My Hydrostatic Body Fat Test and RMR results

krawhitham

I got these tests done today. I learned two things 1) I'm fatter than I thought 2) I'm fitter than I thought!

Also - my goal bodyweight of 125 lbs (I am 5'4") would only be attained if I had 10% body fat. NO. THANK. YOU.

My goal weight has been revised. My ideal body fat is 22%, and therefore my ideal weight corresponding with that body fat % will be 144 lbs.

The test was really easy and fairly cheap. It was $40 (well spent in my opinion). I was dunked in the water three times. Had my bathing suit on. Was weighed before hand. I weighed in at 163 lbs. today.

Body fat %: 31.06% (OUCH)
Fat body mass: 50.63 lbs
Lean body mass %: 68.94%
Lean body mass: 112.37 lbs

In terms of the calories I need to be eating, I did a separate test. The metabolic rate test was more intrusive than the body fat test. I had to sit still and calm for 15 minutes while breathing 100% of my breath into a tube which was analyzed in this big machine.

My RMR is 1699 (WAY higher than I thought!)

My "TDEE" is 2200 calories a day

My metabolism is 12% faster than females my age, height and weight. (YIPPEE! Must have been all that weight lifting in my 20s!)

Since I've been trying to eat around 1700 cals a day and not losing, the guy who tested me said the ONLY logical reason for this is that I'm NOT eating 1700 calories and that if I make my target calories more like 1400-1500 and continue to count the same way I'm counting now, I'll probably be realistically eating 1700 and I will lose weight. He said right now, I'm probably eating more like 2000 cals a day, and overestimating here and there.

I hope this information was interesting to someone besides me! I highly suggest doing this if you have it available in your area!

hearthwood

I am speaking from another type test from years ago. I was 5' 7" 119 pounds and my body fat was measured then at 19 percent. In fact I think its almost impossible for a female to get to 10 percent body fat. Maybe a man could do it, I just don't believe an adult female could.

margannmks

Where did you get all that tested for 40$

brittaney0625

I did this too!! Been a few weeks.. this is what I remember off the top my head right now.
Body fat %: 37
Fat body mass: 96lbs
Lean body mass: 169lbs

krawhitham

I did this too!! Been a few weeks.. this is what I remember off the top my head right now.
Body fat %: 37
Fat body mass: 96lbs
Lean body mass: 169lbs

How tall are you?? I was told that for my height I "should" have less than 115 lbs of lean body mass (I'm at 112)

paulperryman

i must do that one day, i have always gone by the tape measure, mirror and biometric scales which put me initially at around 43% body fat out of 111.9Kgs, and dropped considerably to 24% then stopped regardless of weight and fluctuated a little bit downwards towards current 22.5-23% but jump on a FitBit scale and it registered 17% the fires few times then has increased slowly each day, currently 17.7% meanwhile the Bioscales still say around 23.5%

Either way i'm definately not overweight anymore which the BMI calculations would say i am.
Height 175cm
Age 41
current weight 76.9Kg (169.53Lb) started at 111.9Kg (246.69Lb)

Muscle and water screws up the measurements for any tests other then these professional ones

brittaney0625

I did this too!! Been a few weeks.. this is what I remember off the top my head right now.
Body fat %: 37
Fat body mass: 96lbs
Lean body mass: 169lbs

How tall are you?? I was told that for my height I "should" have less than 115 lbs of lean body mass (I'm at 112)

I am 5'4. I started at 56% body fat.

I know a lot of people with much more lean body mass. I'm not sure.

They didn't say anything like that to me.. just told me I was doing awesome and keep up my hard work.

heybales

So the number of calories you burn if you sat just like you did for the RMR test is 1700 (basically).

And that TDEE figure was based on what level of activity? Did they really dig in to what your non-exercise activity level was, and your exercise type and time to come up with that TDEE?

Considering RMR is just a tad above BMR by 150-250, your corresponding BMR would be 1547.
Sedentary estimate than about 1934.

Yes, if you were eating 1700, with TDEE about 1934, poor logging skills could wipe out a 234 cal deficit, besides it taking forever to see a lb gone.

I'm betting a better estimated TDEE is actually higher than 2200. That's only a 1.42 activity factor - not even Moderately Active with 3-5 hrs exercise a week and sitting full-time desk job, and that's with the rough 5 level TDEE chart.

I'm betting you actually had a bigger deficit than you think. With only 20 lbs to go, 1 lb weekly is reasonable.

