IIFYM vs. low-carb vs. primal blueprint

DopeItUp

You under estimated your body fat as well.

My body fat is 33% and I am 5'7" and weigh 168.8lbs. This are scientific numbers since I got it from a BOD POD (Body Composition Tracking System Analysis). My fat free mass was 113.2lbs. So, I should eat about 113-120gr of Protein. As others stated, fat is important as well. I distributed my macro Fat between 25-30%, Protein 25-30% and the rest filled with carbs, which is then 40-50%. Some days I am over that and some days I meet my macros. When I am over my carb goal, I am often under my protein. So, there is a co-relation.


Since I uppered my Protein, I am more satisfied and full, and I am dropping weight much faster, but still able to work out without fatigue or looking "fat-skinny".

How do you know she underestimated her bf%?

And no, there is no such thing as "scientific numbers". They are measured with a machine that uses a two or three compartment model and as such, they are subject to model error, operator error and other variabilities. My "educated" estimate is that the bod pod gives an accuracy of +- 4% (at above 30% and female..., from various reads).

I'm curious as to how she came to this conclusion as well

I'm trying to wrap my head around it too.

Timshel_

is this real life?

Threads like this remind me how complicated easy things can be made. Been there, done that, moved to eating at caloric deficit and I am happier for the freedom of my mind and time not being consumed by consumption numbers.

AsaThorsWoman

You under estimated your body fat as well.

My body fat is 33% and I am 5'7" and weigh 168.8lbs. This are scientific numbers since I got it from a BOD POD (Body Composition Tracking System Analysis). My fat free mass was 113.2lbs. So, I should eat about 113-120gr of Protein. As others stated, fat is important as well. I distributed my macro Fat between 25-30%, Protein 25-30% and the rest filled with carbs, which is then 40-50%. Some days I am over that and some days I meet my macros. When I am over my carb goal, I am often under my protein. So, there is a co-relation.


Since I uppered my Protein, I am more satisfied and full, and I am dropping weight much faster, but still able to work out without fatigue or looking "fat-skinny".

How do you know she underestimated her bf%?

And no, there is no such thing as "scientific numbers". They are measured with a machine that uses a two or three compartment model and as such, they are subject to model error, operator error and other variabilities. My "educated" estimate is that the bod pod gives an accuracy of +- 4% (at above 30% and female..., from various reads).

I'm curious as to how she came to this conclusion as well

I did it two ways.

One with with a body fat bathroom scale, which came out to %32.1 and the other was an online calculator that takes your height, weight, measurements, age etc... into account and does a calculation and it came to %32.

Since they both came to essentially the same number, I figured it was a decent estimate.

I don't have access to the POD or other devices.

I actually checked to see if there was even one in Oklahoma, there was only one, but it is owned by an individual whom did not respond to my inquiry.

DavPul

i wasn't curious as to how you did it, i was curious as to how the other person assumed that you were wrong based on the information we have so far.

Sarauk2sf

You under estimated your body fat as well.

My body fat is 33% and I am 5'7" and weigh 168.8lbs. This are scientific numbers since I got it from a BOD POD (Body Composition Tracking System Analysis). My fat free mass was 113.2lbs. So, I should eat about 113-120gr of Protein. As others stated, fat is important as well. I distributed my macro Fat between 25-30%, Protein 25-30% and the rest filled with carbs, which is then 40-50%. Some days I am over that and some days I meet my macros. When I am over my carb goal, I am often under my protein. So, there is a co-relation.


Since I uppered my Protein, I am more satisfied and full, and I am dropping weight much faster, but still able to work out without fatigue or looking "fat-skinny".

How do you know she underestimated her bf%?

And no, there is no such thing as "scientific numbers". They are measured with a machine that uses a two or three compartment model and as such, they are subject to model error, operator error and other variabilities. My "educated" estimate is that the bod pod gives an accuracy of +- 4% (at above 30% and female..., from various reads).

They are not very accurate. A good write up on BodPods can be found here:

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=175

"The Bod Pod: The Verdict

The Bod Pod does OK when looking at group averages, with some studies showing error rates of around 2%; however, other studies have indicated average error rates of over 5%. The individual error rate for the Bod Pod can be unacceptably high in some individuals, and the Bod Pod is horrible for tracking change over time. For these reasons I would recommend against using the Bod Pod as a body composition assessment tool. Hydrostatic weighing, despite some of its problems, is much more reliable."

EvgeniZyntx

You under estimated your body fat as well.

My body fat is 33% and I am 5'7" and weigh 168.8lbs. This are scientific numbers since I got it from a BOD POD (Body Composition Tracking System Analysis). My fat free mass was 113.2lbs. So, I should eat about 113-120gr of Protein. As others stated, fat is important as well. I distributed my macro Fat between 25-30%, Protein 25-30% and the rest filled with carbs, which is then 40-50%. Some days I am over that and some days I meet my macros. When I am over my carb goal, I am often under my protein. So, there is a co-relation.


Since I uppered my Protein, I am more satisfied and full, and I am dropping weight much faster, but still able to work out without fatigue or looking "fat-skinny".

How do you know she underestimated her bf%?

And no, there is no such thing as "scientific numbers". They are measured with a machine that uses a two or three compartment model and as such, they are subject to model error, operator error and other variabilities. My "educated" estimate is that the bod pod gives an accuracy of +- 4% (at above 30% and female..., from various reads).

