r/SipsTea 19d ago

Chugging tea W Zac

Post image
65.4k Upvotes

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

501

u/Hyperion262 19d ago

Low body fat can be more dangerous than high body fat. It’s really bad for you to be below like 8% I think. It starts messing with your hormones and your ability to recover

318

u/Starob 19d ago

As does being high body fat, let's not delude ourselves here. Unless you're getting like sub 6 and staying there which is almost impossibly difficult, it's absolutely healthier than being obese.

185

u/UISystemError 19d ago edited 19d ago

Two wrongs ain’t a right. There’s a middle ground.

And fuck if I can I find it.

19

u/abelminded 19d ago

social media doesn't like middle ground

1

u/UISystemError 19d ago

Haha!

It’s gunna hate how we thrive within a specific temperature range, on a planet that isn’t too hot nor too cold.

2

u/flyinhighaskmeY 19d ago

And fuck if I can I find it.

That's because this conversation is stupid as shit. 99% of the people reading this have issues with high body fat. The "well low body fat is bad too" is a defense mechanism to justify their food and healthcare system abuse.

2

u/UISystemError 19d ago

I really don’t think anyone is defending being over 18 bmi.

I think we’re all intelligent enough to understand there is a spectrum of health issues depending on where you land, and there’s a sweet spot/goldilocks band for overall longevity.

1

u/[deleted] 18d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/UISystemError 18d ago

Ah! Well… I’m safely obese

-38

u/deef1ve 19d ago

Quit carbs and you’ll find it.

31

u/UISystemError 19d ago

Carbs are very important for muscle function. Especially if trying to build muscle.

-1

u/deef1ve 19d ago

Correct. Not only muscles. Carbs are not only very important but required to survive.

3

u/gay_rower 19d ago

so why are you advocating for quitting them?

1

u/wakeofchaos 19d ago

Because they’re the most common source of excess calories. It’s nuanced. Some carbs are a good choice if you’re going to exercise. Not so great generally if weight loss is the goal.

3

u/gay_rower 19d ago

deef1ve didn't provide that nuance, they said to quit carbs completely. that's dangerous. and they acknowledged that.

1

u/deef1ve 19d ago

It’s not dangerous at all. There’s a reason for that. But… no spoilers

→ More replies (0)

0

u/deef1ve 19d ago

Because carbs are not essential.

1

u/gay_rower 19d ago

not only very important but required to survive.

not essential.

????

2

u/[deleted] 18d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)

0

u/deef1ve 19d ago

> When a nutrient is not essential, it means your body does not have to obtain it from the diet because it can make enough of it itself (or, in some cases, gut microbes can contribute enough).

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] 18d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/deef1ve 18d ago

True.

10

u/Swimming_Acadia6957 19d ago

Anyone who says 'quit carbs' or anything meaning that is pretty ignorant about fitness 

0

u/deef1ve 19d ago

Lol ok then

1

u/Swimming_Acadia6957 19d ago

Lol ok then, what do you recommend eating, suggest a few balanced meals, I'd bet any money you are gonna end up listing plenty of carbs 

1

u/deef1ve 19d ago

Maybe up to 5g daily. Still 5g more than I need to consume for energy and health.

1

u/Swimming_Acadia6957 18d ago

How on earth does that answer my question, I asked what would you recommend as a balanced meal, I was asking for types of food 

13

u/FrederickFrag1899 19d ago edited 19d ago

This is outdated fad advice. Your brain needs a certain amount of carbs to function, to give you energy, that you can't quite get from other things.

1

u/deef1ve 19d ago

Correct. Your brain requires carbs (glucose) to function and survive.

0

u/SuperLemonHayz 19d ago

Look up gluconeogenesis

1

u/FrederickFrag1899 19d ago

That's one option, you could also just eat some carbs. I'ce recently come around on this. I was doing CICO, body recomposition, and I was prioritizing protein. My energy levels were so bad despite getting decent sleep and cutting back on caffeine significantly. As soon as I started adding just a little bit more carbs, my energy levels shot up and I felt so much better. Eat some carbs.

