DK Metcalf 1.6% Body Fat - THE TRUTH!

NFL Prospect Wide Receiver D.K. Metcalf is the talk of the combines after registering a 1.6 percent body fat level and showcasing a combination of athleticism rarely seen. In this video, I’m going to answer the question of whether or not I believe this body fat reading to be accurate, and even more

What’s up, guys? Jeff Cavaliere, ATHLEANX. com. Today we’re going to do one of those popular by demand videos. People requesting “Jeff, you have to talk about DK Metcalf”.

You might be thinking to yourself “I don’t know how DK Metcalf is”. If you haven’t already heard, this is DK Metcalf. A receiver out of Ol’ Miss who just participated in NFL Combines and did some pretty impressive things. His statistics were pretty much off the charts and everyone is talking about him. It’s not the fact that he’s obviously jacked, he’s a receiver, he’s a big guy.

He’s 6’3”, 228lbs, 34-7/8” length arms. That’s a foot longer than my arms. He’s got hands that can catch pretty much any football. No problem. But what we’re focusing on, what everybody is focusing on, and the subject of this video is that his bodyfat percentage was reported at 1.

6%. Now, you’re probably saying “Is that even possible? ” Hopefully you’re saying “Is that even good? Is that even healthy for an athlete? ” I wanted to delve into that because the one thing we do know right off the bat is, this is probably not accurate.

There are a few reasons why I believe that to be the case. The first one is sort of an observation because this is someone else who was reported to be just under 2% body fat for a competition. This is the late Andres Moser. Catch the word ‘late’ because he’s not here anymore. It’s not necessarily a good thing to be this shredded.

We’ll get to that in a second, but this, you could probably agree, looks a little bit different than what Metcalf looked like. There are a lot more striations in here, there’s a lot more muscle definition going on here, there’s a lot more unhealthy look to this body than what you saw on DK. Muscular? Yes, but this is a lot more extreme. This was reported to be 2% bodyfat.

I would much more likely agree with this than I would with DK. Now, there are a couple of other things that are more important. This is where we talk about the data collection side of it. What’s going on at the combines? There are two methods of collection for the bodyfat percentages.

One is utilizing the Bod Pod, which has been going on for over 12 years, I believe. 13 years. Then we have the Dexa Scan. The Dexa Scan is something that’s been included into the testing process, just of late. Actually, this year was the first year that they included it.

It was introduced this year. So, what’s the main difference? First of all, with the Bod Pod, it’s a volume metric measurement. It’s relying on the displacement of air inside the Bod Pod when the athlete is outside of it, and then when they step inside of it. It’s very similar to how they used to measure bodyfat by water displacement, with underwater testing.

So, it’s a volume measurement and there’s a margin of error to this of up to 2. 5%-5%. Not off on the number, but literally bodyfat percentage points, up to 2. 5%-5%. Which means even something that’s registering at 2% could come in as high as 7% off a Bod Pod measurement.

So that’s a problem. Some research even suggests this margin is even greater than that. The reason why is because this assessment is based off calculations. We’re basically calculating, utilizing the information of the displacement of the volume. So, it’s subject to some drastic error.

The benefit here is that it’s pretty easy to understand results. You get a little printout, there’s your results, and a lot of the scouts prefer the easy to report method. A lot of the media outlets prefer the easy to report method here. That’s where we’re probably getting this information from because we know that the Dexa Scan, again, something new, is only privy to the scouting departments of these teams that haven’t been publicly disclosed. Therefore, we can guess with confidence that these results are not what we’re going off of.

We’re really going off these. But even though we’re here, guys, though the method is a lot more accurate, we’re using X-rays to pass through the body to come up with the measurements, it’s still not perfect. It’s using actual measurements to gather the data, which is better than using calculations, but there are still some limitations to even these numbers here. And we know that the data output here is very, very complicated. They use an outside, third party to present these statistics to these scouting departments and they’re so long in detail I still don’t think they’ve gone through and determined how they’re going to utilize this information.

So once again, they relied on this. But I think the question is: is that healthy? Is it even good? Should we be happy that DK Metcalf is at 1. 6%, if it was even true?

The answer is, no. Especially when it comes to the athletes. When it comes to the guys that watch this channel, I hope. That is, there’s a sliding scale here. If we were to look at a rough estimate of bodyfat percentage on the bottom from 0% all the way up to 45%, and then we looked at the injury risk – injury risk meaning any of the dangers that come along with having an extremely low level of bodyfat percentage, which I’ll cover here in a second.

You’re going to see a dramatic shift that when you’re at these super low levels, in the 0%-5% range, you have an incredibly high risk of injury. It could be something extremely serious, like fatality, or it could be something more along the lines of career threatening, just in terms of your ability to stay healthy. Because your joints are severely under lubricated. Let’s look at some of those things. We’re talking about what some of these concerns are.

Temperature regulation. Being tough to regulate your own temperature. I hope he doesn’t get drafted by Green Bay. That would be a bad place to try and play football if you can’t regulate your own temperature. Vision.

You could have vision problems. I talked about myself in the past where my extreme avoidance of fat in my diet led me to have some photosensitivity. I couldn’t go out in the sunlight without having to squint. That’s because we know that the reliance on the photoreceptors of the eye require fat to operate at full function. Reduced immune system.

That’s not a good thing for any athlete. Increased risk of injury. A lot of times, relating to joint dysfunction because of the low levels of bodyfat. Fatigue. Brain fog.

Nothing good about this, guys. Again, even if you’re not an athlete, but you’re trying to compete in the sport of life, it’s never going to be good. A desk job. Anything where you’ve got to think. Thyroid dysfunction.

All this stuff is bad. So, we don’t want to be that low. That sliding scale, we saw the sweet spot would be more up in that 8%-12% bodyfat range. There are reasons we can aesthetically be where we want to be, but performance-wise we wouldn’t be sacrificing where we want to be. That’s going to change with age, and I’ll cover this in a future video, where there’s a bit of a sliding scale there, too.

And of course, men versus women. I’ll go into that in depth. But the fact is, that’s what we want to do. So, what else should we focus on? Because the truth here is not just about the bodyfat, but what about the numbers in general?

Look back at his numbers. Again, I mentioned impressive statistics. A 40-yard dash of 4. 33. That is going to be very difficult to cover.

A bench-press of 27 reps of 225lbs. A vertical jump of 40. 5”. Broad jump, 134”. The three-cone drill, 7, 3, 8.

And then a 20-yard shuttle, which is the 5-10-5, 4. 5 seconds. I want to underscore something very important when it comes to these numbers because I feel like I’ve been harping on this a lot, as of late. That is that numbers alone don’t tell yo