How to get an accurate body fat measurement for women
Adah_m
Posts: 216 Member
I'm focusing on muscle and strength and just started a lifting program. I'm not really concerned with weight loss but with fat loss/recomposition. Rather than weighing in I'd prefer to track body fat % and measurements as I go. I'd like to see if I'm able to increase lean% and decrease fat at the same time- which is possible, but the studies seem to focus on men.
I have used measurements with the Navy method and YMCA method of calculating it to get an idea, but I honestly feel like these methods might fall short for women. They don't ask for bust size, which means if it assumes a smaller bust than I have it is assuming the pounds are elsewhere (possibly assuming more lean mass than I have.) Although bust would be fat tissue and not lean, I think it's a significant enough factor in my body shape to throw those numbers off.
I believe somewhere in the range of 54-55% is an accurate measurement for me right now, but when I say that and we know 32% is obese for women it makes me sound incredibly large. I am obese, yes, but I'm a very proportional size 16-18, (265 lbs, 5'8'').
So, I'm new at this. Does anyone know whether these measurement calculators do take things like bust into consideration? (P.S. I don't have the means to do a water displacement test or do the bod pod thing, so it's either measurements or bioelectrical testing.) I think I just have too much fat to be able to use calipers and separate the fat from the muscle to get an effective measurement, but maybe I'm wrong.
Specifically, I'm looking for how women get an accurate reading. If it's just not possible, I'll stick to measurements only but I would like to be able to track it.
I have used measurements with the Navy method and YMCA method of calculating it to get an idea, but I honestly feel like these methods might fall short for women. They don't ask for bust size, which means if it assumes a smaller bust than I have it is assuming the pounds are elsewhere (possibly assuming more lean mass than I have.) Although bust would be fat tissue and not lean, I think it's a significant enough factor in my body shape to throw those numbers off.
I believe somewhere in the range of 54-55% is an accurate measurement for me right now, but when I say that and we know 32% is obese for women it makes me sound incredibly large. I am obese, yes, but I'm a very proportional size 16-18, (265 lbs, 5'8'').
So, I'm new at this. Does anyone know whether these measurement calculators do take things like bust into consideration? (P.S. I don't have the means to do a water displacement test or do the bod pod thing, so it's either measurements or bioelectrical testing.) I think I just have too much fat to be able to use calipers and separate the fat from the muscle to get an effective measurement, but maybe I'm wrong.
Specifically, I'm looking for how women get an accurate reading. If it's just not possible, I'll stick to measurements only but I would like to be able to track it.
0
Replies
-
i have done the dunk tank and compared it to my morning biometric measurement, and strangely enough they were the same. I have tracked bf% on my biometric for years to see changes, and the amount of lean mass changes was so slight, i always hovered around 112 lbs lean body mass no matter what my weight is. So i just use that # for any bf weight calculations and i dont stress it too much. Even if you are weight lifting, your lean mass isnt gonna change more than a few pounds over time. So if you can figure out your lean mass with a biometric, you can just use that number and divide it by your current weight to get your lean mass % (subtract that from 1 to get your bf%) and it will be close enough. BF measurements are always just estimates anyways, there is no way get it super accurate. I think the dunk take is the most accurate but even that has some room for error like how much air in your lungs, food in your belly, etc.0
-
I've been curious about this too.
Per Navy tape my body fat is 42%. I think it is the neck measure that makes me curious...I've never had visible fat on my neck or noticed that it has changed size at all.
Did the Omron impedance thing with the metal plates and metal hand grips at the gym and it shows 2% less.
On the one hand I've seen many people post that the impedance devices are crap. On the other there is a thread right now in the Exercise and Fitness section stating that this type of impedance device is good enough to follow your fat percentage trend and one poster who said that they had Bod Pod (IIRC) and that the place that did it used said impedance device first and the results were virtually identical.
0 -
Navy Tape puts me at 22%. My Fitbit Aria says 19 to 20%. I'm 5'3" and 110.7 pounds. I'm hesitant to believe either one, honestly. I think they're most likely too low.0
-
I used my scale to track the downward trend. It is useful for that, but not to give a precise reading.
I am at 20.3 on my scale at home, but running through a number of different sites that have calculators I get anything from 19- 25. I would estimate from photo compartisons I am in the high 23 to mid 24 range.