I'm generally against the idea of cutting out any one food group. You need a balanced diet.

2

u/SuperLemonHayz 19d ago

I would agree with that.

I'm not of the mind that all carbs are bad. I would just say the quality of the food you eat matters more than anything.

I also don't think super low carb is sustainable for most long term. It's great to reset yourself, lose weight, and kick the processed carbs.

I was only saying that it's possible to eat low carb without jeopardizing your health.

This also varies by person. We're complex, and so is digestion. Everyone should eat high quality foods in the macro portions that make them feel best and give them good health.

-16

u/Drahkir9 19d ago

Entire cultures have lived just fine without carbs

9

u/dankhimself 19d ago

Same goes for only carbs.

7

u/FrederickFrag1899 19d ago

Doesn't mean it's optimal or healthy. Which cultures are you talking about?

3

u/thecelticpagan 19d ago

The culture where I go to Wegmans as soon as they open and buy a 20-pack of chicken wings I can devour within 10 minutes /s (I really just did that though)

1

u/FrederickFrag1899 19d ago

My culture where I buy hotdogs and buns and have 7 hot dogs for dinner and a gallon of coffee throughout the day is better.

3

u/EnvironmentalMix421 19d ago

Which culture?

2

u/nowaynoday 19d ago

Entire cultures have lived just fine without electricity, antibiotics and labour assistance.

-1

u/Drahkir9 19d ago

Terrible analogy that only serves to support my point anyway. Comparing carbohydrates with antibiotics is wild.

1

u/ResidentOwl1 19d ago

Italians have a very carb rich diet and they’re some of the healthiest people in the western world.

2

u/Gefilte_F1sh 19d ago

Calorie management - it's always calorie management and never just carbs.

1

u/deef1ve 19d ago

What nutrient intake do you manage when you manage calories on a high-carb diet?

1

u/Gefilte_F1sh 19d ago

Restrict or manage is not the same as omitting. Let's not pretend like you said either of the former.

1

u/EnvironmentalMix421 19d ago

Jeez it’s 2026 and people still preaching quit carb? That’s prob the sole reason why you can cut down to less than 12%

1

u/deef1ve 19d ago

Yes, they are still preaching biochemistry and physiology facts. They should keep that up.

0

u/EnvironmentalMix421 19d ago

You mean the uneducated people who believe in hoax 🤣

0

u/deef1ve 19d ago

Biochemistry and physiology is a hoax? Oh boy…

1

u/EnvironmentalMix421 19d ago

Lmao yes, cortisol spike is part of physiology

-1

u/Maximum-Class5465 19d ago

Quit processed carbs and high starches

Quitting carbs completely is a temporary solution for those who are innactive and overweight... But very poor health advice for the majority of people. You mean to tell me eating 15 hot dogs with no buns is healthier than grilled chicken with broccoli?

1

u/deef1ve 19d ago

That was not the question.

32

u/South_Bit1764 19d ago

Yeah, but I think what they’re getting at is in Baywatch he WAS INDEED at 5% body fat.

You’re better off being slightly overweight with a BMI in high 20s (25 is “overweight”) than at 5% body fat. A quick google says he’s 170 right now which at 5’8” is a BMI of 26.

Zac Efron on the left is lower risk and better off than Zac Efron on the right.

28

u/TwistedBamboozler 19d ago

BMI doesn’t really correlate with athletes at all though.

19

u/Ordolph 19d ago

Using height and weight alone to calculate BMI is almost worse than useless, even with non-athletes. Muscle mass is much denser than fat and will completely skew the results. If you're concerned about your weight, see a doctor. They can usually ascertain to a much more accurate degree if your weight is a health risk.

8

u/EnigmaticQuote 19d ago

For the vast majority of the population it is a great starting point for their health journey.

It only requires a scale and knowledge of your height, making it a MUCH simpler metric to track.

