Body fat percentage too high?
LeiLaura
Posts: 238 Member
I know the machines aren't all that accurate, so I'm using it as an indicator of progress more than anything, but I've just made it into the top end of healthy BMI this week (after a 17lb loss over 2 months - now 161 down from 178 at 5'7). However, my body fat % is still reading as 38%, which seems high for healthy BMI (albeit at the top end), and hasn't gone down at all despite the weight loss and my dropping a dress size. I'm still losing steadily, and I've been doing both cardio and strength training. I'd been worried about muscle loss, as I was losing 2lb a week, and have just upped my calories on MFP to avoid that, but I can see and feel loads of fat still on my body, and I've got a way to go before the machine will tell me I'm in the 20s percentage wise. I'm worried there must be a lot of fat around my organs, because while I'm still flabby I'm not huge (about a size 14, sometimes a 12). Obviously, I'm still being careful with the rate of loss, but my two questions are:
1) Do I need to worry overly about muscle loss at 38% fat / lots of squishy fat demonstrably still present?
2) Is the machine a helpful guide as an indicator, especially regarding the level of fat I can't see around my organs, or should I just ignore it?
Thanks, everyone!
1) Do I need to worry overly about muscle loss at 38% fat / lots of squishy fat demonstrably still present?
2) Is the machine a helpful guide as an indicator, especially regarding the level of fat I can't see around my organs, or should I just ignore it?
Thanks, everyone!
1
Replies
-
Hello congratulations on you're weight loss.. You're body needs to go a very long time without food and with a higher bodyfat you in no way need to worry about muscle loss.. I researched this for a long time there's some people very high people in the fitness industry that have done videos on YouTube explaining that muscle loss is very very hard.. If you're under 10% body fat it can become a issue but I really wouldent worry about it.. If you're using it you're body won't won't to lose it... Ignore the machine.. From what i gather and asked/research its all very inaccurate .. It can all be off from what you're wearing you're hydration and what you've ate ect ect.. It seems like you are doing great try and stay away form machines and scales ect and use a tape measurement.. The best way is getting some body fat calipers from amazon (really cheap) to get you a better reading
Like ive said you're doing really well and you're on the right path just dont get caught up in the numbers game because it can set you in the wrong track
Keep at it 💪💪5 -
I know the machines aren't all that accurate
This tells you all you need to know.
No way you're 38% fat at 161 and 5'7".
Step away from the bioimpedence scale.
9 -
...Also, everyone loses a little muscle (as well as fat) with weight loss. That's why there is so much emphasis on getting enough protein and doing some resistance work...that doesn't stop muscle loss, it just mitigates the percentages a little.13
-
Are you using a scale for this info?
Fwiw, I'm 5'7" and 159lbs this morning, my scale says I'm 36% bf. LIES. It's only measuring water and guessing at the rest. I have a disproportionate amount of fat on my legs, but no where near 38%.3 -
Scale tells me I am 37% fat. I am BMI 25, weigh 12 1/2 stone and am 5'10". I know the scales aren't wildly accurate but looking at myself in the mirror and comparing with online pics I would say that I probably am about 37% fat. The ones I use measure visceral fat and apparently I am totally within the healthy range there. If you've got plenty of visible flab still then my bet would be that is where the fat is residing, rather than round the organs.
So long as you are working hard on muscle retention and not eating stupidly low cal then just keep on keeping on would be my advice. My approach is to get to the weight I want and then worry about body composition.2 -
1) Do I need to worry overly about muscle loss at 38% fat / lots of squishy fat demonstrably still present?
The danger of muscle loss in a deficit is real but vastly over-stated, mostly because it's filtered down from the elite few who are extraordinarily highly trained and already quite lean. To extrapolate what might be likely for them to everyone else who may well have a generous amount of stored energy (fat) and also be undertrained and possibly also starting a novel exercise regime is really poor science. There's plenty of well conducted studies that show people adding muscle in a deficit.
