thanks, generating a goal sheet

I would say 15% and tensing hard will bring it out faintly. 10-11% will prob be well defined. It will vary for different people..some may not even get a 6pack regardless of BF.

i think it also has alot to do with genetics, some people abs will show at 12% other have to cut down to 8% to get any definition

I agree with the 15% just starting to show. I am at about 15% now and I have something more like 2 columns, with deep cuts around each "column". There is just the faintest hint of 6 pack potential, especially the upper-4, but right around the navel there's just undifferentiated flatness.

I'd say at 12% I'd have what you'd call a 6 pack. At 10% and less you can start auditioning for ab-machine commercials. Of course not everyone distributes bodyfat the same way, but for men this seems really consistent to me. The development of your abdominal muscles has a lot to do with it as well. As someone who spent years doing countless crunches with the hopes that magical abs would appear through the flab, I have really strong abs. Its all in vain if you aren't <= 12% though....

What's the approximate % for women? Does it differ? Mine are starting to show (the top 4 anyway) but I don't think I'm down to 12%... maybe 15% but that still seems too low for where I'm at, but then again home BF measurement isn't an exact science!!

Body fat rating scale men women
Competition Shape (“ripped”) 3-6% 9-12%
Very Lean (excellent) < 9% <15%
Lean (good) 10-14% 16-20%
Average (fair) 15-19% 21-25%
Below average (poor) 20-25% 26-30%
Major improvement needed (Very poor) 26-30%+ 31-40%+

Typical average body fat for athletes male female
Distance runners 5-10% 10-16%
Elite marathon runners 3-5% 9-12%
Sprinters 5-12% 12-18%
Jumpers & hurdlers 6-13% 12-20%
Olympic gymnasts 5-8% 11-14%
Bodybuilders, contest condition 3-5% 8-12%
Bodybuilders, off season 6-12% 13-18%
Football players, running backs, receivers, def backs 7-9% NA
Football players, linebackers 14% NA
Football players, linemen 16-19% NA
Soccer players 7-12% 10-18%
Baseball/softball players 10-14% 12-18%
Pro basketball players 7-12% 10-16%
Wrestlers 4-12% NA
Cross country skiers 7-13% 17-23%
Tennis players 10-16% 14-20%
Swimmers 6-12% 10-16%

Since most female sprinters have abs, I would say based on the above info 12-13%.

On the subject...I'm bulking and probably around 10% bf right now, and I have a visible 6-pack when I flex. Even if I were 5% bodyfat and unflexed, I still don't think it would be visible without flexing - my stomach is soft until I do flex. (Don't feel or see any physical definition if my stomach is unflexed) Any ideas whats up with this? I've been training my abs for years.

I just posted this in another thread: it's mostly your make-up and genetics. The one time in my life I was down to 10% I barely had a 4-pack. I've seen people at 15% with a healthy 6%. I'm at 15% now and you can maybe see the top-two flexed. It really varies from person to person.

So to answer "How low?" You have to say "Low enough."

I just posted this in another thread: it's mostly your make-up and genetics. The one time in my life I was down to 10% I barely had a 4-pack. I've seen people at 15% with a healthy 6%. I'm at 15% now and you can maybe see the top-two flexed. It really varies from person to person.

So to answer "How low?" You have to say "Low enough."


In my experience, this is totally right. It is just plain incorrect to say that a male will see x number of ab muscles at a particular BF%. There are too many different body types.

For an extreme example, look at Arnold. In my opinion, he has great abs, but in a different way. At low BF%, I think his mid-section looks awesome....but you don't exactly see the typical looking 8- or 6- pack that some guys show at <7%. (And I would seriously doubt it's because he didn't work his abs.)

Of course, it's easy to use this argument to rationalize and say, "I'm just one of those guys who can't see a 6-pack until I'm at 7%". That may or may not be true.

The main point is, the percentage is just a number that can vary wildly depending on the method of measurement. And quite often, ab muscles are a poor way to judge BF%.

For me, the measuring tape and the mirror are probably my best guides. I have a Tanita scale and two different sets of calipers. The Tanita says I am around 9%, and both sets of calipers say I am <8%. But, I still have a little fat around my navel and in the rear love-handle area; and I can only see 4 ab muscles clearly when flexed. Who knows if the measurements are accurate? In the end, it doesn't matter because I still have a bit farther to go before I like what I see in the mirror.

Hmm. Maybe this is where training technique comes into play. For years I did the 200 crunch thing. Of course I've never been lower than 15% or so bodyfat before so I can't say whether that was effective or not, but I've been doing weighted crunches and leg lifts for the past several weeks and find that I can overload and fatique the abs much quicker - and without getting bored - and my abs are definately showing more than ever (of course I've been losing fat at the same time, for other reasons).

This article seems to agree with the weighted approach to training abs.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/lebrun2.htm

this link will probably help too:

http://www.ast-ss.com/training/exercises/execution.asp?bp=Ab&pn=1

Yep it all depends on how proportional your ab strength is to the rest of your body. If you have huge abs you'll see them at a higher bf%...if you have weak abs you'll never see good definition with them. They are just like any other muscle.

well i like this genetic discussion. strong abs runs in my family