Take photos and compare yourself to photo charts on the Internet.
Chose one way to estimate and just stick with that.
Cheers, h.
http://www.fat2fittools.com/tools/mbf/
The military BF calculator.
0 -
i have done the dunk tank and compared it to my morning biometric measurement, and strangely enough they were the same. I have tracked bf% on my biometric for years to see changes, and the amount of lean mass changes was so slight, i always hovered around 112 lbs lean body mass no matter what my weight is. So i just use that # for any bf weight calculations and i dont stress it too much. Even if you are weight lifting, your lean mass isnt gonna change more than a few pounds over time. So if you can figure out your lean mass with a biometric, you can just use that number and divide it by your current weight to get your lean mass % (subtract that from 1 to get your bf%) and it will be close enough. BF measurements are always just estimates anyways, there is no way get it super accurate. I think the dunk take is the most accurate but even that has some room for error like how much air in your lungs, food in your belly, etc.
I think that's an accomplishment itself- changing weight and not losing any lean mass. If I remember the last calculator was estimating my lean mass at 119 lbs. Do you get strength gains without your lean mass increasing? Do your muscles somehow get stronger without getting bigger? Interesting.0 -
It just occurred to me that then knowing your lean mass would be a great way to calculate goal weight, which I've been having a lot of trouble with. Although they say anything as low as 130 is healthy for my height, if I'm carrying 119 lbs of lean mass (and I don't lose any lean mass) and my goal is to get under 30% body fat, my goal is roughly 170. If I want to get down to 25%, my goal is 158, and If I want to get to 20% my goal would be 148.
If my math is right, here's how I'm calculating that:
(current lean mass ×100)÷(100-goal%)
So to calculate goal weight at 20% body fat, assuming I retain my lean mass, (119×100)÷(100-20)=148.75
Someone check my math...
But I like those numbers. They're much more realistic and comfortable than the numbers I had in my head.0 -
dexa scan but still a margin of error, just small and reliable0
-
Navy Tape puts me at 22%. My Fitbit Aria says 19 to 20%. I'm 5'3" and 110.7 pounds. I'm hesitant to believe either one, honestly. I think they're most likely too low.
If your first two profile pictures are current, you're well under 22% body fat. I say that because you have clearly visible ribs, your arms display a tremendous amount of muscle definition, and your abs are quite well-defined.
Take a look at the images here.
0 -
Navy Tape puts me at 22%. My Fitbit Aria says 19 to 20%. I'm 5'3" and 110.7 pounds. I'm hesitant to believe either one, honestly. I think they're most likely too low.
If your first two profile pictures are current, you're well under 22% body fat. I say that because you have clearly visible ribs, your arms display a tremendous amount of muscle definition, and your abs are quite well-defined.
Take a look at the images here.
Thanks. Yeah, they're current except I'm a few pounds less now. I saw the body fat pictures and descriptions, but I guess it's still hard for me to believe since I hold the most weight in my legs, especially my thighs. Some of the descriptions are vague and I know they're not one size fits all. So I feel like while my upper half looks like it's below 22% BF, my lower half looks like 24 to 25%. That's why I'd estimate myself closer to 24% or so overall. I think the Navy Tape % is more accurate than the Fitbit Aria definitely. It's been giving me readouts of 17 to 18% lately.0 -
@synacious , me too. I had a Bodpod assessment earlier this Winter and it said I was at 23%. I've lost 5lbs since then and I got leaner. I've lost fat from all over but I carry more weight in my Glutes/hips. @Sidesteel from the Eat, Train Perform group said he thought I was much leaner than 23% based on my profile pic (current) but my lower half does not match my upper half. We lose weight evenly but we don't store it that way. It's going to take longer for me to see my booty look like the rest of me. I am very curious about my BF is now. I feel like Bodpod was off. I may try hydrostatic soon.0
-
Navy Tape puts me at 22%. My Fitbit Aria says 19 to 20%. I'm 5'3" and 110.7 pounds. I'm hesitant to believe either one, honestly. I think they're most likely too low.
If your first two profile pictures are current, you're well under 22% body fat. I say that because you have clearly visible ribs, your arms display a tremendous amount of muscle definition, and your abs are quite well-defined.
Take a look at the images here.