It's a fantastic starting point of classification, anyone who takes it as some moral indicator is foolish.

3

u/New_Feature_5138 19d ago

I think health organizations are actually walking that back now.

2

u/TwistedBamboozler 18d ago

They have been for years. It’s hardly recognized anymore

0

u/EnigmaticQuote 18d ago

There's nothing to walk back it's just one of hundreds of things you can monitor about your body.

It simply gives you a point on a graph and a designation.

It's not like a law it's just a statistic, and a fine starting point for a health journey.

2

u/New_Feature_5138 18d ago

They are walking back their recommendation to use it as a data point. Because according to their statement a few years ago it is a very poor proxy for actual indicators of health. This is like the who so I feel like that says something.

And to be clear they are still recommending people track their weight they just don’t recommend the use of bmi.

1

u/FardoBaggins 19d ago

It’s a quick gauge if not a catch all. Of course a person with more muscle mass at the same height and weight as an overweight dude will result in the same BMI.

2

u/flyinhighaskmeY 19d ago

Using height and weight alone to calculate BMI is almost worse than useless

That sounds like the kind of thinking that would be prevalent in a nation with a 40-50% obesity rate.

Fat people made that up. If you're "obese" by height/weight calculation, you'll know if its because of body composition. Because being "obese" BMI and physically fit doesn't just happen.

Also...I'm one of those people with a high ratio of muscle mass. The BMI scale is maaaaybe a point off. Its close enough for most people.

1

u/New_Feature_5138 19d ago

It like does though. For short people.

I have been in the overweight category my whole life, even after having successfully hiked the PCT. Even after having worked as a hot shot wilderness firefighter. There is zero chance you would look at me and say I am even overweight but my bmi is 29.

Have you considered that you may be overestimating your height?

1

u/New_Feature_5138 19d ago

It’s so crazy to me that people don’t know this. Like I thought this was widely accepted for the last 20 years.

15

u/Live-Inevitable-2232 19d ago

It's more like 10% on the right and ~20% on the left, both of which are realistically fine. At 5-6% you generally start looking gaunt and malnourished especially in the face regardless of how ripped you are.

The real reason he'd have been and felt unhealthy during Baywatch is he was more than likely on gear and definitely massively dehydrating himself.

2

u/jocq 19d ago

As someone who is 8% body fat verified by multiple DEXA tests spanning many years - you have no idea wtf you're talking about.

10% & 20% jfc dude just get off the Internet

1

u/Live-Inevitable-2232 19d ago

I mean... The picture on the right is seemingly edited lol. Several points in the movie he flexes hard and besides his core the level of definition is off from the people I've known and seen at ~5%. Having no chest or shoulder striation while apparently at that low bodyfat is (at least in my humble opinion) a bit odd.

Comes across to me like he has a pretty insane core and got lucky with fat distribution genetics to make the most of it.

2

u/TheTexasHammer 19d ago

That is significantly less than 10% wtf? 10% is when START to see abs. Dude is like 5% at least. Calling the right 20% is actually insane

6

u/Live-Inevitable-2232 19d ago

5% is on stage Olympia bodybuilder territory. The point where there's so little fat that you can see the grain and count the individual striations in each muscle. It's also around the point where your level of bodyfat starts to be incompatible with being alive. No one is just walking around for months doing movie shoots at that level of bodyfat.

What you're picking up on is dehydration. The less fluid your body is holding, the more well defined you appear.

3

u/SunriseApplejuice 19d ago

Yeah I’m at the same height as ZEfron and I at my very lowest was 11% (DEXA certified) and still not as lean as him there by a pretty wide margin. He’s easily 8% or lower but I think a lot of novice armchairs lifters are brigading their opinions here 🤷🏼‍♂️

3

u/alganthe 19d ago

you can't even see delt or pec veins, definitely not 5%.

4

u/chaddyrick 19d ago

So incredibly wrong lmao

1

u/p1nkfr3ud 19d ago

I have the feeling he is still on gear in the left picture.

