Body fat %

brittneyalley

I don't have access to calipers or any type of scan (and don't have the money). I have a scale that supposedly measures bf% (I know, not accurate). Would that scale be more or less accurate than inputing my measurements in an online calculator?

If I input my measurements (height, weight, waist, hips, and neck) online, It's saying I have a 27.19% bf, but the scale I own says 35.2%. Just curious as to which I should "believe" (using that term loosely).

collectingblues

I'd go with the scale versus the calculator. The scale actually knows the full picture, without user error.

Both can be inaccurate, but I know for me, the online calculators were *far* more inaccurate when compared to the BodPod testing I had.

kristen8000

My BF scale says I'm about 21% and the online calculator says 23%, so I say for now I'm 22%. I know this "guessing" isn't accurate, but for me it's fine. For reference, I'm 39, F, 5'11 and weigh about 141lbs. I'm basically a skinny couch potato. LOL

evilpoptart63

collectingblues wrote: »

I'd go with the scale versus the calculator. The scale actually knows the full picture, without user error.

Both can be inaccurate, but I know for me, the online calculators were *far* more inaccurate when compared to the BodPod testing I had.

Did the online calculator read higher or lower thab thebbod pod?

SCoil123

I prefer online calculators. The scale has no idea how much muscle you have. It calculates based on an average using only weight/height/age/ and gender. I’ve been lifting and boxing a year now. My scale says my body fat has increased since training.

Handheld by trainer put me at 29-27% last January
Measurements online calculator puts me at 25% now
My scale depending on water and time of day puts me at 30-33%

I had a dexa scan when I started before losing 30lb and starting lifting. I was at 31% at that time. That was around September 2016

SCoil123

collectingblues wrote: »

I'd go with the scale versus the calculator. The scale actually knows the full picture, without user error.

Both can be inaccurate, but I know for me, the online calculators were *far* more inaccurate when compared to the BodPod testing I had.

Why would a scale you stand on have a better picture of the full picture and body composition than measurements and weight combined?

brittneyalley

Oh man now I have no clue what to go by.

My soft goal is ~20% bf. I know I have a long way to go, but not sure which weight to aim for before starting recomping and then bulk/cut cycles. If I go by my scale, I'd need to be 105 (to be 20%). If I go by online calculators, I'd need to be 117 (and I'm at 130 now).

I may have to save up to get a scan done.

quiksylver296

I don't understand the need to know one's BF%. Why not just go with what you see in the mirror? When you like that, you're there.

SCoil123

brittneyalley wrote: »

Oh man now I have no clue what to go by.

My soft goal is ~20% bf. I know I have a long way to go, but not sure which weight to aim for before starting recomping and then bulk/cut cycles. If I go by my scale, I'd need to be 105 (to be 20%). If I go by online calculators, I'd need to be 117 (and I'm at 130 now).

I may have to save up to get a scan done.

20% is my goal as well. I really want another scan.

dimaslopes

bioimpendance scales have great error margin compared to dexa and submersion tests since hydratation alters your measurement, even dexa can be imprecise if done poorly.
the online calculators are based in statistic methods and regressions with values from dozens of thousands of people made with adipometers/calipers.
So in my opinion go for the online calculators or take the submersion tank test if you can. if you got some calipers ask someone who knows how to do it for you.

sardelsa

brittneyalley wrote: »

Oh man now I have no clue what to go by.

My soft goal is ~20% bf. I know I have a long way to go, but not sure which weight to aim for before starting recomping and then bulk/cut cycles. If I go by my scale, I'd need to be 105 (to be 20%). If I go by online calculators, I'd need to be 117 (and I'm at 130 now).

I may have to save up to get a scan done.

At this point, I wouldn't worry about the scale or what a scale/calculator says to aim for before you decide to maintain or bulk.. I would go by the mirror and how you feel.

jemhh

Absolutely all of the commercially available methods for bf measurement have fairly large margins of error at the individual error. DEXA is +/- 5%+. BIA is +/- 8-9%. Most are not even useful for watching changes over time because of the large margins of error.

I truly believe that getting a visual estimate from somebody who has a decent grasp of bf% is good enough for what people generally use it for. I can't totally get behind the "what do you see in the mirror" thing only because I have struggled with body dysmorphia and know how it warps your view of what you see in the mirror and in pictures.

brittneyalley

jemhh wrote: »

Absolutely all of the commercially available methods for bf measurement have fairly large margins of error at the individual error. DEXA is +/- 5%+. BIA is +/- 8-9%. Most are not even useful for watching changes over time because of the large margins of error.

I truly believe that getting a visual estimate from somebody who has a decent grasp of bf% is good enough for what people generally use it for. I can't totally get behind the "what do you see in the mirror" thing only because I have struggled with body dysmorphia and know how it warps your view of what you see in the mirror and in pictures.

I think that's part of my problem. I'm not sure what my body should look like at a normal/healthy weight. That's why I'm interested in more data. I'm still overweight by BMI, so I know I still have more to lose to be healthier.

Tacklewasher

This is another topic where I tend to be in the minority.