People always quote those images but I'm honestly not seeing much of a difference between the 25% and 30% women.0 -
As an update I tried the method with the hand plates and got a 47.55% fat and 138 lbs lean mass. I think I'm just going to take the average between the two numbers I've gotten and use that, so each time I check in I'll do both and keep the average.0
-
GuitarJerry wrote: »Whatever method you would use for a woman, the exact same method would also work for a man, just so you know.
I still haven't seen an answer to how the measurement methods take bust into account, because they don't. In that case, no, not all the same methods work for men and women. If you have 20 lbs worth of chest as a woman and it does not ask for that number, it makes an assumption about your distribution based on making your weight fit in the parameters you provide with the measurements. If 20 lbs of fatty tissue don't actually fit in those measurements but it thinks they do, they'll assume more lean mass is distributed across your body. At least this is what I'm theorizing because I have yet to see any indication that the YMCA or Navy method takes that into account.
What I'm looking for is a fairly reliable way to know if I'm losing muscle mass along with fat. I have found that the studies concerning body building and body recomposition overwhelmingly and exclusively seem to use men as their test subjects so I want to know both if women on here have tried and had success and what methods they used to track their progress, that's all.
0 -
I use the formulas from this article. I just keep a spreadsheet with the formulas and pop in the numbers every so often. The results are all slightly different due to formula and input differences but my goal is just that they continue on a downward trend. There are several female formulas.
http://strengthunbound.com/measure-body-fat-easily-accurately-home/0 -
Navy Tape puts me at 22%. My Fitbit Aria says 19 to 20%. I'm 5'3" and 110.7 pounds. I'm hesitant to believe either one, honestly. I think they're most likely too low.
If your first two profile pictures are current, you're well under 22% body fat. I say that because you have clearly visible ribs, your arms display a tremendous amount of muscle definition, and your abs are quite well-defined.
Take a look at the images here.
When I look at the pictures I look between 40-45%.... curious to see what a 50% with proportional fat distribution would look like because the person in the picture had a poor body shape to begin with which makes it look worse I think. I'd need to see 50% at my height, not on a 5' tall person.0 -
Here is an interesting read on body fat. You are probably just as good using a tape measure, a mirror and calipers.
https://legionathletics.com/how-to-calculate-body-fat/
0 -
CasperNaegle wrote: »Here is an interesting read on body fat. You are probably just as good using a tape measure, a mirror and calipers.
https://legionathletics.com/how-to-calculate-body-fat/
Interesting, although if you have loose skin it's going to mess up results anyway...
It's just odd though how those body fat pictures only show the midsection... it's hardly an accurate representation of body fat % depending on where you carry your fat...0 -
The "Navy" (i.e., Department of Defense) formulas, YMCA formulas, Modified YMCA formulas, and Covert Bailey formulas all differ based on sex due to physiological differences between the two sexes. That means that breasts and other spots where women carry more fat are taken into account.0
-
As an update I tried the method with the hand plates and got a 47.55% fat and 138 lbs lean mass. I think I'm just going to take the average between the two numbers I've gotten and use that, so each time I check in I'll do both and keep the average.
i wouldn't really take an average of anything to get bf%, there is too much room for error with most devices. i would get one device and use it at the same time of the day under the same circumstances, and use that number to track "changes" rather than track the actual number. And dont get too caught up on it, its just one of many ways to measure weightloss.0 -
I used online calculators and then used one of the scales at the health outreach program at the hospital. Both gave me the same exact bf% (that was 2 years ago). Maybe not 100% accurate, but good enough for me. I figure I'll go back and use the scale. It may not be completely valid, but using the same method should be a fairly reliable way to measure if you have lost body fat.0
-
I used online calculators and then used one of the scales at the health outreach program at the hospital. Both gave me the same exact bf% (that was 2 years ago). Maybe not 100% accurate, but good enough for me. I figure I'll go back and use the scale. It may not be completely valid, but using the same method should be a fairly reliable way to measure if you have lost body fat.
I think the bolded is important. If you are able to use the same method/machine/whatever throughout your process you will be able to see you are making progress. That said, you will likely know when you are at a body fat percentage you like, simply by looking in the mirror. Unless you are intending to compete in fitness/bikini competitions you don't really need to worry about hitting a specific %, as much as you should make sure you're happy with what you see in the mirror.0 -
GuitarJerry wrote: »GuitarJerry wrote: »Whatever method you would use for a woman, the exact same method would also work for a man, just so you know.
