Question about body fat %!

whiteoutpen

Hey guys

So I've been using mfp for almost 6 months now, and I've lost over 40 pounds. I'm almost halfway to what I believed my goal should be when I started! My goal is 130 pounds. I'm 5'6, 19, female, and I currently weigh 189.2 pounds, with a 31.1% body fat according to the fat2fit calculators average. I started at around 230 pounds, around 35% body fat.

So, I tried calculating my lean body mass, which is said was 130.4 pounds. My goal is to get to around 20% body fat, which I think is an ideal goal for me. However, that leaves me at 163 pounds. I'm not sure if I messed up, or if my goal is too low?

Any clarification or explanation and tips would be greatly appreciated! Thanks everyone

doIlhands

I'm betting you calculated your body fat wrong. At ~200 lbs my bodyfat was 42%. It seems off that you would have 35% BF at 230lbs.

whiteoutpen

I'm betting you calculated your body fat wrong. At ~200 lbs my bodyfat was 42%. It seems off that you would have 35% BF at 230lbs.

I used a measuring tape, and just followed whatever directions were on the website. I also used the calculator everyone recommends, so I don't think I was mistaken. Looking at the pictures of different body fat %'s, I would say that I looked 35% at the most. Perhaps I just carry my weight well. I've also always been pretty muscular. In high school, I wore a size 9/10 at 175~ pounds.

But yeah, I suppose I could be wrong. But I've been calculating it every couple of weeks and its gone down consistently.

caly_man

100 - 31 = 69
100 - 20 = 80

69 / 80 = 0.8625

189 lbs x 0.8625 = 163 lbs at 20% BF

yup, the math is right.

what may not be right is your current BF%

try getting your BF% tested with body calipers

whiteoutpen

100 - 31 = 69
100 - 20 = 80

69 / 80 = 0.8625

189 lbs x 0.8625 = 163 lbs at 20% BF

yup, the math is right.

what may not be right is your current BF%

try getting your BF% tested with body calipers

The thing I don't understand is that I used the website most people recommend, and used a tape measure just as people recommend. So I'm not sure how I could be so mistaken!

Here's my stats, if that's any help:
Starting, around 220
Wrist: 6.75
Waist: 40
Hip: 46.75
Forearm: 10.75
Neck: 15
Thigh: 27
Calf: 16.25

And today, at 189.2
Wrist: 6.75
Waist: 36.5
Hip: 43.25
Forearm: 10.5
Neck: 14.25
Thigh: 24.75
Calf: 15

All in inches

BarackMeLikeAHurricane

"Circumference Measurement
Anthropometric measurement (girth and length) is a quick, easy and inexpensive method to estimate body composition. Using a standard calibrated cloth tape and a scale, your weight, height, and anywhere from two to four circumference comparisons are used to calculate your body fat. This test is based on the assumption that body fat is distributed at various sites on the body such as the waist, neck and thigh. Muscle tissue on the other hand is usually located at anatomical locations such as the biceps, forearm and calf.
 
There are a variety of formulas for this test, which vary excessively. The YMCA test has been shown to be very inaccurate, whereas the ARMY test compares favorably to skinfold testing in 89% of the population. It has been shown to be inaccurate for women above 40 years old, elderly and very lean. Circumference testing is used in the military due to ease of testing, low cost, relative accuracy, and lack of training requirement. When tests are marginal and are challenged, hydrostatic testing is normally used.  One of the biggest weaknesses of this test is that most of the test data has not covered a wide enough spectrum of people in terms of obesity, racial types, and age variations, for each of the various methods used.

Problems
In 86% of the population, within +-5%
In 14% of the population, within 6-50%
Derived result: based on Hydrostatic comparison
Highly population dependent
Racial specific data is lacking
Wide variety of formulas
Inaccurate for middle aged women, elderly"

Source: http://www.bodyfattest.com/faqs/comparative-methods-.html

3dogsrunning

Online calculators are not very accurate. Neither are the scales.

But also keep in mind when losing weight you are also still going to lose muscle mass. How much depends on how big your deficit is, your macros, your exercise and genetics.

whiteoutpen

"Circumference Measurement
Anthropometric measurement (girth and length) is a quick, easy and inexpensive method to estimate body composition. Using a standard calibrated cloth tape and a scale, your weight, height, and anywhere from two to four circumference comparisons are used to calculate your body fat. This test is based on the assumption that body fat is distributed at various sites on the body such as the waist, neck and thigh. Muscle tissue on the other hand is usually located at anatomical locations such as the biceps, forearm and calf.
 
There are a variety of formulas for this test, which vary excessively. The YMCA test has been shown to be very inaccurate, whereas the ARMY test compares favorably to skinfold testing in 89% of the population. It has been shown to be inaccurate for women above 40 years old, elderly and very lean. Circumference testing is used in the military due to ease of testing, low cost, relative accuracy, and lack of training requirement. When tests are marginal and are challenged, hydrostatic testing is normally used.  One of the biggest weaknesses of this test is that most of the test data has not covered a wide enough spectrum of people in terms of obesity, racial types, and age variations, for each of the various methods used.

