Whats my Bodyfat%

Options
travisk8s
travisk8s Posts: 24 Member
edited October 2016 in Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
Trying to figure out my bodyfat %
Left side I was 148lbs right side is my current weight 169.4. I'm 5'9" tall. When I started at 148 I used someone's Omron body fat analyzer (the thing you squeeze) it said I was 6% but that seemed low IMO

https://postimg.org/image/wppnzbelp/

Replies

  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,344 Member
    edited October 2016
    Options
    In the left pic I'd estimate around 13-14%. In the right pic I'd estimate around 20%, maybe even a bit higher.

    Absolutely no way you were 6% in that left pic - 6% is pretty peeled. Check it against these pics for an idea:

    mz503axrc3ab.jpg
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    travisk8s wrote: »
    Trying to figure out my bodyfat %
    Left side I was 148lbs right side is my current weight 169.4. I'm 5'9" tall. When I started at 148 I used someone's Omron body fat analyzer (the thing you squeeze) it said I was 6% but that seemed low IMO

    https://postimg.org/image/wppnzbelp/

    So you can guarantee without a shadow of a doubt that your thought that the Omrom "seemed low" was spot on

    And you can add that to all the evidence that body fat analysis by bio impedance is a waste of time

    It's really difficult to tell by any means to be honest, the only accurate way is autopsy and that seems a little extreme

    Visually on the limited pictures I'd guess around 20, possibly more ...you need better pics..straight on, side on, back, flexed, unflexed, clear natural lighting, full body to get a decentish visual guess
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    Options
    Sued0nim wrote: »
    travisk8s wrote: »
    Trying to figure out my bodyfat %
    Left side I was 148lbs right side is my current weight 169.4. I'm 5'9" tall. When I started at 148 I used someone's Omron body fat analyzer (the thing you squeeze) it said I was 6% but that seemed low IMO

    https://postimg.org/image/wppnzbelp/

    So you can guarantee without a shadow of a doubt that your thought that the Omrom "seemed low" was spot on

    And you can add that to all the evidence that body fat analysis by bio impedance is a waste of time

    It's really difficult to tell by any means to be honest, the only accurate way is autopsy and that seems a little extreme

    Visually on the limited pictures I'd guess around 20, possibly more ...you need better pics..straight on, side on, back, flexed, unflexed, clear natural lighting, full body to get a decentish visual guess

    The variance in those impedance metres is very high so the range +/- from your true BF% can be quite high. 4-6% is a pro bodybuilder on stage so unless you can see veins on your legs and chest, and clearly, your aren't anywhere near it.
  • travisk8s
    travisk8s Posts: 24 Member
    Options
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    In the left pic I'd estimate around 13-14%. In the right pic I'd estimate around 20%, maybe even a bit higher.

    Absolutely no way you were 6% in that left pic - 6% is pretty peeled. Check it against these pics for an idea:

    mz503axrc3ab.jpg

    Thanks
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    edited October 2016
    Options
    travisk8s wrote: »
    Trying to figure out my bodyfat %
    Left side I was 148lbs right side is my current weight 169.4. I'm 5'9" tall. When I started at 148 I used someone's Omron body fat analyzer (the thing you squeeze) it said I was 6% but that seemed low IMO

    https://postimg.org/image/wppnzbelp/

    I would guess on left side you were like 9% and on right side you look like your about 24%. I did that by eye now I'm going to do the math to see if that seems reasonable.

    If you were 148 pounds at 9% that would mean your lean mass is 136 pounds. If your lean mass didn't change and you became 24% bodyfat you would then weigh (by math) 169 pounds.

    I swear I did the math after I guessed on your bodyfat percentage, just lucked out it worked out that well.

    Its just I have been those two things with those exact weights and I know on my body what that looks like. If you look at my profile pictures there is me in February at 28% BF and 188 pounds versus me in July at 15% BF and 160 pounds. I got down to 12%BF and like 153 pounds and didn't quite look as cut as your original picture.
  • sgt1372
    sgt1372 Posts: 3,977 Member
    Options
    The only way to measure your BF with any degree of accuracy is to get a DXA scan or get weighed hydrostatically.

    I have done both. If you want a more favorable result, get weighed hydrostatically which tends to give a lower BF result than DXA. Each are accurate to about +/-5%, so their results can overlap.

    I agree that you are no where near 6% and based on your pics and the comparison chart posted above, you are probably bet 15-20%.

    FWIW, I look closer to 10-12% based on the comparison chart but was just measured at 16.9% by DXA a few days ago and 16% by hydrostatic weighing a month ago at approximately the same weight of 166. So, going by the comparison chart is not accurate either.
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    Options
    sgt1372 wrote: »
    The only way to measure your BF with any degree of accuracy is to get a DXA scan or get weighed hydrostatically.

    I have done both. If you want a more favorable result, get weighed hydrostatically which tends to give a lower BF result than DXA. Each are accurate to about +/-5%, so their results can overlap.

    I agree that you are no where near 6% and based on your pics and the comparison chart posted above, you are probably bet 15-20%.

    FWIW, I look closer to 10-12% based on the comparison chart but was just measured at 16.9% by DXA a few days ago and 16% by hydrostatic weighing a month ago at approximately the same weight of 166. So, going by the comparison chart is not accurate either.

    Gold standards cost a lot of gold unfortunately. I'm thinking of doing a DEXA soon for something like $150, but hydrostatic I think is really hard to get into because they only have it at the University here for research purposes.
  • sgt1372
    sgt1372 Posts: 3,977 Member
    edited October 2016
    Options
    Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
    Gold standards cost a lot of gold unfortunately. I'm thinking of doing a DEXA soon for something like $150, but hydrostatic I think is really hard to get into because they only have it at the University here for research purposes.

    I once paid $100 for a DXA but it's no longer that expensive for me to get a DXA scan in the SF Bay Area in California.

    My DXA now only costs $45/scan (paid for 1 at a time) but you can buy multiple scans for $40 or less per session in groups of 3 scans or more). The company is Body Spec and provides mobike DXA scan services in the SF Bay Area, Sacramento and LA. Not sure if they do business in other states.

    My hydrostatic weigh-ins cost only $49 for the 1st testing and $39 for each retest. No multiple test discounts. The company is Body Fat Test which provides mobile services in the SF Bay Area and LA in California as well as in other states including FL, CO, TX and GA among others.

    That's about as affordable as it gets but, if such deals aren't available in your area and if you're serious about accurately measuring your BF, you really have no choice but pay the going rate in your area.

    I do it more often because it is relatively cheap, but if you have to pay $100 or more, you only need to do it every 3 months which brings the monthly cost down to a more affordable $33-50/month.
  • brdnw
    brdnw Posts: 565 Member
    edited October 2016
    Options
    .
  • travisk8s
    travisk8s Posts: 24 Member
    Options
    $49 isn't to long I'm in Orange county about 30minutes away from Los Angeles

Categories