I still haven't seen an answer to how the measurement methods take bust into account, because they don't. In that case, no, not all the same methods work for men and women. If you have 20 lbs worth of chest as a woman and it does not ask for that number, it makes an assumption about your distribution based on making your weight fit in the parameters you provide with the measurements. If 20 lbs of fatty tissue don't actually fit in those measurements but it thinks they do, they'll assume more lean mass is distributed across your body. At least this is what I'm theorizing because I have yet to see any indication that the YMCA or Navy method takes that into account.
What I'm looking for is a fairly reliable way to know if I'm losing muscle mass along with fat. I have found that the studies concerning body building and body recomposition overwhelmingly and exclusively seem to use men as their test subjects so I want to know both if women on here have tried and had success and what methods they used to track their progress, that's all.
Fat is fat. Discounting your bust is not really a reliable way to measure something. It is what it is. When you step on a scale, you don't subtract 20 lbs to compensate for your bust size, it's part of it. Same goes with overall body fat. As you lose fat, you will also lose it from your bust, so you need to account for it in measurements of weight, body fat, and lean body mass. It's not extraneous.GuitarJerry wrote: »GuitarJerry wrote: »Whatever method you would use for a woman, the exact same method would also work for a man, just so you know.
I still haven't seen an answer to how the measurement methods take bust into account, because they don't. In that case, no, not all the same methods work for men and women. If you have 20 lbs worth of chest as a woman and it does not ask for that number, it makes an assumption about your distribution based on making your weight fit in the parameters you provide with the measurements. If 20 lbs of fatty tissue don't actually fit in those measurements but it thinks they do, they'll assume more lean mass is distributed across your body. At least this is what I'm theorizing because I have yet to see any indication that the YMCA or Navy method takes that into account.
What I'm looking for is a fairly reliable way to know if I'm losing muscle mass along with fat. I have found that the studies concerning body building and body recomposition overwhelmingly and exclusively seem to use men as their test subjects so I want to know both if women on here have tried and had success and what methods they used to track their progress, that's all.
Fat is fat. Discounting your bust is not really a reliable way to measure something. It is what it is. When you step on a scale, you don't subtract 20 lbs to compensate for your bust size, it's part of it. Same goes with overall body fat. As you lose fat, you will also lose it from your bust, so you need to account for it in measurements of weight, body fat, and lean body mass. It's not extraneous.
You are completely missing the point and do not understand what I'm asking. I'm not subtracting bust, I am saying that I'm afraid the method doesn't take it into account, thereby exaggerating my lean mass, which is the opposite of the assumption you're making. I take offense at the suggestion that I'm trying to take a shortcut or not count something. What I'm saying is that I wanted to know if there was a way to watch your body composition as accurately as possible while losing weight to ensure you are losing fat only and not muscle. I have lost 115 lbs before and lost a lot of muscle along with the fat and do not want that to happen again. If you disagree with this being necessary or think that women fit into every mold created for men, I don't know if this is the place to voice it. I wanted to open a dialogue not have someone jump in and do the whole "get to work and stop belly aching about the details routine. " I understand "fat is fat"and even mentioned that in one of my comments, which tells me you didn't read everything before jumping in. You certainly don't get the issue I'm describing with the measurements. At the very least the point of the thread was simply to ask other women if they've had accurate readings and what gives them the most accurate readings and share my concerns about our unique fat distribution not being accounted for in some methods. If you, as a male, think it's a non-issue, great, but don't disagree while not addressing the actual question, then fail to give a good reason why, and then dismiss my curiosity as an attempt to get some fatty tissue to not count into my bf %.0 -
The "Navy" (i.e., Department of Defense) formulas, YMCA formulas, Modified YMCA formulas, and Covert Bailey formulas all differ based on sex due to physiological differences between the two sexes. That means that breasts and other spots where women carry more fat are taken into account.
- THANK YOU! !! finally an answer to the question lol. I would still be a lot more comfortable with a method that took all of your measurements though as opposed to just a few even if it is assuming a percentage of fat exists on the chest, because at least it would have a better guesstimate of how much. It's a factor that varies among women just as much as fat distribution between belly and hips/thigh.0 -
Not a woman, but just in to say that there really isn't an accurate at home method to tracking body fat. You could see the trends maybe, but even those will be skewed a lot of the times so what's the point? I have had a Tanita scale tell me I'm 7% literally right after telling me I was 27% (I was neither of those at the time), and this was an expensive unit that a RD used.
You will also certainly lose muscle when you are losing weight as we all do.
Wish there was a better answer, but short of weekly Dexascans, which would be costly and still a bit inaccurate, there aren't any options.0 -
hsmith0930 wrote: »I used online calculators and then used one of the scales at the health outreach program at the hospital. Both gave me the same exact bf% (that was 2 years ago). Maybe not 100% accurate, but good enough for me. I figure I'll go back and use the scale. It may not be completely valid, but using the same method should be a fairly reliable way to measure if you have lost body fat.
I think the bolded is important. If you are able to use the same method/machine/whatever throughout your process you will be able to see you are making progress. That said, you will likely know when you are at a body fat percentage you like, simply by looking in the mirror. Unless you are intending to compete in fitness/bikini competitions you don't really need to worry about hitting a specific %, as much as you should make sure you're happy with what you see in the mirror.
Thanks! And agreed. My main purpose isn't to hit a certain %, it's just to monitor that I'm not losing muscle and verify that my losses are fat losses.
0 -
The "Navy" (i.e., Department of Defense) formulas, YMCA formulas, Modified YMCA formulas, and Covert Bailey formulas all differ based on sex due to physiological differences between the two sexes. That means that breasts and other spots where women carry more fat are taken into account.
- THANK YOU! !! finally an answer to the question lol. I would still be a lot more comfortable with a method that took all of your measurements though as opposed to just a few even if it is assuming a percentage of fat exists on the chest, because at least it would have a better guesstimate of how much. It's a factor that varies among women just as much as fat distribution between belly and hips/thigh.
I would have to think that the various methodologies take that variance into consideration though. It's not as if the people who created the calculations didn't factor in differences between men and women. They clearly did, considering that they have different calculations. IMO one could infer that they looked at women with various chest sizes and built the calculation based on average, which is the best that any calculation like this can do.
Why are you so interested in trying to be ultra exact? It truly does not matter if you are 43% fat or 42% fat or 41.9% fat. I cannot think of anything that requires ultra exact BF info. If you calculate yourself as 43% and a year from now you're 33%, when you actually started at 42.4% and ended up at 34.6%, it does not matter. You will have still lost a lot of fat and likely are much healthier.
I have no idea of my actual real starting BF% (48%? 50%) or current % (30%? 32%?) and it doesn't affect me negatively at all. I calculate it according to the calculations because numbers are interesting, but it isn't something to fixate on, as far as being ultra accurate.0 -
Why are you so interested in trying to be ultra exact? It truly does not matter if you are 43% fat or 42% fat or 41.9% fat. I cannot think of anything that requires ultra exact BF info. If you calculate yourself as 43% and a year from now you're 33%, when you actually started at 42.4% and ended up at 34.6%, it does not matter. You will have still lost a lot of fat and likely are much healthier.
Can't say about the OP, but some of us are just geeky like that.
Heck, I came across a thread in the fitness section about VO2 Max...plugged some numbers into the formula someone posted and thought "Really? Can that possibly be right?" Don't know...not planning to spend money checking it out because I have no real need. Plain ol' curiosity.
So if it is strange to wonder if a gal with a big rack and narrow hips, or a woman with a small hips and big thighs, will get anything like an accurate body fat percentage from a formula that only measures neck, hips, and waist then I'm strange too.
From another posters link:
Navy Tape
For both males and females the formulas tend to underestimate body fat %. While this is fine for evaluating if soldiers are overweight or not, for personal use formulas that don’t err on the side of caution are preferable. The women’s formula does provide a good balance between both apple and pear shaped bodies.
YMCA Formula
Like the DoD formulas, the YMCA formulas tend to underestimate body fat percentage for both men and women. For females the standard YMCA formula is only appropriate for the apple and apple/pear hybrid body types as only waist measurements are used.
Modified YMCA Formula
For males the modified YMCA formula is nothing more than simple adjustment that to the constant that shifts the calculated body fat percentage upward a bit. For females the formula is totally different than the standard YMCA formula. The female modified YMCA formula is appropriate for pear body types due to the large contribution from the hip measurement.