A reasonable rate of weight loss, higher than usual protein and effective resistance training will see many people add muscle in a deficit. The opposite of the doom and gloom scenario often painted.
What is much closer to inevitable is a loss of Lean Body Mass, but muscle is only part of that.
2) Is the machine a helpful guide as an indicator, especially regarding the level of fat I can't see around my organs, or should I just ignore it?
Some BIA devices (mostly those with hand and feet sensors) can give a reasonable trend and a reasonable number (if used with care and consistency) but some are just plain hopeless. Sounds like yours are in the second category from your stats.
Did I read in another thread of yours that you have recently started weight training? The soreness and inflammation from that changes your hydration levels and that has a bit impact on BIA devices.
Progress photos and tape measurements are free and in most ways more reliable indicators of progress over an extended period of time.
1 -
I got a dexa scan when I was at 147 5'5". So bmi was 24.5 or so. bIA was 29% Dexa was 23%and showed higher fat in my lower half which is why feet only bioimpedrnce was likely so far off. I gained a few lbs back and i am at 33%bia and bmi 25. It's likely closer to 28%in reality.1
-
Not sure what machine you are using, but I know my scale is wildly inaccurate. I have a BMI of 19.5, four defined visible abs (next two are starting to show), and my scale puts me at 25% body fat. It just isn't accurate.
With that being said, it is possible (and happens quite frequently) to have a normal weight per BMI and still be overfat. Maybe see your doctor and see if they have any concerns, and if they do what their recommendations are.1 -
I'll just add that (particularly for women) scale BF numbers can vary in accuracy because their calculation of "fat" percentage also uses weight/mass in our breasts.
Glad to see you've upped your calories. 2 lbs per week at your weight/height was putting you at risk of health problems. Hopefully you're aiming at less than 1 lb loss per week.
Congratulations on being a healthy weight! Take your time on the rest of your loss, and enjoy getting your mind into transitioning to maintenance mode, and maintaining sustainable eating habits for life.2 -
Having a BF test in a couple days so I was surfing the net and stumbled across this finding it to be a decent read:
https://spu.edu/scripts/old/old myhome/users/weathers/public_html/bodycomp.htm2 -
pierinifitness wrote: »Having a BF test in a couple days so I was surfing the net and stumbled across this finding it to be a decent read:
https://spu.edu/scripts/old/old myhome/users/weathers/public_html/bodycomp.htm
This looks like an older set of instructions using a single frequency BIA device. The body fat classification numbers look older as well.
That being said, the pre-test instructions are still in use (although not to that level of detail).
There are a lot of claims and anecdotes thrown around about BIA. There are differences between home BIA models and different levels of commercial machines. Any test method is only as good as the preparation and the way the test is administered.
BIA has plenty of issues—just like all other methods of body fat estimation. But a lot of the issues that people have with BIA are due to cheap machines or improper preparation.
3 -
cmriverside wrote: »I know the machines aren't all that accurate
This tells you all you need to know.
No way you're 38% fat at 161 and 5'7".
Step away from the bioimpedence scale.
Not commenting on the OP since I have not seen her nor have I measured her.
But, in general, 38% fat at that height and weight is not out of the question. That would represent a lean body mass of about 100lbs. Average I have seen at that height is in the 103-108 range. So, a little low, but definitely not rare.
5 -
I know the machines aren't all that accurate, so I'm using it as an indicator of progress more than anything, but I've just made it into the top end of healthy BMI this week (after a 17lb loss over 2 months - now 161 down from 178 at 5'7). However, my body fat % is still reading as 38%, which seems high for healthy BMI (albeit at the top end), and hasn't gone down at all despite the weight loss and my dropping a dress size. I'm still losing steadily, and I've been doing both cardio and strength training. I'd been worried about muscle loss, as I was losing 2lb a week, and have just upped my calories on MFP to avoid that, but I can see and feel loads of fat still on my body, and I've got a way to go before the machine will tell me I'm in the 20s percentage wise. I'm worried there must be a lot of fat around my organs, because while I'm still flabby I'm not huge (about a size 14, sometimes a 12). Obviously, I'm still being careful with the rate of loss, but my two questions are:
1) Do I need to worry overly about muscle loss at 38% fat / lots of squishy fat demonstrably still present?
2) Is the machine a helpful guide as an indicator, especially regarding the level of fat I can't see around my organs, or should I just ignore it?
Thanks, everyone!
If you have lost 17lb, you body fat % would have to change. The loss of a dress size kind of confirms that your fat levels have decreased. For your body fat % to stay the same with a 17lb weight loss, you would have had to lose 5.5 lb of fat and 11.5 lb of lean mass. That would be unheard of.
Even people who have done HCG diets and did 500 cal/day with little exercise had a fat:muscle loss ratio of 2:1. As sjomial stated before, muscle loss with dieting is a concern, but the risk is highly overstated. A 2lb/wk weight loss program is not going to result in massive muscle loss, esp if your protein intake is adequate and you are doing resistance training. I have serial tested people —not morbidly obese people, but in the 250lb range—who have lost 3-4lb/wk and never lost any muscle mass.
It’s hard to comment about your body fat device w/out knowing what kind it is. You can make it as accurate as possible by following the guidelines listed in another post. It’s especially important not to eat or drink within at least 2hrs of measuring, no caffeine, no vigorous exercise within 24 hours, and no ingestion of a volume of liquid before the test, even water.
The problem with numbers is that they can be discouraging if they don’t reflect the changes that are taking place. This is a bigger problem if they aren’t consistent or accurate.
5 -
Hello congratulations on you're weight loss.. You're body needs to go a very long time without food and with a higher bodyfat you in no way need to worry about muscle loss.. I researched this for a long time there's some people very high people in the fitness industry that have done videos on YouTube explaining that muscle loss is very very hard.. If you're under 10% body fat it can become a issue but I really wouldent worry about it.. If you're using it you're body won't won't to lose it... Ignore the machine.. From what i gather and asked/research its all very inaccurate .. It can all be off from what you're wearing you're hydration and what you've ate ect ect.. It seems like you are doing great try and stay away form machines and scales ect and use a tape measurement.. The best way is getting some body fat calipers from amazon (really cheap) to get you a better reading
Like ive said you're doing really well and you're on the right path just dont get caught up in the numbers game because it can set you in the wrong track
Keep at it 💪💪
Thank you ever so much, I really appreciate the advice and support. You've helped reassure me that my muscle isn't doing to waste away Apologies for my delay in replying, been a crazy couple of weeks! 0 -
cmriverside wrote: »I know the machines aren't all that accurate
This tells you all you need to know.
No way you're 38% fat at 161 and 5'7".
Step away from the bioimpedence scale.
Haha, thank you! That's massively reassuring 0 -
Are you using a scale for this info?
Fwiw, I'm 5'7" and 159lbs this morning, my scale says I'm 36% bf. LIES. It's only measuring water and guessing at the rest. I have a disproportionate amount of fat on my legs, but no where near 38%.
Thank you, that's a relief to hear I'm not alone! I'm down to 159 now, too, and the body fat percentage actually moved (woo hoo!) down to 37.5% yesterday!! (I'm not checking it on purpose now, it just shows it on the printout from the scales at the gym).0 -
SnifterPug wrote: »Scale tells me I am 37% fat. I am BMI 25, weigh 12 1/2 stone and am 5'10". I know the scales aren't wildly accurate but looking at myself in the mirror and comparing with online pics I would say that I probably am about 37% fat. The ones I use measure visceral fat and apparently I am totally within the healthy range there. If you've got plenty of visible flab still then my bet would be that is where the fat is residing, rather than round the organs.
So long as you are working hard on muscle retention and not eating stupidly low cal then just keep on keeping on would be my advice. My approach is to get to the weight I want and then worry about body composition.
That's really helpful, thank you, and apologies for the late reply. It makes complete sense that if I can still see fat, then it's not hidden somewhere around the organs! I suppose I was worried it might be both, but you're right, if there's still obvious fat to lose, then I'm not going to waste away 0 -
1) Do I need to worry overly about muscle loss at 38% fat / lots of squishy fat demonstrably still present?
The danger of muscle loss in a deficit is real but vastly over-stated, mostly because it's filtered down from the elite few who are extraordinarily highly trained and already quite lean. To extrapolate what might be likely for them to everyone else who may well have a generous amount of stored energy (fat) and also be undertrained and possibly also starting a novel exercise regime is really poor science. There's plenty of well conducted studies that show people adding muscle in a deficit.
A reasonable rate of weight loss, higher than usual protein and effective resistance training will see many people add muscle in a deficit. The opposite of the doom and gloom scenario often painted.
What is much closer to inevitable is a loss of Lean Body Mass, but muscle is only part of that.
2) Is the machine a helpful guide as an indicator, especially regarding the level of fat I can't see around my organs, or should I just ignore it?
Some BIA devices (mostly those with hand and feet sensors) can give a reasonable trend and a reasonable number (if used with care and consistency) but some are just plain hopeless. Sounds like yours are in the second category from your stats.
Did I read in another thread of yours that you have recently started weight training? The soreness and inflammation from that changes your hydration levels and that has a bit impact on BIA devices.
Progress photos and tape measurements are free and in most ways more reliable indicators of progress over an extended period of time.
Thank you ever so much for your detailed reply, it's really helpful and much-appreciated. Apologies for not replying sooner. Yes, I've been strength training in small amounts (about 2 hours a week, over 2 sessions) for about a month now. I'm definitely looking more toned now. The DOMS had stopped, but I've been aiming for a very slow progressive overload, and it came back with a vengeance this week! I took a couple of days off and switched to swimming for one day, and I was fine when I hit the gym again this morning. It hadn't occurred to me that the machine (yes to the hand and foot sensors) was maybe counting retained water as "fat", that's something to think about, thanks for the tip.0 -
I got a dexa scan when I was at 147 5'5". So bmi was 24.5 or so. bIA was 29% Dexa was 23%and showed higher fat in my lower half which is why feet only bioimpedrnce was likely so far off. I gained a few lbs back and i am at 33%bia and bmi 25. It's likely closer to 28%in reality.
Oh, that's interesting, thank you!0 -
Pricklypineapple422 wrote: »Not sure what machine you are using, but I know my scale is wildly inaccurate. I have a BMI of 19.5, four defined visible abs (next two are starting to show), and my scale puts me at 25% body fat. It just isn't accurate.
With that being said, it is possible (and happens quite frequently) to have a normal weight per BMI and still be overfat. Maybe see your doctor and see if they have any concerns, and if they do what their recommendations are.
Thank you, that's a good idea. I'm starting to think these machines are just gimmicks 2 -
I'll just add that (particularly for women) scale BF numbers can vary in accuracy because their calculation of "fat" percentage also uses weight/mass in our breasts.
Glad to see you've upped your calories. 2 lbs per week at your weight/height was putting you at risk of health problems. Hopefully you're aiming at less than 1 lb loss per week.
Congratulations on being a healthy weight! Take your time on the rest of your loss, and enjoy getting your mind into transitioning to maintenance mode, and maintaining sustainable eating habits for life.
Thank you! Yes, it feels good to be a healthy weight again. I lost my baby at 17 weeks pregnant earlier in the year, and used that as an excuse to overeat for a few months, though the gain had already started creeping up pre-pregnancy, I had just turned a blind eye. There's definitely a high to being slimmer again, but yes, being back in a healthy weight range feels good on a deeper level, like I'm taking ownership of my body back and taking care of it now.