Problems
In 86% of the population, within +-5%
In 14% of the population, within 6-50%
Derived result: based on Hydrostatic comparison
Highly population dependent
Racial specific data is lacking
Wide variety of formulas
Inaccurate for middle aged women, elderly"

Source: http://www.bodyfattest.com/faqs/comparative-methods-.html

Ooh, okay. I didn't realize they were so inaccurate! Now I understand. Thanks for the help

whiteoutpen

Online calculators are not very accurate. Neither are the scales.

But also keep in mind when losing weight you are also still going to lose muscle mass. How much depends on how big your deficit is, your macros, your exercise and genetics.

So you're saying my lean body mass is also going to get smaller?

3dogsrunning

Online calculators are not very accurate. Neither are the scales.

But also keep in mind when losing weight you are also still going to lose muscle mass. How much depends on how big your deficit is, your macros, your exercise and genetics.

So you're saying my lean body mass is also going to get smaller?

Yes.

dixiewhiskey

I think you can achieve that bf% without even having to be 130lbs IMO. I use this one (which is the US NAVY version): http://www.skinbodyfitness.com/bmr_bmi_bfp.htm When I used calipers, I got pretty close if not at times dead on with what the US Navy BF% Calculator gave me.

You will lose body mass but not that much if you keep your protein intake up and eat enough calories to properly fuel your body.

BTW edit: I had started out with measurements a bit higher than yours at 181.5lbs.. I lost 21lbs and have got my BF% to 20% at 160lbs. It can be done

whiteoutpen

Online calculators are not very accurate. Neither are the scales.

But also keep in mind when losing weight you are also still going to lose muscle mass. How much depends on how big your deficit is, your macros, your exercise and genetics.

So you're saying my lean body mass is also going to get smaller?

Yes.

Okay, that makes a lot more sense. I see plenty of people on the boards who say they're around 130 at 5'6, so I was confused as to why it wasn't working for me. Thanks for the clarification! It makes a lot more sense now

3dogsrunning

I think you can achieve that bf% without even having to be 130lbs IMO. I use this one (which is the US NAVY version): http://www.skinbodyfitness.com/bmr_bmi_bfp.htm When I used calipers, I got pretty close if not at times dead on with what the US Navy BF% Calculator gave me.

You will lose body mass but not that much if you keep your protein intake up and eat enough calories to properly fuel your body.

BTW edit: I had started out with measurements a bit higher than yours at 181.5lbs.. I lost 21lbs and have got my BF% to 20% at 160lbs. It can be done

Yes, you can definitely reach that bodyfat level without going to 130. I'm a half inch shorter and was below 20% bodyfat and over 130, closer to 140 -145.

jbruced

Regarding losing lean body mass; look at your numbers.
When you were 230 lbs with a bf% of 35 you had a lbm of about 150 lbs(I'm rounding off a little)
At 189.2 lbs and a bf% of 31 you have a lbm of 130.6 lbs

dixiewhiskey

I think you can achieve that bf% without even having to be 130lbs IMO. I use this one (which is the US NAVY version): http://www.skinbodyfitness.com/bmr_bmi_bfp.htm When I used calipers, I got pretty close if not at times dead on with what the US Navy BF% Calculator gave me.

You will lose body mass but not that much if you keep your protein intake up and eat enough calories to properly fuel your body.

BTW edit: I had started out with measurements a bit higher than yours at 181.5lbs.. I lost 21lbs and have got my BF% to 20% at 160lbs. It can be done

Yes, you can definitely reach that bodyfat level without going to 130. I'm a half inch shorter and was below 20% bodyfat and over 130, closer to 140-145.

:drinker:
I think for some people getting down that low will definitely impede on muscle mass gains which is something you need more of if you want to lose fat. It was a hard concept for me to understand years ago when I attempted to lose weight. It makes me happy to read someone else who agrees. OP, not trying to discourage you or anything but don't feel horrible if you don't reach 130 - you have a really high amount of muscle mass which is great and means you don't have to lose a ton of weight to meet your goal! :flowerforyou:

caly_man

if you really want to know and can afford it, try getting a bod pod fat testing. that is where they submerge you under water to measure how much of your current weight is body fat.

i personally wouldn't pay for a bod pod test because I'm not going to gain that much value knowing my exact bf%, though when i was in college i did have it done in one of my fitness classes

your best bet is to use the mirror, eat a moderate deficit, keep working out, and you'll get there

dixiewhiskey

100 - 31 = 69
100 - 20 = 80

69 / 80 = 0.8625

189 lbs x 0.8625 = 163 lbs at 20% BF

yup, the math is right.

what may not be right is your current BF%

try getting your BF% tested with body calipers

The thing I don't understand is that I used the website most people recommend, and used a tape measure just as people recommend. So I'm not sure how I could be so mistaken!

Here's my stats, if that's any help:
Starting, around 220
Wrist: 6.75
Waist: 40
Hip: 46.75
Forearm: 10.75
Neck: 15
Thigh: 27
Calf: 16.25

And today, at 189.2
Wrist: 6.75
Waist: 36.5
Hip: 43.25
Forearm: 10.5
Neck: 14.25
Thigh: 24.75
Calf: 15

All in inches

I put your measurements in with the calculator I have been using since Jan...

Your starting was:
"Your Body Fat is 47%.
Your weight state is Obese.
You should reduce your weight by 64.5 pound(s)."

Currently:
"Your Body Fat is 39.3%.
Your weight state is Obese.
You should reduce your weight by 36.1 pound(s)."

caly_man

with that info, 20% BF would put you around 144 lbs