That's great you have more muscle mass and LBM for your age, weight, height.
Great job keeping it.

But is that amount of RMR correct for it?
Yep, Cunningham RMR for that BF% would be 1621, so you are just 78 more, or below 5% difference.
So that RMR is right where it should be for your amount of LBM.

When was your last diet break?
Though it sounds like you are in one now.

Just want to encourage you that the folks running the tests are NOT nutritionists, they are going off pieces of paper usually that everyone gets.

He does make a good comment about eating levels - first time I've heard why they said to eat below RMR, which would normally be asinine, but good idea.

If you've had a bigger deficit than 2200 - 1700 = 500 through early stages of weight loss, which would be 29% right now, you could easily have gotten some of the effects mentioned in this study below, where they had 25% deficit and suppressed their metabolism by 20-25%.

Either your daily activity has been slowed down, or you've become more metabolically efficient over the course of a day, causing what could be a deficit to disappear.

Or perhaps the logging of food eaten is rather sloppy and you've wiped out 500 calories.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/reduced-metabolism-tdee-beyond-expected-from-weight-loss-616251

It's true a suppressed metabolism can't stop weight loss if you keep eating less and less, but how low can you go - and adhere? And in maintenance eating even less than possible?

BTW, it's great you got both at the same time.
So many just get the RMR test, but without a good clue of LBM, they have no idea if that is correct RMR for amount the have, better, or suppressed by bad diet.
And cheap price too, really for hydrostatic test.

Great job adjusting goal weight to hold on to your gains of LBM.

Oh, I got all the stats from the spreadsheet on my profile page, which allows use of both BF% and tested RMR to base TDEE and eating levels on.

SLLRunner

Kraw,

Please share how you found the place to do body fat/RMR testing. Is $40.00 the normal price?

Thanks for sharing.

Aaron_K123

I did this too!! Been a few weeks.. this is what I remember off the top my head right now.
Body fat %: 37
Fat body mass: 96lbs
Lean body mass: 169lbs

How tall are you?? I was told that for my height I "should" have less than 115 lbs of lean body mass (I'm at 112)

I am 5'4. I started at 56% body fat.

I know a lot of people with much more lean body mass. I'm not sure.

They didn't say anything like that to me.. just told me I was doing awesome and keep up my hard work.

Something is wrong there. 5'4" and 169 lb lean mass? I'm a 6' tall man and my lean mass is like 135-140. So you weigh 265 pounds but you are only 37% bodyfat which isnt even that overweight for a woman and you are 5'4". Either you are a hulked out bodybuilder or something doesn't add up.

krawhitham

Kraw,

Please share how you found the place to do body fat/RMR testing. Is $40.00 the normal price?

Thanks for sharing.

The hydrostatic body fat test was $40. The RMR test was separate and I don't recall how much i was charged. I just put "hydrostatic body fat test" in my area into Google and several hospitals/universities/private companies popped up. I did a month of research before picking one and making an appointment. But I live in a very metropolitan area... dunno where people usually go to get these done.

krawhitham

When was your last diet break?
Though it sounds like you are in one now.

If you've had a bigger deficit than 2200 - 1700 = 500 through early stages of weight loss, which would be 29% right now, you could easily have gotten some of the effects mentioned in this study below, where they had 25% deficit and suppressed their metabolism by 20-25%.

Either your daily activity has been slowed down, or you've become more metabolically efficient over the course of a day, causing what could be a deficit to disappear.

Or perhaps the logging of food eaten is rather sloppy and you've wiped out 500 calories.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/reduced-metabolism-tdee-beyond-expected-from-weight-loss-616251

It's true a suppressed metabolism can't stop weight loss if you keep eating less and less, but how low can you go - and adhere? And in maintenance eating even less than possible?

Yeah, I haven't lost an ounce in 3 months. I've been eating at or under 1750 calories a day. I exercise (mostly cardio) for an hour 3-5 times a week. I would do more but I'd honestly prefer to get my intake in check and not try to overcompensate with a bunch of exercise. It's all about the food, as they say!

What if my metabolism is suppressed? I don't know, I am going to try to set MFP at 1500 calories or so for 6 weeks and see if anything changes in terms of inches or weight on the scale. I thought I had 30-35 lbs to lose, but now that I know it's more like 20-25 I know the weight will come off slower.

