FORUMS > Cardio Training Forum Rules

I know that body fat percentage isn't the only crtierion to look for when determining a guy's fitness level, but it is important nonetheless.

In your opinion, what is the maximum body fat percentage a guy can have and still be considered muscular / fit ?

OP, you have no worries.

I always thought it was around 16%. My 24 fitness has a chart posted somewhere on the gym floor.

The most common I see is 17% as a max for 'fitness'. In my opinion whether or not you consider someone muscular/fit just by looking at them really depends on more than fat percentage, it also depends on somatotype.

Mesomorph have an easier time looking fit even as they approach 25%, whereas an ectomorph at 20% body fat looks really fat because his slender shoulders.

As a personal trainer, I have been taught that 5-13% is "Athletic" for men, and the recommended range is 8-22% for men under 34.

Source: NASM textbook

^^^ I agree with OtherWyze. It's helpful to post the minimum too. You can definitely go overboard and be too low to be healthy/fit.

well i got this information from my nutritionist

2-5%---->Least Essential
6-13%---->Athletes
14-17%---->Fitness
18-24%---->Average
25-30%---->Obese
>30%----->Obese+risk factor for cardiac disease


also have alook on that chart, regarding the age/fat percentage

http://images.search.conduit.com/ImagePreview/?q=%20idal%20fat%20percentage%20&ctid=CT2697877&searchsource=10&start=0&pos=21

In my opinion, I think anything over 17 isn't too fit. At school, we got tested 3x a year (each season) and the goal was to be under 12%. Then again, in my sport we ran all the time, and our coaches ran us like dogs, so this wasn't too hard to do. If you were over 12%, fat camp it was...

15% for men is considered average.
10-14% fairly lean

leviticii said
In your opinion, what is the maximum body fat percentage a guy can have and still be considered muscular / fit ?

Are we talking "straight fit", or "gay fit"?

I think it really depends on your body type. I have one of those electro meters and it says I'm usually 10-11% and I have small belly fat. I don't consider myself "fit" but I'm an ectomorph.

Do you consider a guy only fit if they have abs showing? From what I read you need to be around 7% for them to be visible.

um... body fat hasn't a great deal to do with how FIT you are.... Fitness is sport specific and many sports don't create super low body fat. Remember that "fitness" models are often not very fit despite very low body fat

S34n05 saidI think it really depends on your body type. I have one of those electro meters and it says I'm usually 10-11% and I have small belly fat. I don't consider myself "fit" but I'm an ectomorph.

Do you consider a guy only fit if they have abs showing? From what I read you need to be around 7% for them to be visible.

Body type dosent have anything to do with bf%. Your bf% is simply a number to show how much fat you have in relation to muscle.

Those electro thingys aren't accurate. Calipers are a cheap and a fairly accurate. The most accurate would be a DEXA scan but that's usually done in hospitals and cost $

There isn't a said percentage where you can see abs. But suffice to say most will see abs at 10% or less.

A recent Hydrostatic BMI test placed me at 17%. The technician congratulated me on reaching "fit" level.

Hydrostatic is the only method I found to be accurate. Is it available in your area? Another label is "the dunk test".

As a side note, the love handles are almost gone. I am still a ways away from 6-pack abs though.

Thanks again to the "Wheat belly" discussion.

DCrookChi saidIn my opinion, I think anything over 17 isn't too fit. At school, we got tested 3x a year (each season) and the goal was to be under 12%. Then again, in my sport we ran all the time, and our coaches ran us like dogs, so this wasn't too hard to do. If you were over 12%, fat camp it was...

Wow... Was Sue Sylvester your coach?

Litmop said

DCrookChi saidIn my opinion, I think anything over 17 isn't too fit. At school, we got tested 3x a year (each season) and the goal was to be under 12%. Then again, in my sport we ran all the time, and our coaches ran us like dogs, so this wasn't too hard to do. If you were over 12%, fat camp it was...

Wow... Was Sue Sylvester your coach?

Apparently, we aren't talking football. Besides, when I was his age, I don't think I could eat enough to gain the 17% I'm struggling to keep now at 46 with a career sitting in a cube farm.

GonzoTheGreat saidum... body fat hasn't a great deal to do with how FIT you are.... Fitness is sport specific and many sports don't create super low body fat. Remember that "fitness" models are often not very fit despite very low body fat

This.
Sumo wrestlers and defensive linemen are fit athletes in their sports and would be well above the 17% threshold. For gymnasts or divers being even 12% would be fat for their sports.
Then you have the people who don't have muscle strength, no cardiac conditioning, no balance, no flexibility, but are under 17% and maybe just go for walks.