As for my calories, I changed my goal to losing a pound a week and they upped accordingly, but I still lost 2lb this week! I'm not starving myself at all (I was over my calories by 200 yesterday), and I'm only exercising about 3-4 hours a week, including resting times between sets, so I don't understand it. I'm not complaining, because I love that I'm finding it relatively easy to drop the weight (even if it doesn't feel like I look any different sometimes!), but I agree that it's too fast for my height and current weight, so I'll give it another week and then maybe up my calories again. I've set my activity level at lightly active (I'm a teacher), and I'm wondering if maybe I'm more active than I think I am outside of deliberate exercise! Anyway, thanks very much again for the advice and support.4 -
pierinifitness wrote: »Having a BF test in a couple days so I was surfing the net and stumbled across this finding it to be a decent read:
https://spu.edu/scripts/old/old myhome/users/weathers/public_html/bodycomp.htm
Thank you! How did your test go?0 -
cmriverside wrote: »I know the machines aren't all that accurate
This tells you all you need to know.
No way you're 38% fat at 161 and 5'7".
Step away from the bioimpedence scale.
Not commenting on the OP since I have not seen her nor have I measured her.
But, in general, 38% fat at that height and weight is not out of the question. That would represent a lean body mass of about 100lbs. Average I have seen at that height is in the 103-108 range. So, a little low, but definitely not rare.
That's interesting, thank you. Prior to my new fitness lifestyle (and pregnancy), I was doing very little exercise, so it's possible indeed that I have low lean body mass. I'll keep with the strength training and increased protein and hope that I can improve the fat to muscle ratio eventually.1 -
I know the machines aren't all that accurate, so I'm using it as an indicator of progress more than anything, but I've just made it into the top end of healthy BMI this week (after a 17lb loss over 2 months - now 161 down from 178 at 5'7). However, my body fat % is still reading as 38%, which seems high for healthy BMI (albeit at the top end), and hasn't gone down at all despite the weight loss and my dropping a dress size. I'm still losing steadily, and I've been doing both cardio and strength training. I'd been worried about muscle loss, as I was losing 2lb a week, and have just upped my calories on MFP to avoid that, but I can see and feel loads of fat still on my body, and I've got a way to go before the machine will tell me I'm in the 20s percentage wise. I'm worried there must be a lot of fat around my organs, because while I'm still flabby I'm not huge (about a size 14, sometimes a 12). Obviously, I'm still being careful with the rate of loss, but my two questions are:
1) Do I need to worry overly about muscle loss at 38% fat / lots of squishy fat demonstrably still present?
2) Is the machine a helpful guide as an indicator, especially regarding the level of fat I can't see around my organs, or should I just ignore it?
Thanks, everyone!
If you have lost 17lb, you body fat % would have to change. The loss of a dress size kind of confirms that your fat levels have decreased. For your body fat % to stay the same with a 17lb weight loss, you would have had to lose 5.5 lb of fat and 11.5 lb of lean mass. That would be unheard of.
Even people who have done HCG diets and did 500 cal/day with little exercise had a fat:muscle loss ratio of 2:1. As sjomial stated before, muscle loss with dieting is a concern, but the risk is highly overstated. A 2lb/wk weight loss program is not going to result in massive muscle loss, esp if your protein intake is adequate and you are doing resistance training. I have serial tested people —not morbidly obese people, but in the 250lb range—who have lost 3-4lb/wk and never lost any muscle mass.
It’s hard to comment about your body fat device w/out knowing what kind it is. You can make it as accurate as possible by following the guidelines listed in another post. It’s especially important not to eat or drink within at least 2hrs of measuring, no caffeine, no vigorous exercise within 24 hours, and no ingestion of a volume of liquid before the test, even water.
The problem with numbers is that they can be discouraging if they don’t reflect the changes that are taking place. This is a bigger problem if they aren’t consistent or accurate.
Thank you, I didn't know about not eating / drinking around using the machine, I'll bear that in mind.0 -
Thanks everyone, I really appreciate all your advice and support! MFP is brilliant 1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions