Fat Calipers

wabmester

Has anybody tried these things?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00B2MIDDQ?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_search_detailpage



You take skin-fold measurements at three locations, add them together, and then look up your body fat % in a table.

Mine came out to 19%, which matches what my bioelectric impedance scale has been telling me. Cool!

So that tells me I have about 34lbs of fat left on my body. (Enough to last me about 2 months if I stop eating.)

I've been in maintenance for a while, but I'm VERY tempted to try to lose 10lbs of fat. That would get me down to 15% BF. Beach body territory.

crunchketo

I haven't tried in yet but am looking for one in town. I don't want to order online since it seems like an impulse buy and I talk myself out of it before I check out!

NewSue52

I have one. It is hard to use properly. Not sure it will be helpful

Bob314159

I bought one three years ago and never found it usefull

macchiatto

I have but I wasn't sure how accurate it was. My BF% was more like 26% and I have since gained 20 lbs. I'd be scared to see what it is now.

wabmester

They can be accurate as long as there's not too much fat. This study suggests they correlate well with body fat measurements from CT scans:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8046177

I like them for several reasons:

• Knowing my %BF allows me to set a reasonable weight loss goal
• They allow me to calibrate my less-accurate body fat scale
• They not only tell me %BF, but give me an idea of fat distribution (my belly has 3X more fat than my chest, for example)
• They're cheap!

deksgrl

I have one but I have never been able to get what I considered a realistic measurement. When you have to measure a spot on the abdomen, that number seems to skew everything because all my fat is in the belly. I have very little fat on the back of the arm and the chest and the hips. It comes out with a much higher number than with an electrical impedance device or with estimates based on measurements, or a visual comparison, like 10% more. I suppose if I had someone very experienced do it, then it might come out better.

wabmester

deksgrl wrote: »

I have one but I have never been able to get what I considered a realistic measurement. When you have to measure a spot on the abdomen, that number seems to skew everything because all my fat is in the belly. I have very little fat on the back of the arm and the chest and the hips. It comes out with a much higher number than with an electrical impedance device or with estimates based on measurements, or a visual comparison, like 10% more. I suppose if I had someone very experienced do it, then it might come out better.

Interesting. It sounds like you have an atypical fat distribution, and the tables probably assume an average distribution.

Don't take this the wrong way, but does the table for men give you a better match to your scale?

I got the calipers because I became interested in fat distribution and why it seems to hang around the belly and "love handles" for guys. I confirmed that that's where most of mine is.

For women, it's usually lower body, boobs, and triceps.

Hormones obviously play a role. But there are also some interesting differences in the fat cells themselves.

deksgrl

wabmester wrote: »

deksgrl wrote: »

I have one but I have never been able to get what I considered a realistic measurement. When you have to measure a spot on the abdomen, that number seems to skew everything because all my fat is in the belly. I have very little fat on the back of the arm and the chest and the hips. It comes out with a much higher number than with an electrical impedance device or with estimates based on measurements, or a visual comparison, like 10% more. I suppose if I had someone very experienced do it, then it might come out better.

Interesting. It sounds like you have an atypical fat distribution, and the tables probably assume an average distribution.

Don't take this the wrong way, but does the table for men give you a better match to your scale?

I got the calipers because I became interested in fat distribution and why it seems to hang around the belly and "love handles" for guys. I confirmed that that's where most of mine is.

For women, it's usually lower body, boobs, and triceps.

Hormones obviously play a role. But there are also some interesting differences in the fat cells themselves.

I don't know, I'll take a look.

It seems hereditary, my mom carried more fat in her belly too. My hips and rear are slim. It skews the "waist-to-height" ratio too. This puts me is the "overweight" category even though I'm in the healthy range as far as BMI. And I do have waist definition, it isn't because I have a straight or pear shape.

macchiatto

deksgrl, I have similar issues. My fat is VERY disproportionate to the rest of my body. (And I'm admittedly skinny-fat in general. Small bone structure, very little muscle.) Even at my skinniest, I was 5'7" and got down to 127 lbs at one point but my "high waist" measurement (at the narrowest point) was 29" and yet I couldn't get my waist measurement at belly button level below 35.75." (My belly button did migrate a bit lower after a full-term twin pregnancy, but still.) So I feel like all the body fat % calculators might end up a bit skewed for me, too.

deksgrl

I lifted heavy weights for a couple of years (with a couple of months long breaks). This helped greatly with the skinny fat. I need to get back to it because I liked it. Just for an example, my son and I used to do this thing to annoy each other where we would poke each other in the upper arm. Used to be, his finger would sink right in to the bone and it would hurt a little bit. After I started lifting, it didn't sink in to the bone, and it didn't hurt.

So, I just took all my measurements and plugged it into a Covert Bailey body fat estimator and it comes out 27.8%. Average margin of error is 2% (though could be more error for the very fit or the very unfit). But with calipers, it would measure me like 35%.

I haven't taken my measurements since February, (started LC in May) and I have lost 3" at natural waist, 2.5" at the belly button, but only 1" measuring an inch below the belly button. So, yes, there is progress. But slow.