Confused about Accu-Measure BF Calipers

Rose6300

Hi everyone

I just got my calipers in the mail and tried them out. Won't record measurements till tomorrow as I tried them after I worked out and it says not to do that, but I've followed all the instructions as well as I can and I'm clearly doing something wrong.

For reference, I'm female, 51 years old, 5'6" and 163 lbs. I carry my weight around my middle, and my waist at it's narrowest is 33.25" and at my belly button is 35.5". Not exactly lean.

When I do the calipers 1 inch above my hipbone on my right side, as per instructions, I get at most 11.5 mm. Based on the chart that came with the Accu-Meaure, even rounding up to 12 mm., that puts my body fat percentage at 25.9%, or ideal. Ha! Much as I'd like to believe that, I know it can't be true. For a sanity check, I googled around and found this site with pictures of what body fat percentages typically look like. http://www.builtlean.com/2012/09/24/body-fat-percentage-men-women/ My body looks very much like the woman with the 35% body fat.

So, does anyone have any experience with whatever error I'm presumably making and advice for me? If so, I'd greatly appreciate some advice.

Thank you.

VelveteenArabian

No advice on the calipers. However, check out mybodygallery.com. They have a wider range of pictures to compare yourself to.

Rose6300

Will do. Thanks.

LeanButNotMean44

Are you only measuring in that one location? If so, it won't be accurate. Perhaps Google the Parillo 9 site method, which would likely be better for you since most of the measured sites are on the upper body (only 2 sites are lower body). Use caliper measurements as a benchmark, not a hard and fast number (my suggestion).

Rose6300

Are you only measuring in that one location? If so, it won't be accurate. Perhaps Google the Parillo 9 site method, which would likely be better for you since most of the measured sites are on the upper body (only 2 sites are lower body). Use caliper measurements as a benchmark, not a hard and fast number (my suggestion).

Hi Lean,
Thank you so much for posting this! I tried it and still got a wacky number 22.9%, although measuring myself in all those places was a challenge at best so I'm sure my technique stinks. Some measurements were as low as 9 mm and some as high as 26. User error! I also have fairly small arms and legs and a blubbery torso. Since I won't let anyone help me with this, I think I'm going to use the Suprailiac measuring site by itself and use that as my number (26 mm) and use the Accu-Measure chart to watch my progress. Right now that puts me at 35.6% body fat, which seems about right. Anyway, thanks again!

LeanButNotMean44

Are you only measuring in that one location? If so, it won't be accurate. Perhaps Google the Parillo 9 site method, which would likely be better for you since most of the measured sites are on the upper body (only 2 sites are lower body). Use caliper measurements as a benchmark, not a hard and fast number (my suggestion).

Hi Lean,
Thank you so much for posting this! I tried it and still got a wacky number 22.9%, although measuring myself in all those places was a challenge at best so I'm sure my technique stinks. Some measurements were as low as 9 mm and some as high as 26. User error! I also have fairly small arms and legs and a blubbery torso. Since I won't let anyone help me with this, I think I'm going to use the Suprailiac measuring site by itself and use that as my number (26 mm) and use the Accu-Measure chart to watch my progress. Right now that puts me at 35.6% body fat, which seems about right. Anyway, thanks again!

My pleasure! My boyfriend usually does my measurements, and he will usually do one site 3-4 times and take the average. The Parillo is not a great tool for me since I carry most of my fat in my lower half; I just use it as a benchmark for the periods of time in between my Dexa scans.

Best of luck to you! :happy:

toddis

Any input on the accuracy of these? They are made for one site measure.