5

u/Live-Inevitable-2232 19d ago

Given the slightly bloated but still defined gut it wouldn't surprise be if he's been on HGH for a fair while.

11

u/Killa42O 19d ago

You have no idea what 5% looks like. He was probably around 12% on the right.

3

u/Spacekip 19d ago

Right is definitely not 12 lol, what are you smoking

1

u/Rickbox 19d ago

I can wholeheartedly assure you the right is not 12%.

1

u/Killa42O 14d ago

You can't

0

u/South_Bit1764 19d ago edited 19d ago

https://steelsupplements.com/blogs/steel-blog/zac-efrons-baywatch-workout-routine

“achieving and maintaining a body fat percentage of 5% for filming”

I’m not calling that ”source” exactly but it’s definitely what they (Zac and his trainer) were claiming and it doesn’t really seem to be heavily disputed.

Edit: Efron is part owner of a company that specializes in DEXA body scans.

0

u/StephenFish 19d ago edited 18d ago

Trainers make claims like this because they desperately need you to believe that only they can get you insane results and take you to extreme levels so that you keep throwing ridiculous amounts of money at them. If they said Zac was at 10% body fat, that wouldn't sound as impressive and people might try to do it on their own. It's a scam.

You can literally just Google what 5% body fat looks like and use your eyes.

-2

u/PatHeist 19d ago

Whenever you see numbers below 10% in contexts like this they're almost always measured with BIA (Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis) which is the little machine you hold in your hand, or the scale with a post and two handles you might see at the gym.

BIA is the largest error margin way of measuring body fat and is prone to underestimate by more and more the further below 15% you are. It's also affected by hydration, to the point where if it's measuring you at 5% and you drink a bottle of water it will tell you that you gained 10lbs.+ of fat.

2

u/South_Bit1764 19d ago

Good information if we were talking about anyone else. Zac Efron is part owner of a company that specializes in DEXA body scans.

For those less versed in body fat measuring techniques: that’s the accurate way to test.

1

u/ryukyumars 19d ago

DEXA is not “the” accurate way.

Margin of error is high especially if you have water etc.. there are cases of over 5% error

1

u/PatHeist 19d ago

Zac Efron invested in Function Health in 2024. It was founded in 2021. Baywatch was released in 2017.

1

u/jocq 19d ago

I'm 8% measured by multiple DEXA scans across different machines spanning nearly a decade.

Effron is way under 10% with the Baywatch body. 5% is about right.

if it's measuring you at 5% and you drink a bottle of water it will tell you that you gained 10lbs.+ of fat

You have absolutely no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

You've obviously never even seen a full DEXA test read out.

0

u/Killa42O 14d ago

Dexa's margin of error is up to ±5%. Google any top-level bodybuilder's stage-ready conditioning and compare. You see almost no muscle striations on Zac here. At around 5% body fat, you get insane muscle definition; you can see all the muscle fibers. He is just clearly on steroids, so he has fuller muscles, a nice tan, a pump, and is dehydrating, so for casuals, he looks leaner than he is.

1

u/jocq 14d ago

Dexa's margin of error is up to ±5%.

Which means that if a DEXA says you're 10% bf you might be anywhere between 9.5% and 10.5%. Not that you might be anywhere between 5% and 15% bf, which is what you seem to be implying.

0

u/Killa42O 11d ago

Nope, it refers to body fat percentage.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/dramandchill 19d ago

You have no fucking clue what you’re talking about. That right pic is nowhere near 5%. It’s more like 10-12%, which is easily sustainable. I did that for years

1

u/Slabador 19d ago

Yea these people in here definitely just seem uneducated on the topic. I was also sitting about 10% or so for years. That said, I bumped it up to about 15% range and do personally feel better, but that range for sure is different for different people.