I'm patient, and I want to do it right, but a 3 month plateau is frustrating. That's a large reason why I went to do this testing in the first place.

krawhitham

I think I was most surprised at the fact that if I want to be between 19-21 % body fat, my weight will be about 135 - 144 lbs.

For me, since I'm 5'4" I considered this high. Especially since 4 years ago I was 128 lbs.

My cousin who is also 5'4" is 115-118 consistently and she has about 20% body fat. My own mother has this same exact body type (as my cousin) and it's amazing to me that I could never get down that low! My bones and muscles are too dense!

I don't lift weights, it's just my body type. I hope other women can take advice from this too. It's not all about what the scale says, make sure you know your body fat, it's worth it!!

Aaron_K123

I did this too!! Been a few weeks.. this is what I remember off the top my head right now.
Body fat %: 37
Fat body mass: 96lbs
Lean body mass: 169lbs

How tall are you?? I was told that for my height I "should" have less than 115 lbs of lean body mass (I'm at 112)

I am 5'4. I started at 56% body fat.

I know a lot of people with much more lean body mass. I'm not sure.

They didn't say anything like that to me.. just told me I was doing awesome and keep up my hard work.

Some math. You have your goal as 178 pounds to lose and 50 pounds down so 138 pounds to lose. If your lean mass is 169 and your bodyfat 37% that would make your current weight 268. At 268 if you lost 138 pounds would be at 130 pounds which would be significantly below your lean mass. If your lean mass was really169 the lightest you could be without dipping below the essential fat level would be 183 pounds at which point you would have so little fat you would look like a competition body builder. At 5'4" to be completely shredded at 183 pounds you'd have to have more muscle per weight than Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime.

There is something very wrong with those measurements and yiu don't know anyone with more lean mass than that.

At 5'4" assuming average muscle your lean mass is probably closer to 110 pounds.

Just to be clear lean mass is how much you would weigh with 0% bodyfat.

Aaron_K123

I think I was most surprised at the fact that if I want to be between 19-21 % body fat, my weight will be about 135 - 144 lbs.

For me, since I'm 5'4" I considered this high. Especially since 4 years ago I was 128 lbs.

My cousin who is also 5'4" is 115-118 consistently and she has about 20% body fat. My own mother has this same exact body type (as my cousin) and it's amazing to me that I could never get down that low! My bones and muscles are too dense!

I don't lift weights, it's just my body type. I hope other women can take advice from this too. It's not all about what the scale says, make sure you know your body fat, it's worth it!!

I'm the opposite. I am very small framed so despite being a 6' tall man I would have to drop to 155 pounds to be at 12% which is about the male equivalent of 21% for women. Seems so light but there it is. I don't have a lot of muscle but I'm not scrawny either.

krawhitham

I'm the opposite. I am very small framed so despite being a 6' tall man I would have to drop to 155 pounds to be at 12% which is about the male equivalent of 21% for women. Seems so light but there it is. I don't have a lot of muscle but I'm not scrawny either.

I think my bf is similar. He's 5'8" and currently weighs as much as I do - 165ish, and he said that's a little heavy for him. He said He's most comfortable at 150. He has very defined leg and arm muscles, so he's not scrawny at all.

That's only 10 lbs heavier than me at ~19% body fat! And he's 4 inches taller than me & a man!

WalkingAlong

I think I was most surprised at the fact that if I want to be between 19-21 % body fat, my weight will be about 135 - 144 lbs.

For me, since I'm 5'4" I considered this high. Especially since 4 years ago I was 128 lbs.

My cousin who is also 5'4" is 115-118 consistently and she has about 20% body fat. My own mother has this same exact body type (as my cousin) and it's amazing to me that I could never get down that low! My bones and muscles are too dense!

I don't lift weights, it's just my body type. I hope other women can take advice from this too. It's not all about what the scale says, make sure you know your body fat, it's worth it!!

It does sound fishy. If you have 112 lbs. LBM and were 128 lbs. four years ago, that would imply you were below 11% fat then, which isn't likely.

If it helps, I am 5'4" and when I was 140lbs. I was over 30% body fat. Not that we're all equal or anything. I could never get down to 115-118, either. 125 is bikini weight for me.

Francl27

I think I was most surprised at the fact that if I want to be between 19-21 % body fat, my weight will be about 135 - 144 lbs.

For me, since I'm 5'4" I considered this high. Especially since 4 years ago I was 128 lbs.

