Had a body scan today - thoughts on results?

2»

Replies

  • mom23mangos
    mom23mangos Posts: 3,069 Member
    not_a_runner wrote: »
    Not to rain on the parade more, but I am 5'1'' and was around 175 lbs in my profile pic. I have been lifting progressively for a few years and feel like I have a pretty decent amount of muscle mass. My BF% was probably high 30's at that weight. 24% is probably not even close to accurate.

    Like others have recommended- use a reasonable deficit and protein goal, have patience, and train!
    I lost over 30 lbs and PR'd my competition squat and deadlift by over 30 and 50 lbs.

    You've got pretty massive amounts of muscle tho! Dang!
  • LJay89
    LJay89 Posts: 91 Member
    aklrn wrote: »
    Seems somewhat inaccurate. I'm 5'1", 56.8 kg and probably about 22-24% based on pics
    v8m8t360fqsl.jpg

    I could be anywhere between 27% - 40% looking at those photos!! I really can't tell

    Needless to say my PT says to just track the measurements and photos, plus looking at my strength gains as a way of deciding if i am losing fat etc.
  • LJay89
    LJay89 Posts: 91 Member
    mom23mangos wrote: »
    LJay89 wrote: »
    mom23mangos wrote: »
    aklrn wrote: »
    You have down 5'1". Is that correct? Seems very low for height and stats.

    I bet a number got chopped off. Probably 5'10 or 5'11. Else she's got a HECK of a lot of muscle mass!!

    This is where you are going to explain the machine isn't accurate?

    Nope, I am 5'1... 24% body fat. Which actually is pretty standard? So if 24% of my mass is fat then it would make sense that lean mass would make up 76%. Also, by lean mass, the definition giving by the company is skeletal, muscle and water. Which would be a higher %

    No, just as someone else pointed out that combination is VERY unusual. For example, I am 5'1ish and am probably around 20% at 105lbs. I was around 24% at 111. So to be 24% at 173, I would expect you to be packing massive amounts of muscle mass, like national bodybuilding level.

    But as long as you use the same method to compare with, it really doesn't matter. Just as long as your numbers are going down. I find the photo comparisons to be pretty accurate, but sometimes you have to combine a couple.

    Thanks for your response. This makes more sense to me now after seeing photos of what people look like at each BF % - 24% is where i am aiming for now :)

    I think i will just stick to measurements and photos as a track, plus weight on the bar.
  • LJay89
    LJay89 Posts: 91 Member
    not_a_runner wrote: »
    Not to rain on the parade more, but I am 5'1'' and was around 175 lbs in my profile pic. I have been lifting progressively for a few years and feel like I have a pretty decent amount of muscle mass. My BF% was probably high 30's at that weight. 24% is probably not even close to accurate.

    Like others have recommended- use a reasonable deficit and protein goal, have patience, and train!
    I lost over 30 lbs and PR'd my competition squat and deadlift by over 30 and 50 lbs.

    No - it is all helpful. It is why i posted my stats as i want a clear picture of where i am and what that actually means. If that makes sense?

    Your figure is incredible! Very inspiring, this is good to see actually as it is what I am aiming for. Congrats :)
  • Silkysausage
    Silkysausage Posts: 502 Member
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    Silkysausage wrote: »
    Just saying that 10-12% is scary :D

    10-12% for a female is at essential bodyfat levels. It's not sustainable for long periods and you'll pretty much only see those kind of BF% levels in a contest-ready physique competitor. It's "scary" only in the sense that it can cause health issues (hormonal disruptions/amenorrhea, etc.). From a personal point of view, I don't find the appearance objectionable at all.

    Yes, I know it's for competitive reasons, it just looks so transparent! It's not a look that you see everyday that's all.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    Silkysausage wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    Silkysausage wrote: »
    Just saying that 10-12% is scary :D

    10-12% for a female is at essential bodyfat levels. It's not sustainable for long periods and you'll pretty much only see those kind of BF% levels in a contest-ready physique competitor. It's "scary" only in the sense that it can cause health issues (hormonal disruptions/amenorrhea, etc.). From a personal point of view, I don't find the appearance objectionable at all.

    Yes, I know it's for competitive reasons, it just looks so transparent! It's not a look that you see everyday that's all.

    That's for sure. You don't see many people walking around at that level of leanness, unless you spend a lot of time hanging out at bodybuilding competitions. :D
  • CharlieBeansmomTracey
    CharlieBeansmomTracey Posts: 7,682 Member
    Silkysausage wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    Silkysausage wrote: »
    Just saying that 10-12% is scary :D

    10-12% for a female is at essential bodyfat levels. It's not sustainable for long periods and you'll pretty much only see those kind of BF% levels in a contest-ready physique competitor. It's "scary" only in the sense that it can cause health issues (hormonal disruptions/amenorrhea, etc.). From a personal point of view, I don't find the appearance objectionable at all.

    Yes, I know it's for competitive reasons, it just looks so transparent! It's not a look that you see everyday that's all.

    I would love to be that lean. but I dont want to have to put in the work to get there lol

Categories