight discussion is fairly empty without an included reference to current strength levels?

6' 220 with a 475 pound squat is much different than 6' 220 with a 300 pound squat