Body fat percentage

retta87

So today was my weigh in day and the day I use my tape measure. The ultimate goal here is to lower my body fat percentage. It’s always uncomfortable going up a little on my scale. I gained a few ounce(which I know could be water retention) but my measuring across the board has went down. So I’ve lowered my body fat percentage to 22.37%. Just wondering will the scale reflect that or is it because I’m lifting weights?
Has anyone else lowered their body fat percentage? I want to hear some success stories or roadblocks you hit alone the way.

AnnPT77

What is telling you that your body fat percentage is 22.37%? That's a remarkably precise-looking number, and the standard ways of measuring body fat (including the most accurate), aren't accurate to 2 decimal places, so it seems unusual.

A person can increase their pounds of muscle mass (by lifting consistently and well over many weeks to months, while getting consistent good nutrition, and not doing other things - like losing fat fast - that might interfere with the muscle gain goal).

While they do that, they may gain body fat percent, lose body fat percent, or stay at the same bodyfat percent. It's just math, and depends on the relative amount (in pounds) of weight gain/loss (combination of muscle and lean tissue) vs. just muscle gain. They may get bigger (tape measurements) or smaller, depending on those details.

People who do a good strength training program consistently alongside good nutrition, for a long time, but stay the same weight end up at a lower body fat percent, and overall smaller by tape measurements. (Some areas may be bigger depending on the distribution of muscle, but overall smaller because muscle is more compact than fat, pound for pound.)

If your body fat percentage actually went down (i.e. if that 22.37% is accurate, and so were earlier higher estimates), but you didn't significantly change weight, you probably added muscle, which would be good, right? Again, it's just math.

Of course I've lowered my body fat percentage: I lost a bunch of weight, most of it fat, and that means my bodyfat percentage went down. Most people who lose a material amount of weight end up at a lower body fat percentage unless they lose in a fast, poorly-nourished, no exercise way. Most people who lose a good bit of weight also lose some lean tissue (which is not just muscle).

I don't think I lost much muscle while losing fat, if any, but let's pretend that as I lost 58 pounds of scale weight, 1 of every 4 pounds was lean mass. That would be 14.5 pounds of lean mass loss (58 divided by 4). Let's further pretend I started at 40% body fat (wild guess), and 183 pounds (that part's true).

That would suggest that when I started losing weight, I had 109.8 pounds of lean mass (60% of 183), 73.2 pounds of fat mass (40% of 183). At 125 pounds, if the numbers in the previous paragraph were real, I'd have 95.3 pounds of lean mass (109.8-14.5), so 76.4% lean mass (95.3/125). That would be 23.7% body fat ((125-95.3)/125).

In that mostly-invented example situation, I lost weight, lost lean mass (some of which was probably muscle), as measured in pounds . . . but my body fat percent decreased, because math.

Now, at 125 pounds, I'd estimate I actually am somewhere in the vicinity of 24% body fat, so probably really around 95 pounds of lean mass. (In reality, I don't know that I was at 40% body fat or 50% or what, at 183 pounds - no idea. So, the "how much lean mass lost" in the paragraph above is pure invention).

Whether they realize it or not, people want to lose some lean mass while losing a good bit of body weight. I'd look odd if I had the same blood volume at 125 pounds as I had at 183 pounds, for example, and blood volume is part of lean mass. There are other lean tissues a lighter body doesn't need, too: Lean mass is not just muscle.

retta87

I never even thought of blood volume as lean body mass. Thanks for that.

I plug my numbers into an app that calculates my percentage and I can only think that it has that fourth number due to losing half inches and quarter of inch slowly over time.

AnnPT77 wrote: »

What is telling you that your body fat percentage is 22.37%? That's a remarkably precise-looking number, and the standard ways of measuring body fat (including the most accurate), aren't accurate to 2 decimal places, so it seems unusual.

A person can increase their pounds of muscle mass (by lifting consistently and well over many weeks to months, while getting consistent good nutrition, and not doing other things - like losing fat fast - that might interfere with the muscle gain goal).

While they do that, they may gain body fat percent, lose body fat percent, or stay at the same bodyfat percent. It's just math, and depends on the relative amount (in pounds) of weight gain/loss (combination of muscle and lean tissue) vs. just muscle gain. They may get bigger (tape measurements) or smaller, depending on those details.

People who do a good strength training program consistently alongside good nutrition, for a long time, but stay the same weight end up at a lower body fat percent, and overall smaller by tape measurements. (Some areas may be bigger depending on the distribution of muscle, but overall smaller because muscle is more compact than fat, pound for pound.)

If your body fat percentage actually went down (i.e. if that 22.37% is accurate, and so were earlier higher estimates), but you didn't significantly change weight, you probably added muscle, which would be good, right? Again, it's just math.

Of course I've lowered my body fat percentage: I lost a bunch of weight, most of it fat, and that means my bodyfat percentage went down. Most people who lose a material amount of weight end up at a lower body fat percentage unless they lose in a fast, poorly-nourished, no exercise way. Most people who lose a good bit of weight also lose some lean tissue (which is not just muscle).

I don't think I lost much muscle while losing fat, if any, but let's pretend that as I lost 58 pounds of scale weight, 1 of every 4 pounds was lean mass. That would be 14.5 pounds of lean mass loss (58 divided by 4). Let's further pretend I started at 40% body fat (wild guess), and 183 pounds (that part's true).

That would suggest that when I started losing weight, I had 109.8 pounds of lean mass (60% of 183), 73.2 pounds of fat mass (40% of 183). At 125 pounds, if the numbers in the previous paragraph were real, I'd have 95.3 pounds of lean mass (109.8-14.5), so 76.4% lean mass (95.3/125). That would be 23.7% body fat ((125-95.3)/125).

In that mostly-invented example situation, I lost weight, lost lean mass (some of which was probably muscle), as measured in pounds . . . but my body fat percent decreased, because math.

Now, at 125 pounds, I'd estimate I actually am somewhere in the vicinity of 24% body fat, so probably really around 95 pounds of lean mass. (In reality, I don't know that I was at 40% body fat or 50% or what, at 183 pounds - no idea. So, the "how much lean mass lost" in the paragraph above is pure invention).

Whether they realize it or not, people want to lose some lean mass while losing a good bit of body weight. I'd look odd if I had the same blood volume at 125 pounds as I had at 183 pounds, for example, and blood volume is part of lean mass. There are other lean tissues a lighter body doesn't need, too: Lean mass is not just muscle.

retta87

I was hoping to attach the photo of the app I use and how all that information is laid out like you explained. I don’t know why it won’t work

AnnPT77

Personally, I only use BF% estimates for long-term trending. I've used so-called bodyfat calculators, have one of those silly BIA home scales, look at sites where there are photos posted that claim to be particular combinations of height/weight/bodyfat percent. Even the best estimating methods, like DEXA ($$), have error rates in maybe the 2.5-3.5% range (higher, in some research studies).

For me, all of the estimating methods suggest something around/just below mid-20s percents body fat. I don't have a strong belief that that's true, but it's plenty close enough for me.

If I stayed at the same body weight, personally I'd need to see a big change in measurements (or those estimates) before I'd believe I'd gained significant muscle mass. I know it would take many months, probably years, of disciplined effort to see a multi-percent change at constant bodyweight. (I'm female, old (66), maintaining weight - all of which suggests gain rates would be lower than for those more male, younger, willing to bulk and cut. And that's if I did a good program. I don't like lifting, so I don't do a good program.)

retta87

I guess I personally like measuring because it seems to be more consistent for me personally. I seem to yo yo on the scale due to water retention(I’d assume)

But I do agree I don’t believe that the tracking I have now is accurate. I’d say I’m probably more around 24% instead of the 22%. Which is fine, I know I can get it down with time.

It can be hard for me sometimes not to feel a little low about my efforts. But eventually that day comes when everything just changed ever so slightly and I can see the results.

I hope I’m like you maintaining a good life style at that age. That’s the hope anyways.

Your very knowledgeable and I appreciate the information you pour out at me.

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Personally, I only use BF% estimates for long-term trending. I've used so-called bodyfat calculators, have one of those silly BIA home scales, look at sites where there are photos posted that claim to be particular combinations of height/weight/bodyfat percent. Even the best estimating methods, like DEXA ($$), have error rates in maybe the 2.5-3.5% range (higher, in some research studies).

For me, all of the estimating methods suggest something around/just below mid-20s percents body fat. I don't have a strong belief that that's true, but it's plenty close enough for me.

If I stayed at the same body weight, personally I'd need to see a big change in measurements (or those estimates) before I'd believe I'd gained significant muscle mass. I know it would take many months, probably years, of disciplined effort to see a multi-percent change at constant bodyweight. (I'm female, old (66), maintaining weight - all of which suggests gain rates would be lower than for those more male, younger, willing to bulk and cut. And that's if I did a good program. I don't like lifting, so I don't do a good program.)