Body Fat %: Why I try not to compare.

half_moon

I recently got a fitness assessment and was told I am 45% body fat. This puts me in the higher range of females, and according to multiple sources, there is a pretty consistent image of what my body fat % usually looks like.

I guess I am just posting to show how every body type is different. I am in no way fit or at goal (in fact I am 25 pounds from goal) but this comparison should prove interesting.

What the internet says 45% looks like:



What I look like today:



I've got a long way to go, but I know that for me, I will set my goals based on what feels and looks good to me, for my body, and not worry about what averages are!

(I am 5'5" and 170 pounds, for those who are curious.)

What is your BF%? Is your shape close to the ones in the chart above?

kami3006

You would probably find mybodygallery.com interesting. Put in your stats and it shows other women of those same stats. Such a wide variation.

half_moon

kami3006 wrote: »

You would probably find mybodygallery.com interesting. Put in your stats and it shows other women of those same stats. Such a wide variation.

Yes I love that site! I wish it did body fat %, because so often I see people say, "don't go by weight. Go by BF!"

But in my opinion, even that is so different for every person. Best bet is to go with what feels good!

kami3006

I agree. I rarely weigh; just use measurements and photos.

arditarose

I don't know my BF but I think I look somewhere between 20-25%. I kind of wish I knew.

kami3006

arditarose wrote: »

I don't know my BF but I think I look somewhere between 20-25%. I kind of wish I knew.

From all your pics, I agree with you. Gotta love recomp.

arditarose

kami3006 wrote: »

arditarose wrote: »

I don't know my BF but I think I look somewhere between 20-25%. I kind of wish I knew.

From all your pics, I agree with you. Gotta love recomp.

lol but there is a big difference between 20 and 25. My upper body is looking 22ish and lower body 25. Who knows?! Recomps be slow.

MamaBirdBoss

They mis-measured if it was skinfold. An unathletic woman of your age and BMI will have a BF % around 35%. 45% is frankly absurd.

BF *is* important to health, but only if it's accurate. For low-risk, a woman should be below 32% or 30%, depending on which measure you're going with.

I'm likely hovering around 27%.

jimmmer

If they didn't use something accurate, I'd say ignore it (ie unless it was a scan, or something)

45% seems way off base...

shadow2soul

How did your assessment determine your BF%?
It seems very wrong.
______________________________________________

I've never had my BF% tested. Not within my budget to do so. My scale does give me a reading and while I don't know how accurate it is, it says 26-27% in normal mode currently and 22.4-23.5% in athletic mode. I think the normal mode might be close to accurate for me, but I could be wrong.

ncfitbit

I hate how difficult it is accurately track get BF% because that's the main thing I care about! I paid $80 for a bodpod test at the diet and fitness center at the local university a few months into using MFP and I was happy to learn that for me it was very, very close to my handheld Omron body fat monitor. So now I don't worry so much about the absolute number as much, but do use my handheld every few weeks to see how I'm doing. It's sensitive to hydration levels, but then so is the scale!

BTW, there's no way you're 45%! I would say closer to 30.

jemhh

I don't think you are 45% either. Those charts are a bit frustrating because, other than the highest bf pictures, the women shown have a fairly proportional fat distribution. My fat distribution is so no even that there's no point in looking at them.

But it sounds like you have a good attitude about the number anyway, OP

IsaackGMOON

How did they measure your body fat %?

You don't look like you're 45% BF, not at all. I don't tend to go off of pictures (especially for myself) because of gyno which just makes it look like it's higher. Fat distribution can pretty much make pictures a bad comparison.

half_moon

It was tested with an Omron scale device, and is pretty close to what my % was two years ago at a different gym.

I have no real choice to believe that it is true. Accepting that I am 45% body fat isn't easy, but why? Only because of all the photos I see online -- and I KNOW that I don't look like that.

It can be hard to ignore what you look like and compare yourself to everyone else. But I must resist!

half_moon

Either that or I am a very tiny person trapped in a hefty body o__o

shadow2soul

half_moon wrote: »

It was tested with an Omron scale device, and is pretty close to what my % was two years ago at a different gym.

I have no real choice to believe that it is true. Accepting that I am 45% body fat isn't easy, but why? Only because of all the photos I see online -- and I KNOW that I don't look like that.

It can be hard to ignore what you look like and compare yourself to everyone else. But I must resist!