My cousin who is also 5'4" is 115-118 consistently and she has about 20% body fat. My own mother has this same exact body type (as my cousin) and it's amazing to me that I could never get down that low! My bones and muscles are too dense!

I don't lift weights, it's just my body type. I hope other women can take advice from this too. It's not all about what the scale says, make sure you know your body fat, it's worth it!!

You WILL lose some muscle though... it pretty much comes with the territory. I was surprised too when I was 190 pounds, I would have been 156 pounds with 25% body fat... but at 156 pounds I was still at 28% body fat (ok, the test I did wasn't as accurate, but that's the idea).

For what it's worth, I'm a weird one I guess because at 133 pounds and 5'5", probably around 23% body fat (so around 105 pounds of lean mass?), I actually don't want more muscle... I frankly think I have too much as it is (my arms look huge, although my legs look great). It has to do with genetics though... some people end up looking lean, others bulky. Would still love to lose 5 pounds of fat though, but it's hard to tell with all the loose skin.

hobbeskastiel

BodyFatTest.com
I just found this one. It's moblie and is $59. It's actually in my area tomorrow so I might try it out.

krawhitham

I think I was most surprised at the fact that if I want to be between 19-21 % body fat, my weight will be about 135 - 144 lbs.

For me, since I'm 5'4" I considered this high. Especially since 4 years ago I was 128 lbs.

My cousin who is also 5'4" is 115-118 consistently and she has about 20% body fat. My own mother has this same exact body type (as my cousin) and it's amazing to me that I could never get down that low! My bones and muscles are too dense!

I don't lift weights, it's just my body type. I hope other women can take advice from this too. It's not all about what the scale says, make sure you know your body fat, it's worth it!!

It does sound fishy. If you have 112 lbs. LBM and were 128 lbs. four years ago, that would imply you were below 11% fat then, which isn't likely.

If it helps, I am 5'4" and when I was 140lbs. I was over 30% body fat. Not that we're all equal or anything. I could never get down to 115-118, either. 125 is bikini weight for me.

OH - let me explain. I was NOT 112 lbs lean body mass 4 years ago. I was more like (estimation) 107-109 lbs lean body fat 4 years ago.

I have gained muscle in the past 4 years. When you gain weight, especially the way I did, the body compensates by building muscle along with gaining fat. So, most likely I have gained 4-5 lbs of muscle in the past 4 years!

I will lose a little muscle eating at a caloric deficit, but probably only 1 lb MAYBE 2 lbs total because I'm really not eating at a crazy deficit, and I'm exercising quite a bit.

As a bigger person, your body has to build more muscle in order to carry around all of that extra weight. So it does depend on genetics, and how much muscle your body developed in order to carry the current weight.

WalkingAlong

Oh, you're totally right. I didn't realize you'd gained so much weight (no offense).

I think we're probably also reading the results wrong. I think it's 'fat mass' and 'fat free mass', which includes water. Water probably varies more than muscle, along with weight.

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=162

krawhitham

Oh, you're totally right. I didn't realize you'd gained so much weight (no offense).

I think we're probably also reading the results wrong. I think it's 'fat mass' and 'fat free mass', which includes water. Water probably varies more than muscle, along with weight.

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=162

Interesting link! I think everyone should know that NO body fat measuring method is exact, it's something to go off of when you really have no idea where you stand and don't have a clue what weight you have to lose, like me.

Yeah, I gained aprox 42 lbs in approx 42 months. That's a pretty steady weight gain and I was exercising the entire time - Some weights, some Bikram yoga, hatha yoga, running 5-8 miles at a time and a lot of walking etc... So, my muscle gain might be more than some who gained weight and were totally sedentary.

If 35ish of those lbs were fat, the numbers come out pretty well: 172 (highest weight) - 35 lbs = 137lbs.

If 137 lbs is my goal weight, and I lose a negligible amount of muscle mass, then I'll have the same body fat percentage at 137 lbs than I did at 127ish lbs 4 years ago. Pretty cool info if you ask me. Even though the method is not exact, I just really like numbers and the information

Iwishyouwell

I did this too!! Been a few weeks.. this is what I remember off the top my head right now.
Body fat %: 37
Fat body mass: 96lbs
Lean body mass: 169lbs

That lean body mass to fat body mass ratio would mean you're the female muscular equivalent of some of the most impressive bodybuilders that ever competed.

Which means it's likely very, very wrong.