Covert Bailey
The Covert Bailey formulas tend to give a little lower body fat percentage than the other formulas and have a notably flatter trajectory.
So what about the other female body shapes? Busty? Hourglass?
Who knows...maybe a random college student studying health or some such will wander by. Could be someone's thesis project.
Desire for the best available data doesn't equal unwillingness to work from the imperfect data that is available.
0 -
It just occurred to me that then knowing your lean mass would be a great way to calculate goal weight, which I've been having a lot of trouble with. Although they say anything as low as 130 is healthy for my height, if I'm carrying 119 lbs of lean mass (and I don't lose any lean mass) and my goal is to get under 30% body fat, my goal is roughly 170. If I want to get down to 25%, my goal is 158, and If I want to get to 20% my goal would be 148.
If my math is right, here's how I'm calculating that:
(current lean mass ×100)÷(100-goal%)
So to calculate goal weight at 20% body fat, assuming I retain my lean mass, (119×100)÷(100-20)=148.75
Someone check my math...
But I like those numbers. They're much more realistic and comfortable than the numbers I had in my head.
You will inevitably lose LBM while cutting. There are ways to minimize it, by eating enough protein, keep a moderate deficit over severe, weight lifting - however you will lose some. How much is impossible to say.0 -
Why are you so interested in trying to be ultra exact? It truly does not matter if you are 43% fat or 42% fat or 41.9% fat. I cannot think of anything that requires ultra exact BF info. If you calculate yourself as 43% and a year from now you're 33%, when you actually started at 42.4% and ended up at 34.6%, it does not matter. You will have still lost a lot of fat and likely are much healthier.
Can't say about the OP, but some of us are just geeky like that.
Heck, I came across a thread in the fitness section about VO2 Max...plugged some numbers into the formula someone posted and thought "Really? Can that possibly be right?" Don't know...not planning to spend money checking it out because I have no real need. Plain ol' curiosity.
So if it is strange to wonder if a gal with a big rack and narrow hips, or a woman with a small hips and big thighs, will get anything like an accurate body fat percentage from a formula that only measures neck, hips, and waist then I'm strange too.
From another posters link:
Navy Tape
For both males and females the formulas tend to underestimate body fat %. While this is fine for evaluating if soldiers are overweight or not, for personal use formulas that don’t err on the side of caution are preferable. The women’s formula does provide a good balance between both apple and pear shaped bodies.
YMCA Formula
Like the DoD formulas, the YMCA formulas tend to underestimate body fat percentage for both men and women. For females the standard YMCA formula is only appropriate for the apple and apple/pear hybrid body types as only waist measurements are used.
Modified YMCA Formula
For males the modified YMCA formula is nothing more than simple adjustment that to the constant that shifts the calculated body fat percentage upward a bit. For females the formula is totally different than the standard YMCA formula. The female modified YMCA formula is appropriate for pear body types due to the large contribution from the hip measurement.
Covert Bailey
The Covert Bailey formulas tend to give a little lower body fat percentage than the other formulas and have a notably flatter trajectory.
So what about the other female body shapes? Busty? Hourglass?
Who knows...maybe a random college student studying health or some such will wander by. Could be someone's thesis project.
Desire for the best available data doesn't equal unwillingness to work from the imperfect data that is available.
LOL!
The YMCA calculator gives me 19%. I am decidedly not 19% BF.
It's weird though. When I was training for a bodybuilding competition, the online Navy calculator and others gave me higher BF than I looked visually.0 -
The "Navy" (i.e., Department of Defense) formulas, YMCA formulas, Modified YMCA formulas, and Covert Bailey formulas all differ based on sex due to physiological differences between the two sexes. That means that breasts and other spots where women carry more fat are taken into account.
- THANK YOU! !! finally an answer to the question lol. I would still be a lot more comfortable with a method that took all of your measurements though as opposed to just a few even if it is assuming a percentage of fat exists on the chest, because at least it would have a better guesstimate of how much. It's a factor that varies among women just as much as fat distribution between belly and hips/thigh.
I agree a method usually all measurements would make more sense. I've done a multitude of online calculators lately, most of them gave me around 20-21%, though one was as low as 17%. One said 25%, which is probably the closest to reality. Based on photos, I think I'm closer to 27%, possibly higher. After I get back from vacation I plan on having the BodPod done.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 419 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions