His arms are flexed, the lower abs are veins not striations, and he's flexing sufficiently hard such that he needs to clench his fists. my shoulders look like that at 13%. he's not 7-9%. Look at his quads. 12 at the absolute highest, 9 at the absolute lowest.
because it's a % of total mass. If your fat mass remained static and your lean mass went up you'd have a lower bodyfat%. So if you don't have a lot of lean mass your bodyfat% will be higher than you'd think. The semi subjective scale of abs or not is mostly bullshit and the %s people throw out there more represent the numbers you'd see on someone a lot bigger.
Kek dude this is so completely wrong. If anything, the fact that he's lighter should make him look less defined because there's not as much muscular tissue to poke out from underneath the fat.
gay %
watch your mouth kid i'd easily knock you the frick out
thanks bro tune it it's gonna be sick
sub 10 probably. 8 if ur lucky.
at least 1%
I really hope he HEEMs Sterling
THRILLASHAW
going to get subbed by Aljo
de wa
You're a dinky little manlet, so lol. But, I'd guess about 10-12%. Good job, little one.
bout three fiddy
Killashaw is probably in the 7-5% range right now.
8%
about 5'5.
Keekkked
he's like 7-9%, i don't understand why all of these morons are saying 10% or higher
look at the fricking striations in his shoulders and lower abs
His arms are flexed, the lower abs are veins not striations, and he's flexing sufficiently hard such that he needs to clench his fists. my shoulders look like that at 13%. he's not 7-9%. Look at his quads. 12 at the absolute highest, 9 at the absolute lowest.
there is absolutely no way he's 12% bodyfat lmao jesus fricking christ
legs are often the last thing to gain conditioning, it's why pro bodybuilders are always going on and on about quad separation and glute striations
because it's a % of total mass. If your fat mass remained static and your lean mass went up you'd have a lower bodyfat%. So if you don't have a lot of lean mass your bodyfat% will be higher than you'd think. The semi subjective scale of abs or not is mostly bullshit and the %s people throw out there more represent the numbers you'd see on someone a lot bigger.
Kek dude this is so completely wrong. If anything, the fact that he's lighter should make him look less defined because there's not as much muscular tissue to poke out from underneath the fat.
think about what you're saying for a minute and you'll realize I'm right.
No because you're completely wrong. Yes being lighter means he's carrying less total fat tissue. That's why it's looked at by percentage, moron.