Body fat?

HaleCry
HaleCry Posts: 387 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I keep seeing people talk about their body fat percentage. I've heard the scales that tell you this are inaccurate, so how do people know what their body fat percentage is?
Sorry, I'm just confused...
«1

Replies

  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    r5hwdeii0nkk.jpeg

    The easiest way would be to compare yourself with one of these images.
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-4-the-pitfalls-of-body-fat-measurement-parts-3-and-4-bod-pod-and-bioelectrical-impedance-bia/the-pitfalls-of-bodyfat-measurement-part-4-bioelectrical-impedance-bia/
  • HaleCry
    HaleCry Posts: 387 Member
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    r5hwdeii0nkk.jpeg

    The easiest way would be to compare yourself with one of these images.

    I guess I'm about 45% then. Thank you.
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-4-the-pitfalls-of-body-fat-measurement-parts-3-and-4-bod-pod-and-bioelectrical-impedance-bia/the-pitfalls-of-bodyfat-measurement-part-4-bioelectrical-impedance-bia/

    Thanks.
  • Spliner1969
    Spliner1969 Posts: 3,233 Member
    I use a set of calipers purchased off of Amazon.com. Most accurate way is with a Dexa Scan or a scan done by your doctor, but next would be a good set of calipers. Mine are designed to take measurements in 3 separate areas of the body, combine the numbers you get then look it up on a chart that comes with the calipers. Seems fairly accurate. Mine are spring loaded (so they close by themselves) so readings are the same and aren't thrown off by you squeezing them hard to get a smaller reading.
  • dkabambe
    dkabambe Posts: 544 Member
    Agree with investing in some callipers for more accurate reading. Even cheap ones on amazon will do the job. See http://scoobysworkshop.com/body-fat-calculator/ or http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/your-body-fat-percentage-how-its-measured-and-why-its-useful.html or similar, for how to measure and get result.
  • robininfl
    robininfl Posts: 1,137 Member
    I estimate using a combination of:

    The BIA handheld machine
    Pictures
    Calipers
    Internet calculators that use measurements and weight

    All of these are within a couple percentage points of each other so I am pretty confident, and am not in a situation where I need to know exactly what it is.
  • singletrackmtbr
    singletrackmtbr Posts: 644 Member
    I second the calipers. There is a learning curve so lots of practice is needed. You'll get higher accuracy if you let someone else measure you (preferably the same person all the time).

    I would also encourage you to do a 7 point test instead of 3. It is much more representative and takes about a minute longer.

    The photos are a great starting point, but I've seen a lot of variability in different photos, especially for women.
  • Spliner1969
    Spliner1969 Posts: 3,233 Member
    singletrackmtbr wrote: »
    I second the calipers. There is a learning curve so lots of practice is needed. You'll get higher accuracy if you let someone else measure you (preferably the same person all the time).

    I would also encourage you to do a 7 point test instead of 3. It is much more representative and takes about a minute longer.

    The photos are a great starting point, but I've seen a lot of variability in different photos, especially for women.

    Do you happen to have a link to a 7 point test chart/instructions? My calipers came with only a 3 point chart. I guess I could average the numbers out. I tend to do the same 3 point test on both sides of the body and then average the numbers for my results. With the calipers I generally read between 12-13% body fat, and last I checked with a height/weight/waist circumference calculator it comes out between 11 and 13% so seems fairly accurate to me (within 1% anyway).
  • rybo
    rybo Posts: 5,424 Member
    It cracks me up that people will talk of how inaccurate BF% measuring is, then suggest comparing to some pictures. LOL

  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    edited October 2016
    Spliner1969 wrote: »
    singletrackmtbr wrote: »
    I second the calipers. There is a learning curve so lots of practice is needed. You'll get higher accuracy if you let someone else measure you (preferably the same person all the time).

    I would also encourage you to do a 7 point test instead of 3. It is much more representative and takes about a minute longer.

    The photos are a great starting point, but I've seen a lot of variability in different photos, especially for women.

    Do you happen to have a link to a 7 point test chart/instructions? My calipers came with only a 3 point chart. I guess I could average the numbers out. I tend to do the same 3 point test on both sides of the body and then average the numbers for my results. With the calipers I generally read between 12-13% body fat, and last I checked with a height/weight/waist circumference calculator it comes out between 11 and 13% so seems fairly accurate to me (within 1% anyway).

    @Spliner1969,

    http://www.linear-software.com/online.html

    There are a number of different calculators there and they also have instructions and a link to a video at the top of the page.

    I've always used the Jackson-Pollock 3-site measurements because I do it myself and can't measure triceps, subscapular, etc. It may not be perfectly accurate, but it's repeatable and I can track trends from it. It also corresponds with my visual estimation.

    My scale does BIA when I weigh, but I don't put any stock in the measurements. The reading can fluctuate up to 2% from day to day (even though I weigh at the same time/same conditions every day) and isn't consistent with what the skinfold calipers and mirror are telling me.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,427 MFP Moderator
    rybo wrote: »
    It cracks me up that people will talk of how inaccurate BF% measuring is, then suggest comparing to some pictures. LOL

    I do too, especially consider the people who have gotten pods/dexa's done have almost always come in lower than those pictures. Genetic predisposition of fat is a huge factor.


    OP, I do the 9-point caliper test. And while calipers are not exact, they tend to be more accurate than bioimpedance machines. Dexa/hydrostatic tend to be the most accurate.
  • RoxieDawn
    RoxieDawn Posts: 15,488 Member
    rybo wrote: »
    It cracks me up that people will talk of how inaccurate BF% measuring is, then suggest comparing to some pictures. LOL

    me too..

    there is a huge variance between 15-17% up to 20 - 22% up to 25%.

    OP I do caliper tests and body measurements. The caliper test is far from perfect but the best you can get for low cost and convenience at home. My BIA scale is out in the left field on my body composition reading. Photos (monthly) are good to do as well.
  • singletrackmtbr
    singletrackmtbr Posts: 644 Member
    edited October 2016
    Spliner1969 wrote: »
    Do you happen to have a link to a 7 point test chart/instructions? My calipers came with only a 3 point chart. I guess I could average the numbers out. I tend to do the same 3 point test on both sides of the body and then average the numbers for my results. With the calipers I generally read between 12-13% body fat, and last I checked with a height/weight/waist circumference calculator it comes out between 11 and 13% so seems fairly accurate to me (within 1% anyway).

    Here's the one I use based upon the Jackson/Pollock method. I like this one because it has decent photos to help you measure correctly. My only gripe is you can't track here. I did create a body fat percentage metric on MFP so I can at least keep track of the total.

    http://www.free-online-calculator-use.com/skin-fold-test.html

    My understanding is the benefits of the 9-point calculator over the 7 is minimal, compared to the 7-point over the 3-point. I read that the 9 point is more relevant for professional atheletes or other extremely fit people (i.e. those with very low body fat percentage already), as the two extra points (bicep and calf) are unlikely to experience nearly the changes that the other points will for the majority of us.

    It is worth noting that you can't properly do a 7 or 9 point measurement yourself, so that may be a deal breaker for some.

  • robininfl
    robininfl Posts: 1,137 Member
    Are you guys really getting such different measurements using different methods? Maybe it is a body type thing, but they all say very close to the same body fat %. I was un-surprised using the bioimpedence machine, it just gave the reading I expected based on calipers, which was the same as the one calculated by using measurements, and looking at the pictures I'm close to the "type" 20-22%, very lean arms and legs with good muscle definition, no visible abs but not much squish either. No boobs to speak of, I imagine those can pull up the fat % quite a bit if they are big. But on the other hand I have crap bone mass, so likely less lean mass than someone else who looks visually similar, so I guess it works out.
  • lorrpb
    lorrpb Posts: 11,463 Member
    How was BF in the photos determined? On what basis are these accurate?

    I got hydrostatic testing done after I got to my goal weight. The results were at least 5% higher than the photos & my trainer's estimate.
  • singletrackmtbr
    singletrackmtbr Posts: 644 Member
    I used to use a bio impedance device. My body fat was consistently 21-26 percent. When I switched to calipers I got readings approximately 5 percent lower on a regular basis.

    Currently I'm between 12 and 13 percent by calipers, but the bio impedance device still has me at almost 19.
  • jemhh
    jemhh Posts: 14,261 Member
    lorrpb wrote: »
    How was BF in the photos determined? On what basis are these accurate?

    I got hydrostatic testing done after I got to my goal weight. The results were at least 5% higher than the photos & my trainer's estimate.

    This has always been my question. I've never seen anything stating how the bf% was determined for any of the pictures.
    robininfl wrote: »
    Are you guys really getting such different measurements using different methods? Maybe it is a body type thing, but they all say very close to the same body fat %. I was un-surprised using the bioimpedence machine, it just gave the reading I expected based on calipers, which was the same as the one calculated by using measurements, and looking at the pictures I'm close to the "type" 20-22%, very lean arms and legs with good muscle definition, no visible abs but not much squish either. No boobs to speak of, I imagine those can pull up the fat % quite a bit if they are big. But on the other hand I have crap bone mass, so likely less lean mass than someone else who looks visually similar, so I guess it works out.

    Yes, I get very different results. 10% range for me (26-36%) depending on method.
  • BusyRaeNOTBusty
    BusyRaeNOTBusty Posts: 7,166 Member
    Once, within a few months, and all at about the same weight I did a hand held electric meter (23%), body calipers done by a trainer (19%) and use a scaled (36%), and then looked at pictures (25%).

    Overall I decided not to care. It's just another number that no one will know unless I tell them. I go by how I feel and think I look. Right not I feel and look a little heavier than I prefer, but I feel like I'm making positive progress within the last few weeks, even though the numbers don't agree.
  • middlehaitch
    middlehaitch Posts: 8,486 Member
    I can never see my body in those pics, but I could swear it is a friend in the bottom left pic.
    My scale and measurements on most web sites usually have me around the 19-21% but in reality (the mirror) I am in the mid 20's.

    Cheers, h.
  • singletrackmtbr
    singletrackmtbr Posts: 644 Member
    BusyRaeNOTBusty wrote: »
    Once, within a few months, and all at about the same weight I did a hand held electric meter (23%), body calipers done by a trainer (19%) and use a scaled (36%), and then looked at pictures (25%).

    Overall I decided not to care. It's just another number that no one will know unless I tell them. I go by how I feel and think I look. Right not I feel and look a little heavier than I prefer, but I feel like I'm making positive progress within the last few weeks, even though the numbers don't agree.

    You have to do what works for you. For me body fat percentage matters more than the scale.
  • trigden1991
    trigden1991 Posts: 4,658 Member
    If you are incredibly lean or obese, most methods will be inaccurate. The fact you know your bodyfat % doesn't really help you unless you are using it to calculate macros from your lean body mass which MFP doesn't use. Just go by the mirror, scale and tape measure.
  • Sara1791
    Sara1791 Posts: 760 Member
    The hand held thingy said I'm 30% but based on measurements I'm more like 35%. Pictures? I don't know. They don't really look like me. Maybe somewhere between 30 and 40.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    edited October 2016
    The pictures do look like me shapewise, but I have loose skin that confounds efforts to compare. I posted pictures a few months ago on another site and got average estimates of 25%. I've lost some body fat since then, and that goes with what I'm seeing comparing myself to the pictures. I fall somewhere between 20 and 25. Tape measure puts me at 21. LOL no.

    I just ordered calipers.

    The handheld devices always put me way high and I think they're worthless pretty much.

    At this point, my weight loss has slowed to a crawl, but I do care about body fat. I don't know why. I'm not a really epic lifter or anything. I just want to be lean for my age. I'm 54 and at my age, lean starts at a higher body fat percentage. I guess after a lifetime spent being "the fat one", I think it's just a goal to be lean and athletic.
  • jemhh
    jemhh Posts: 14,261 Member
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    The pictures do look like me shapewise, but I have loose skin that confounds efforts to compare. I posted pictures a few months ago on another site and got average estimates of 25%. I've lost some body fat since then, and that goes with what I'm seeing comparing myself to the pictures. I fall somewhere between 20 and 25. Tape measure puts me at 21. LOL no.

    I posted pictures elsewhere and got 26%. Due to stretched skin (I seem to have terrible genetics) and my body shape, those pictures are pretty useless for me. My DEXA said 36%.

  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    jemhh wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    The pictures do look like me shapewise, but I have loose skin that confounds efforts to compare. I posted pictures a few months ago on another site and got average estimates of 25%. I've lost some body fat since then, and that goes with what I'm seeing comparing myself to the pictures. I fall somewhere between 20 and 25. Tape measure puts me at 21. LOL no.

    I posted pictures elsewhere and got 26%. Due to stretched skin (I seem to have terrible genetics) and my body shape, those pictures are pretty useless for me. My DEXA said 36%.

    I think your DEXA was wrong. Unless you have amazing amounts of visceral fat.

    What do you get with the Navy calculator?
  • HealthyBodySickMind
    HealthyBodySickMind Posts: 1,207 Member
    The different measurements have me all over the map.

    My Omron (with the hand and feet sensors): 24%
    Last hand held only electrical impedance: 13%

    Tape measurements:
    Military: 18%
    Covert Bailey: 23%
    Fat2Fit: 25%

    Calipers:
    7 point Jackson/Pollock: 14%
    4 point Durnin/Womersley: 19%
    6 point Parrillo: 16%

    Pictures: maybe the 20-22%?

    So I should safely be able to say that I am somewhere between 13% and 25% BF!

    There is apparently no where near me to get a DEXA scan.
  • jemhh
    jemhh Posts: 14,261 Member
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    jemhh wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    The pictures do look like me shapewise, but I have loose skin that confounds efforts to compare. I posted pictures a few months ago on another site and got average estimates of 25%. I've lost some body fat since then, and that goes with what I'm seeing comparing myself to the pictures. I fall somewhere between 20 and 25. Tape measure puts me at 21. LOL no.

    I posted pictures elsewhere and got 26%. Due to stretched skin (I seem to have terrible genetics) and my body shape, those pictures are pretty useless for me. My DEXA said 36%.

    I think your DEXA was wrong. Unless you have amazing amounts of visceral fat.

    What do you get with the Navy calculator?

    I get 28.23 with the Navy calculator.

    I keep a running spreadsheet with the formulas from this article. Other methods give me:
    • YMCA: 26.74
    • Modified YMCA: 26.18
    • Covert Bailey: 25.88

    While I'm sure I started off with a lot of visceral fat (I have more of an android fat distribution rather than the typical gynoid distribution and I started out with quite a large stomach) I believe it's minimal now. My problem is subcutaneous fat behind stretched skin. I very much think that my DEXA was off, either due to user error or calibration error or something else. I wasn't expecting 26% on it but I also didn't expect a result that indicated that I am still obese.
  • JeromeBarry1
    JeromeBarry1 Posts: 10,179 Member
    My scale does impedance measuring and infers body fat% from that. I've used it every 1-3 months on this weight loss journey. It is showing a declining trend of my body fat. Is it inaccurate? Probably. Is it useless? No. Recently my wife, 175 lb and not an exerciser, used the impedance measuring device to get a ballpark estimate of her bf%. It said she was 49.5% fat. She has since started exercising, so that's a win.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    edited October 2016
    jemhh wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    jemhh wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    The pictures do look like me shapewise, but I have loose skin that confounds efforts to compare. I posted pictures a few months ago on another site and got average estimates of 25%. I've lost some body fat since then, and that goes with what I'm seeing comparing myself to the pictures. I fall somewhere between 20 and 25. Tape measure puts me at 21. LOL no.

    I posted pictures elsewhere and got 26%. Due to stretched skin (I seem to have terrible genetics) and my body shape, those pictures are pretty useless for me. My DEXA said 36%.

    I think your DEXA was wrong. Unless you have amazing amounts of visceral fat.

    What do you get with the Navy calculator?

    I get 28.23 with the Navy calculator.

    I keep a running spreadsheet with the formulas from this article. Other methods give me:
    • YMCA: 26.74
    • Modified YMCA: 26.18
    • Covert Bailey: 25.88

    While I'm sure I started off with a lot of visceral fat (I have more of an android fat distribution rather than the typical gynoid distribution and I started out with quite a large stomach) I believe it's minimal now. My problem is subcutaneous fat behind stretched skin. I very much think that my DEXA was off, either due to user error or calibration error or something else. I wasn't expecting 26% on it but I also didn't expect a result that indicated that I am still obese.

    Yeah, I think your DEXA was an anomoly. I think I remember reading that they can be calibrated based on the average of the people they've scanned. You might have just been lumped in with a bad bunch.

    As for me, I definitely have gynoid distribution.

    When I do those other methods like YMCA and Covert Bailey, I get very low numbers in the same neighborhood as the Navy Calculator (from as low as 18 up to 21).

    This is why I'm most comfortable sticking with the visual estimate, because it places me the highest! I'm interested to see what results I get with calipers.

Categories