Which body fat calculator is considered most accurate?

I know the best way is to get a trained professional to measure your body fat %, but if you can't do that what is the next best thing?

I'm using online calculators using body measurements and they seem to vary quite a bit. Currently the military (army) one has me at 35.3% (coming down from 42.2% four months ago) and just checked Covert Bailey (fat2fit) and it has me as 29.3%, and also fitwatch which calculates it as 27%.

For now I've been tracking the trend only and didn't care much about the exact number, but since I'm getting closer to normal BF I'd like to be more accurate:wink:

Replies

  • QuilterInVA
    QuilterInVA Posts: 672 Member
    The only accurate way is to be weighed under water. As you have found, measuirements aren't accuate, even by a professional.
  • jamielynas
    jamielynas Posts: 366 Member
    the mirror
  • RawCarrots
    RawCarrots Posts: 204 Member
    You people are not reading my question:grumble: :wink:
    Or are you trying to say it is a stupid question? :embarassed: That I shouldn't worry about body fat?
  • fjrandol
    fjrandol Posts: 437 Member
    You'll need to get some calipers to get close to accurate measurements on yourself; you can get some at any semi-decent sporting goods store. Then: http://scoobysworkshop.com/body-fat-calculator/.

    Otherwise, http://bodyfattest.com/. If they don't go to your area, try asking around at some of the local gyms. They could probably recommend a nearby place for testing. :smile:
  • etoiles_argentees
    etoiles_argentees Posts: 2,827 Member
    DEXA.
  • bumblebums
    bumblebums Posts: 2,181 Member
    You people are not reading my question:grumble: :wink:
    Or are you trying to say it is a stupid question? :embarassed: That I shouldn't worry about body fat?

    You should worry about body fat. What these people are telling you is that calculators are not that accurate, and that you might need a variety of measures to get at that BF% number. Have you read these?

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/measuring-body-composition-part-1.html
    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/measuring-body-composition-part-2.html
  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    You people are not reading my question:grumble: :wink:
    Or are you trying to say it is a stupid question? :embarassed: That I shouldn't worry about body fat?

    They are reading it. And the methods listed above this response are valid. Please look at the link I posted as it explains the different methods of figuring out your body fat.
  • willdob3
    willdob3 Posts: 640 Member
    There aren't any that are accurate. Just pick one method & use it consistently. The difference between readings using the same method will tell you if you are losing. Again, the # won't be perfect. But, the numbers really are not important.

    You know it is working when your clothes get loose...
  • bumblebums
    bumblebums Posts: 2,181 Member
    There aren't any that are accurate. Just pick one method & use it consistently. The difference between readings using the same method will tell you if you are losing. Again, the # won't be perfect. But, the numbers really are not important.

    You know it is working when your clothes get loose...

    Exactly--the absolute number will vary between methods, but what matters is that you use a single method consistently. Take pictures in the same clothes (or lack thereof) and lighting, and measure yourself regularly using the same measuring tape. Then you will be able to judge your progress relative to your own consistent metrics.
  • toutmonpossible
    toutmonpossible Posts: 1,580 Member
    The only accurate way is to be weighed under water. As you have found, measuirements aren't accuate, even by a professional.

    That's not what she asked, but a DXA scan is considered to be the most accurate.
  • toutmonpossible
    toutmonpossible Posts: 1,580 Member
    There aren't any that are accurate. Just pick one method & use it consistently. The difference between readings using the same method will tell you if you are losing. Again, the # won't be perfect. But, the numbers really are not important.

    You know it is working when your clothes get loose...

    Exactly--the absolute number will vary between methods, but what matters is that you use a single method consistently. Take pictures in the same clothes (or lack thereof) and lighting, and measure yourself regularly using the same measuring tape. Then you will be able to judge your progress relative to your own consistent metrics.

    That's what I do with my scale. One day I'd like to have DXA scan to see how it compares.
  • HeidiCooksSupper
    HeidiCooksSupper Posts: 3,839 Member

    THIS. And google "body fat percentage pictures comparison" to find a variety of images to use to estimate your body fat. Scales using electrical impedance are pretty much inaccurate.
  • luckydays27
    luckydays27 Posts: 552 Member
    Use one method for consistency. Dont change it up once you pick one.

    I use the US Navy body fat calculations, mainly because I was in the Navy and understand it well. Plus I lived with those standards for years and know what my body should like like at a certain body fat.
  • RawCarrots
    RawCarrots Posts: 204 Member
    Thank you all very much :flowerforyou: will read through all those links now!
    I have been using the navy calculator since the start and have noticed it's going down. I knew there are other calculators but never tried them before, that's why I was so surprised when I noticed such a big difference, one has me at obese, the others as average (according to the classification in Wikipedia)

    I'm taking measurements all over every couple of weeks, as well as progress photos. It's only the body fat I couldn't get my head around as at the start it was so high :embarassed: I was way off anything resembling normal bf. Now that I'm getting closer to "normal" I need to figure it out and set some BF goals as well:smile: I understand that measurement calculators are not 100% accurate and that's OK.

    Thanks again for the links, I'm off to read.