Just like scales that measure BF% those are known to be inaccurate; sometimes insanely so.

shadow2soul

Also if you go to Omrons website they say the best accuracy is first thing in the morning before you workout, eat, or drink. After that the accuracy decreases and even first thing in the morning they claim that it can still be up to 4% off

shadow2soul

They even have a chart showing that just their hand monitor would inflate the fat reading as the day went on.

Mischievous_Rascal

shadow2soul wrote: »

Also if you go to Omrons website they say the best accuracy is first thing in the morning before you workout, eat, or drink. After that the accuracy decreases and even first thing in the morning they claim that it can still be up to 4% off

This for sure, which would put you around the 35% mark, and pretty close to the model in the pic.

dakotababy

45%? I seen that you have ab definition! Ill call BS. Try a second opinion.

yellowantphil

I’ve heard that DXA scans are the only way to accurately measure body fat. I wouldn’t trust the Omron scale. You say that you have to accept its reading, but why not accept that you just don’t know your body fat percentage? Hardly anybody knows for sure.

Have you tried any other methods of measuring? You could try calipers (How to Measure Your Body Fat). Or there are formulas that estimate your body fat based on other measurements, like this one, where you measure your neck, waist, and hips. They aren’t necessarily accurate, but you could compare the numbers to what the Omron scale said.

shor0814

I doubt the Omron is correct based on your photo alone. 45% body fat would mean that almost 1/2 of your body is fat and unless the leg muscles and arm muscles are really just bands of fat masquerading as muscle and you have some slick body shrinking spandex underneath then no, you aren't 45% body fat.

Impedance measurement is notoriously unreliable as a accurate measure. I have a similar scale and the only thing I use the body fat % for is to see the change in values and progress.

You don't have to accept 45% if it is wrong.

TheVirgoddess

I don't think your reading is accurate, either. My rough guess would be around 35%.

I use a combination of calipers and a body fat scale (used over months to gauge progress) to get a rough estimation.

half_moon

Not sure -- two years ago at a completely different gym with a different electroscale I got 48%. I was around the same weight.

I do have muscle though. It estimated it was 24% muscle I think? I will have to look back. I can deadlift 125 and back squat near 120. Not amazing but I do have something back there!

Edit: 23% muscle.

jimmmer

half_moon wrote: »

Not sure -- two years ago at a completely different gym with a different electroscale I got 48%. I was around the same weight.

I do have muscle though. It estimated it was 24% muscle I think? I will have to look back. I can deadlift 125 and back squat near 120. Not amazing but I do have something back there!

Edit: 23% muscle.

These methods of measurement aren't even remotely accurate and can give you wild swings.

Comparing 2 inaccurately carried out measurements gives you no basis to draw any conclusions.

If I weighed myself on two, different, uncalibrated bathroom scales 2 weeks apart, what useful conclusions can I draw from a comparison of two totally suspect pieces of data? None.

MamaBirdBoss

dakotababy wrote: »

45%? I seen that you have ab definition! Ill call BS. Try a second opinion.

I look like I have ab definition in clothes, but it's fat pooches. LOL.

MamaBirdBoss

half_moon wrote: »

Not sure -- two years ago at a completely different gym with a different electroscale I got 48%. I was around the same weight.

I do have muscle though. It estimated it was 24% muscle I think? I will have to look back. I can deadlift 125 and back squat near 120. Not amazing but I do have something back there!

Edit: 23% muscle.

Electroscale is utterly unreliable.

MamaBirdBoss

half_moon wrote: »

It was tested with an Omron scale device, and is pretty close to what my % was two years ago at a different gym.

I have no real choice to believe that it is true. Accepting that I am 45% body fat isn't easy, but why? Only because of all the photos I see online -- and I KNOW that I don't look like that.

It can be hard to ignore what you look like and compare yourself to everyone else. But I must resist!

Why would you believe that 45% is true if it's not? You're using something that's absurdly inaccurate--far worse than skinfold, even.

half_moon

I suppose because the numbers were extremely close together using two different methods at two different locations. I mean, it doesn't bother me that much. I will just track progress from that 45%.

half_moon

In high school I got 47% and that was with calipers.

DavPul

0.0% chance that the OP is 45% body fat. But even remotely close. She would have to be 3 feet tall or something.

*checks thread to find out method used to derive measurement*

Omron scale? Lolololololol. Spend $14 and get some calipers from Amazon. The 3 point measurement you can perform on yourself isn't the most accurate method, but it'll be close enough to measure progress. If you have a friend you can have them measure more areas. It'll still be a bit ballparky, but way better than what you seem to be trusting.