I've got almost daily measurements of BF% since Feb 17th in trendweight. I think the trendline is a reasonable estimate of my BF% and I'm happy to use it as a goal.

I compare mine to online calculators (http://www.fat2fittools.com/tools/) and it is close. I take measurments every Sunday morning and put it all in a spreadsheet (including the Sunday scale trend %).

Maybe I'm deluding myself, but the numbers seem to be going the right way, show I'm losing mostly fat at this point and that my LBM is not going down too quickly.

I want to be sub 20%, which will probably still have me outside of normal BMI by a little bit.

collectingblues

SCoil123 wrote: »

collectingblues wrote: »

I'd go with the scale versus the calculator. The scale actually knows the full picture, without user error.

Both can be inaccurate, but I know for me, the online calculators were *far* more inaccurate when compared to the BodPod testing I had.

Why would a scale you stand on have a better picture of the full picture and body composition than measurements and weight combined?

For me, it's because most online calculators use primarily a waist + hip measurement, and only a small number of them use more points. I carry almost quite literally *all* of my fat in my torso -- and have very little in my arms and legs. So a calculator that only looks at waist + hips + neck is always going to be off for me because it presumes I'm uniformly fat.

And frankly, I don't trust my measurements. I know what I come up with, but I don't know if the tape is perfectly accurate, etc. I simply trust the scale more.

collectingblues

evilpoptart63 wrote: »

collectingblues wrote: »

I'd go with the scale versus the calculator. The scale actually knows the full picture, without user error.

Both can be inaccurate, but I know for me, the online calculators were *far* more inaccurate when compared to the BodPod testing I had.

Did the online calculator read higher or lower thab thebbod pod?

Much higher. I carry all of my fat in my waist + hips, so for calculators that only use waist + hips + neck, they tend to assume that I am uniformly fat, and don't consider the fact that my arms, thighs, and calves are *tiny*.

WhereIsPJSoles

SCoil123 wrote: »

I prefer online calculators. The scale has no idea how much muscle you have. It calculates based on an average using only weight/height/age/ and gender. I’ve been lifting and boxing a year now. My scale says my body fat has increased since training.

It’s a calculation but supposedly those scales (or at least the ones I’ve seen) are sending an electrical current up from your feet through your legs and the resistance to the current is used to determine your body fat. The problem a lot of people have with them is their lower body is not representative of the fat of their upper body so it’s always going to be kind of off.

LivingtheLeanDream

I'm not sure why alot of us think in terms of bf% - we know what we see in mirror, if we're happy with what we see then great, if not then we know what we have to do.

Scales are nowhere near accurate nor are online calculators. I suppose if you want an idea then choose somewhere in the middle of both?

mom23mangos

RunRutheeRun wrote: »

I'm not sure why alot of us think in terms of bf% - we know what we see in mirror, if we're happy with what we see then great, if not then we know what we have to do.

Scales are nowhere near accurate nor are online calculators. I suppose if you want an idea then choose somewhere in the middle of both?

For me, it's a good measure to make sure I don't go too lean for health reasons. If I just looked at the mirror, I'd probably keep going leaner because I'd still want to get rid of the fat around my legs. But knowing that dipping any lower would be detrimental to my health helps me know when to stop.

sardelsa

mom23mangos wrote: »

RunRutheeRun wrote: »

I'm not sure why alot of us think in terms of bf% - we know what we see in mirror, if we're happy with what we see then great, if not then we know what we have to do.

Scales are nowhere near accurate nor are online calculators. I suppose if you want an idea then choose somewhere in the middle of both?

For me, it's a good measure to make sure I don't go too lean for health reasons. If I just looked at the mirror, I'd probably keep going leaner because I'd still want to get rid of the fat around my legs. But knowing that dipping any lower would be detrimental to my health helps me know when to stop.

That's a really interesting perspective.. I've never thought about checking bf% for that reason!

T1DCarnivoreRunner

For me, the results have shown variances. Listed from lowest to highest:

-Bio-electric impedance hand-held devices
-Most bio-electric impedance scales (except current Omron scale used at home)
-Calipers
-Calculators based on measurements of body parts and weight/age/gender
-Dexa scan (considered the most accurate of those listed)
-My Omron scale used at home (always is higher than anything else done the same day), by sometimes more than 10% and never more than 0.3% higher than Dexa... always higher (so far), but usually very close.

So most everything is below what I would consider most accurate. If my experience is similar to others, I would say whichever is higher is more correct.

kgirlhart

OP I would probably just pick one to use and go with that. As long as your bf% is trending down you will know you are on track. Just be consistent with whatever measurement tools you are using.

I put my stats into the calculators on http://www.fat2fittools.com/tools/ and I get 25.3%, 18.4% and 21.5% I don't really know which one is most accurate. According to that site for my age my ideal bf% should be 23% - 35%. So is my bf% just right as the first calculator says, or too low as the other two say? Looking in the mirror I think it is ok. (Actually, I probably really think it is a little higher than I want, but that may just be me still seeing the fat woman I used to be.) I think if I did have a scale that measured bf% I would just use that and not try to figure it too many different ways.