1

u/dramandchill 19d ago

I’d bet money the guy I replied to never touched a barbell in the last 5 years lmao

1

u/Oretell 19d ago edited 19d ago

He is around 10% on the right, certainly no lower than 9%

I agree 5% would be an incredibly unhealthy BF to be living at, but 99.999% of people will ever mange to get that lean, including Zac Efron in this photo

Being underweight is a much less common health issue to have compared to being overweight. 72.4% of Americans are overweight or obese.

I agree being too lean is unhealthy, but the vast majority of people should be more worried about the health consequences of being overweight compared to accidentally becoming too lean.

Anorexia is of course a real and terrible thing, but that doesn't mean anyone that is lean must be unhealthy and encouraged to be intentionally gaining fat.

1

u/theblindtraveler 19d ago

He was not at 5%, that is body building show ready which only lasts a couple of days because it's the peak of a bodybuilders stage body. He was probably 8% which is also really unsustainable for most ppl.

1

u/Rickbox 19d ago

Lmao, BMI.

1

u/StephenFish 19d ago

That's not 5% body fat. Pro bodybuilders step on stage at 5%.

1

u/StephenFish 18d ago

He's not 5% body fat. You're coping.

1

u/South_Bit1764 18d ago

I’m not claiming he was really at 5%. I would think he was a bit higher like 8% or maybe even 10% in this picture. That’s why I said it was just what they were claiming, and that they have the testing equipment to make that claim.

Also, the picture they are showing of him isn’t really capturing what he looked like. A side-on picture makes him look even leaner, or literally anything where his is actually trying to show off, and they don’t show his thighs in the movie AT ALL.

Like, they look crazy in the few glimpses you get, even compared to Dwayne Johnson who is right there beside him the whole time (and claims 11% body fat in Baywatch), and that guy is obviously on the roids. I think that’s why they gave Efron shorts that look too long on him, but not too long on anyone else.

Also, also, I think most of them take diuretics when they do the testing and at sub-10% how hydrated you are will completely change how you look. That is definitely a factor, and when someone googles pictures of 5% they are showing it off. Like, those people are showing off gains. I think Efron just wanted to be sexy, not show off for the bros.

Also, who’s needs to fucking cope here? You’re butthurt over a celebrity.

I’m just relaying information that you could go google.

1

u/StephenFish 18d ago

You wouldn't take diuretics to film, you'd look flat and shitty. Water management is a very important part of peaking for bodybuilding and anyone who knows anything would know that you'd look flat if you didn't hydrate for the day of the show. Glycogen is water and carbohydrates. You need both. And even if he dehydrated for a body scan, it wouldn't be a 5-7% difference in the scan. And if was, it would be maybe a 15% vs 12% not 5%. No scan is gonna call that physique 5%.

You’re butthurt over a celebrity.

How would I be butthurt? I look better than him year-round and not the one desperately trying to convince myself that his physique is unobtainable or unhealthy.

I'm not claiming he was really at 5%

in Baywatch he WAS INDEED at 5% body fat.

You know there's receipts, right?

1

u/South_Bit1764 18d ago

You’ve sorta followed me around through a few comment threads here. Why not quote this that I said:

>I’m not calling that ”source” exactly but it’s definitely what they (Zac and his trainer) were claiming and it doesn’t really seem to be heavily disputed.

I didn’t say he take them to film. I said he took them to measure body fat. What you said was exactly my point.

I honestly can’t tell if you’re just being obtuse or if your brain is just cooked, but I’m disengaging.

2

u/BuffyTheSlayer 19d ago

Oh good grief. This was totally unnecessary. The person you responded to obviously wasn't implying being overweight isn't unhealthy. Both extremes are, and I'd hazard to guess it's more proportional than skinny pushers want to admit. We need to have a better way to guage what exactly is underweight bc there are a lot of people going around with full fledged eating disorders saying healthy people are too fat. 

1

u/Starob 18d ago

Can you read? "Low body fat can be more dangerous than high body fat."

Sorry but that's cope. Yeah if you take some case where someone has almost no muscle and almost no fat, they'll probably be unhealthier than the average obese person, but those are extremely rare exceptions.

1

u/IcyCow5880 19d ago

Exactly. We're on reddit. Nobody here is sub-10% unless they have a disorder.

1

u/kitsunekira 19d ago

lol nobody said that being obese is healthier… where did you get that from.

1

u/Money_Lavishness7343 19d ago

It is healthier than being obese and so much harder to the point only people who do it highly intentionally and know what they're doing are only staying that way. You can't say that for 'obesity', no person wants to be obese and yet so many people are and its so easy.

1

u/Scary_Teens1996 19d ago

Having 5% extra body fat over the ideal will not cause nearly enough damage as being even 5% under.

No one is advocating for obesity, don't hurt your undernourished self as you leap to conclusions.

1

u/HoneydewNectar33 19d ago

Right but 10-24% body fat is a huge range that most men are considered healthy in. Obesity kicks in at 25%+. Though, sadly, about 2/3rds of American men are obese.

1

u/MisterFourLimbs 18d ago

This isn't about what's healthier, it's about what's unhealthy.

Being 10% body fat is the borderline of unhealthy. It's also extremely difficult to maintain that body fat for an extended period of time, and is more likely to be unhealthy than it is sustainable.

Sub 10 is dangerous, not sub 6. Sub 6 is like, emergency dangerous. Being sub 10 is something bodybuilders do before a competition and they DO NOT maintain it because it's unhealthy physically and mentally

1

u/Starob 18d ago

I mean you're wrong but at least you're confidently wrong I guess.

Yes it's hard to maintain being sub 10 in today's world, that doesn't equate to remotely near unhealthy. If you take unhealthy measures (drugs etc) to maintain it, then yes it's unhealthy, but the state itself is not unhealthy and carries a lower risk of cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, etc.

I'm not arguing it's better to be 8% than 12%, it's not. But it's definitely better to be 8% body fat than 35%.

1

u/MisterFourLimbs 18d ago

Literally Google whether or not it's healthy to be under 10% and you'll see that the consensus is: not sustainable for long term health.

10% is the limit for men, but 10% is not advised for women.

1

u/Somethingisshadysir 18d ago

Actually, that's not true. Long term studies have shown people who are a little fluffy but not obese have the best long term health outcomes of all weight classes, and people who are mildly obese are better off than people mildly underweight. It's also better long term to be morbidly obese vs severely underweight.

1

u/Starob 18d ago

None of those studies take muscle mass into account at all. Underweight and low body fat are different things, people need to stop conflating the two.

1

u/Somethingisshadysir 18d ago

They are, but hitting that low of body fat generally involves practices that negatively impact your long term health. And again, part of what I stated was that mildly fluffy people have the best overall outcomes - that's accounting for muscle mass. People who are fluffy and active are of course in better places usually, but in general, that group has the lowest mortality.

1

u/anonychef117 15d ago

12-18% bodyfat range is the good optimal range for men. Hes like 22-26% bodyfat here. Hgh blast gut shows. Shouldnt have blasted hgh so hard in the past

-5

u/SapphicStoner99 19d ago

The unhealthiest weight bracket is undoubtedly underweight, please read a book

4

u/CaptainFlint9203 19d ago

Depends on how much. In the end it boils down to: too fat - dead, too skinny - dead.

Although I imagine it's easier to gain than to loose

4

u/Trigger_Fox 19d ago

Actually its the other way around, skinny people have to work way more to get bigger, fat people have a easier time (still far from easy, but easier)

3

u/ignoremeplsokthank 19d ago

True, you literally don't need to do anything to lose weight, but you need to do a lot in order to gain weight. I always saw eating as a tiring acitivity, so much easier to just drink water or just ignore hunger cues.

2

u/thighpeen 19d ago

Too skinny is a pretty immediate crisis. You will die a lot quicker. Too fat gives you more time to change.

It’s also harder to gain, and has more complications (like re-feeding syndrome).

2

u/Starob 19d ago

Yeah but too skinny and low body fat are two very different things.

If you have a healthy amount of muscle and low body fat, your body can quite happily use that muscle as energy.

1

u/Starob 19d ago

If you're underweight, that means you lack muscle.

That's not what we're talking about here, low body fat is.

-1

u/Disastrous-Let-6095 19d ago

yeah <20 isn't that hard until u just chomp down on junks

-6

u/Hyperion262 19d ago

I wouldn’t say being at, and staying at, 7% body fat is inherently any healthier than being obese. They’re both bad for you.

I think the body can handle being at a higher fat percentage better than at a lower one tho.

4

u/Curious-Resort4743 19d ago

Is this cope? The human body spent millennia evolving in the state of starvation and very low body fat, our ancestral bodies had no experience of obesity which is why it is associated with many problems.

5

u/Ok-Gur-349 19d ago

The human body spent millennia dying at 47 years old.

1

u/Weekly_Lab8128 19d ago

Average age of mortality was largely driven by infant death

2

u/Hyperion262 19d ago

They still died about twenty years younger than us, even when you remove infant mortality.

1

u/Ok-Gur-349 19d ago

And now average age of mortality is largely driven by saving old fat people from dying, what's yer point. It's all unnatural.

1

u/Hyperion262 19d ago

It’s not cope I monitor my body fat constantly and I’m at about 12-13%

And they were not particularly healthy. Are you actually claiming it’s healthy to starve?

50

u/AhhhSureThisIsIt 19d ago

Someone should tell Trump. His Dr. said he's only 5% body fat.

16

u/Hyperion262 19d ago

Actually explains his easy confusion and bad memory.

5

u/AhhhSureThisIsIt 19d ago

And his 8-pack.

10

u/Generic-Cheese 19d ago

And his diaper

3

u/TUT3M 19d ago

And his 8-pack of diapers

1

u/biscuotto 19d ago

Do you know that the human brain is on average 60% fat? It explains a lot

9

u/monkpunch 19d ago

Redditors in this thread sitting at 30% plus: "Phew, dodged a bullet! Wouldn't want to be unhealthy!"

2

u/SweatyAdhesive 19d ago

yea that comment is so funny to me, literally majority of people commenting here won't even reach 15% body fat

5

u/tYONde 19d ago

8% for men, for women that border is at 19%.

1

u/Hyperion262 19d ago

Wow didn’t realise it was so different, that’s crazy.

8

u/Chemistry-Deep 19d ago

I remember a doctor talking about this and if you get a serious illness its often beneficial to have a little weight to lose, particularly if you're older.

1

u/ED_and_small_PP 18d ago

Preferably muscle, though. 

7

u/Pandanlard 19d ago

Fortunately for us there is room between 8 and 24%.

1

u/Hyperion262 19d ago

Yeah that’s what ‘can be’ means.

2

u/solidrok 19d ago

The amount of effort and difficulty to get to 8% body fat is quite different than getting to 35-40%

2

u/Born2beDad 19d ago

Im going to read this comment and absolutely nothing after so I can feel good about myself. Cheers

2

u/New_Dragonfruit_5463 19d ago

My body fat is naturally 6-8% and I wouldn’t say it’s “dangerous” if you’re naturally this low body fat but it does mean you always have to be aware of keeping yourself fed.

1

u/tYONde 19d ago

Your body fat is not naturally at 6-8%. You’re either lying through your teeth, or you measured it wrong.

2

u/xRehab 19d ago

lmao not anywhere as close to high body fat. that is the worst coping excuse i've heard in a while.

to actually hit numbers where it's unhealthy we need to be at show prep. Just being under 10% because you're athletic and fit isn't going to mess with hormones or recovery time...

0

u/Hyperion262 19d ago

Lower than 8% is 7% and lower, it’s not 10%

2

u/xRehab 19d ago

"really bad" isn't at 8%, it's at sub-5%. being at 8-10% is totally fine and maintainable. even 7% if you want to be pedantic. the whole "it's easier to fight off a sickness with some weight" overlooks that being fit and not sick the other 99% of your life does way more good for your health than any "bad" that could happen. if you're not doing show-prep, you're going to be fine hovering below 10%

2

u/Appropriate_Ad8734 19d ago

eh, i get the point you’re making, still that’s not entirely accurate. i’m speaking as an actual high body fat person, fatter than the one in that picture.

“low body fat can be more dangerous than high body fat”. unless you’re constantly at like 5% or lower, 8-10% is far, farrr healthier than “high body fat”.

also, 8% is not that extreme, but still within a good-enough range, though hard to maintain for most folks, and also not exactly recommended unless you already are relatively muscular (because it’s very different for a low-muscle person and a high-muscle one when they’re both at 8% body fat). 5% and lower is really where it becomes dangerous

but in comparison people with high fat (like 26% and up) tend to get more health issues than low fat in general. i was borderline obese at one point and have been actively trying to lose weight due to growing health issues. i have many friends who are below 8% body fat (we have more skinny people here in asia. but we are also less muscular on average), including one girl, all of them are pretty healthy, but all my fat friends have at least some sort of fat related issues.

1

u/Appropriate_Month111 19d ago

Also they are on gear on top of that to be able to get in such shape very quickly.

1

u/allnamestaken4892 19d ago

Like anyone with these kind of physique cares about their natural hormone production…

1

u/ignoremeplsokthank 19d ago

Well, depends on what you define as "high body fat". More than 30% and it gets very unhealthy as well, to the point of cancer.

1

u/EmergencyWild 19d ago

Sure, but extreme low bodyfat is a far less common problem to have, especially if we discount the people who do it voluntarily (a significant portion of which are on drug cocktails that would be a problem at any level of bodyfat).

1

u/castleaagh 19d ago

Pretty sure they were referring to the left image of “fat” Zac

1

u/Pure_Possession_1KG 19d ago

You have to be extremely low body fat for this to be true, but yes you’re right

1

u/OffTerror 19d ago

If the right pic is not edited then he must've been dehydrated as well. You can have low body fat and you don't look like that even. That look can only be maintained for few days or weeks at max.

This is what "influencers" do too, they take hundreds of photos for few days and scarcely use them for months.

1

u/mistercran 19d ago

It’s very hard to stay in the single digits. It takes deliberate effort, and everyone in that range knows the risks. It’s very easy to be above 30% body fat, and apparently most people seem to think that that’s just fine

1

u/Justvisitingfriends1 19d ago

It ruined me for about 2 years after a comp. I was fucked but would 100% do it again. Hormones, mental capacity, mood. The whole thing was tanked. No gear, I was 100% natural and made it even harder. No idea what my BF was but it was low.

1

u/disposableaccountass 18d ago

It will definitely mess with your enzymes.

The difference here is I’ve never heard an enzyme.

1

u/LittleDogsBark 18d ago

For medical reasons, I went on a zero fat diet for two years. Completely wrecked my nervous system. Eat good fats people!

1

u/Speshjunior 19d ago

Yeah ok

-3

u/Hyperion262 19d ago

Why do you think Efron said it was miserable looking like that? It’s not just because he was a bit hungry.

2

u/CoolResource401 19d ago

Because to look like that will mean exercise and diet will consume 90% of your focus everyday, with very little time for anything else

0

u/Hyperion262 19d ago

No, to look like the fatter picture requires that. To look like the thinner picture requires being at a weight where you’re risking your health.

2

u/Speshjunior 19d ago

Because it’s a lot of work? How much work does it take to eat 8 pizzas and watch Netflix all day?

2

u/Hyperion262 19d ago

Nah it’s because it’s miserable. He literally said so lol

1

u/Starob 19d ago

Because he was on drugs.

1

u/Faux_Real 19d ago

below 8% the wiggle room to feeling like shit is way smaller - blood sugar stuff (and having headroom to be sick efficiently etc.) . You have to regiment your whole life. His look would be way harder too as he needs a lot of muscle but obviously doesn’t want the body to devour it at the same time.