[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how a referenced wiki link is any less reputable than the things you posted. In fact I'd say its far more reliable. I saw that chart you posted earlier to make sure I was correct. In fact if you actually read the references you'd see that it is referencing the exact chart you posted. I typically expect a higher grade argument out of you. This is somewhat pathetic. I don't want to hear random ad hominem attacks when you just want to insist you are correct.

5% isn't a hard rule of course. I'm sure there are a few people that can walk around at that without ill effects. But they are very far and few between. To suggest that everyone needs to be between 5-7% when starting a bulk is asinine and just misinformation.

Should I amend my previous statement to say walking around at 5% could be unhealthy for 99% of people?

Also, water measurements are much much more accurate than other methods such as calipers which ignore visceral fat as I explained earlier. It is a much higher grade test than caliper or measuring body parts and using formulas etc. I don't see why you are even arguing this. This is pretty much exact fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

so if it is referencing it how is it reliable than? because obv the charts are different? Uhh.....I never said that water wasnt waay more reliable, its just not 100% exact, so pinning these hard lines down is tough to impossible. search any bodybuilding site for "ideal bf% to start a bulk", youd be hard pressed to find anyone that will advocate starting a bulk at more than 11% or so. stick between 5% and 10% is basically my whole point, bcause the less fat you have to begin with, the less fat you will gain.

[/ QUOTE ]

this part isn't really true at all. im becoming somewhat active on bodybuilding.com. i posted a set of progress pics showing me at 5'11 185lbs and roughly 15%bf. the overwhelming response from people was telling me to bulk up as i have relatively little muscle (i did ignore the advice, and am shooting for 10-11% before i start bulking). if i wanted to get down to 5-7% i would probably have to drop down to around 165lbs and that is damn skinny.

i have seen countless other similar thread recommending others in the 12-16%bf range to bulk for a quite a while before they even think about cutting. from my understanding, you are a pretty experienced lifter though, and probably already have a decent muscle base to work from where 7% isn't going to make you a bone rack. i am generally reading the sections geared towards teens and novices. considering the physical state of the average 2p2er though, i think it is much more reasonable to be giving them novice advice that programs geared towards an experienced lifter.

[/ QUOTE ]

anyone advocating starting a bulk at 15% for an inexperienced or experienced lifter shouldnt be giving out advice. I was talking mainly the guys who actually write the articles than teh posters. My fault. I dont think you need to get straight down to 5 or 6%, but if you are at 15%, diet down to 8 or 9%, and start a SLOW bulk, until you reach 11%, then you can diet down to 7%, bulk until you hit 10, and so on, until you have enough muscle mass that you dont look sickly when you are at 6%. bulking at anything over than 11 or 12% is less than ideal.