I'm curious as to how she came to this conclusion as well

I did it two ways.

One with with a body fat bathroom scale, which came out to %32.1 and the other was an online calculator that takes your height, weight, measurements, age etc... into account and does a calculation and it came to %32.

Since they both came to essentially the same number, I figured it was a decent estimate.

I don't have access to the POD or other devices.

I actually checked to see if there was even one in Oklahoma, there was only one, but it is owned by an individual whom did not respond to my inquiry.

two different methods having each varied error levels but coming up with the same number likely means that that yes, you can use that ~ you are somewhere near there plus/minus something.


still doesn't answer the address why someone else questions your answer.

levitateme

Jac White, how do I calculate that?

Is the fat mass 180 x %32= 57.6lb

No, thats not how it works. Your total weight of 180lbs, is a sum of your lean body mass (100%), and body fat of 32%. To calculate what your lean body mass is you divide your body weight by 132, and multiply by 100. Ergo, your lean body mass is 136lbs, and adding 32% of fat onto that, 44lbs (32% of 136lbs), gives you your current body weight of 180lbs. Lot of bad math floating around in some of the replies, but the above is correct.

LOLWUT?

Samesies

EvgeniZyntx

You under estimated your body fat as well.

My body fat is 33% and I am 5'7" and weigh 168.8lbs. This are scientific numbers since I got it from a BOD POD (Body Composition Tracking System Analysis). My fat free mass was 113.2lbs. So, I should eat about 113-120gr of Protein. As others stated, fat is important as well. I distributed my macro Fat between 25-30%, Protein 25-30% and the rest filled with carbs, which is then 40-50%. Some days I am over that and some days I meet my macros. When I am over my carb goal, I am often under my protein. So, there is a co-relation.


Since I uppered my Protein, I am more satisfied and full, and I am dropping weight much faster, but still able to work out without fatigue or looking "fat-skinny".

How do you know she underestimated her bf%?

And no, there is no such thing as "scientific numbers". They are measured with a machine that uses a two or three compartment model and as such, they are subject to model error, operator error and other variabilities. My "educated" estimate is that the bod pod gives an accuracy of +- 4% (at above 30% and female..., from various reads).

I'm curious as to how she came to this conclusion as well

I think she assumed that because she is the same height as the OP and weighs 20 pounds less, that the OPs BF% must be higher than her own. She just doesn't realize that you can't just use height and weight and come to that conclusion.

Maybe.

This will likely remain one of the great mysteries. Kinda like the Pyramids and Linear B.

LunaStar2008

I'm 5ft 7 1/2.

Weight: 180 - 182

body fat %32

I am 31 years old.

This says my BMR is 1585

And my TDEE is 2180

So, she is about the same height as me, about 15-17lbs heavier, but yet her body fat is 1% below mine. How is that possible??? The BOD POD is the next accurate after the water tank. Instead of water displacement it uses air displacement.

That's how I determine that she must be off on her body fat percentage.

Iron_Feline

I'm 5ft 7 1/2.

Weight: 180 - 182

body fat %32

I am 31 years old.

This says my BMR is 1585

And my TDEE is 2180

So, she is about the same height as me, about 15-17lbs heavier, but yet her body fat is 1% below mine. How is that possible??? The BOD POD is the next accurate after the water tank. Instead of water displacement it uses air displacement.

That's how I determine that she must be off on her body fat percentage.

More lbm.

And bod pod can be off by as much as 5%.

DopeItUp

I'm 5ft 7 1/2.

Weight: 180 - 182

body fat %32

I am 31 years old.

This says my BMR is 1585

And my TDEE is 2180

So, she is about the same height as me, about 15-17lbs heavier, but yet her body fat is 1% below mine. How is that possible??? The BOD POD is the next accurate after the water tank. Instead of water displacement it uses air displacement.

That's how I determine that she must be off on her body fat percentage.

There are dudes a foot shorter than me, with half the bodyfat, and still weigh 50lbs more than me. Your guess that her bodyfat is higher than yours is completely random.

kitka82

is this real life?

Threads like this remind me how complicated easy things can be made. Been there, done that, moved to eating at caloric deficit and I am happier for the freedom of my mind and time not being consumed by consumption numbers.

Exactly. Too much math. How much do macros even matter if you are still focused on losing scale weight, so long as you are in a deficit?

ETA: I want to lose 50 pounds. I would love for it all to be fat but....

I set my macros to 40/30/30, just for the hell of it. But my focus is keeping a calorie deficit to drop those pounds before I worry about body fat percentage.

Sarauk2sf

I'm 5ft 7 1/2.

Weight: 180 - 182

body fat %32

I am 31 years old.

This says my BMR is 1585

And my TDEE is 2180

So, she is about the same height as me, about 15-17lbs heavier, but yet her body fat is 1% below mine. How is that possible??? The BOD POD is the next accurate after the water tank. Instead of water displacement it uses air displacement.

That's how I determine that she must be off on her body fat percentage.

I am 1" shorter than you and have about 124lb LBM (based on hydrostatic tests). While it gives an idea as to what may be reasonable, comparing someone to yourself and making assumptions based on that comparison can often be incorrect.

Also, re accuracy of a BOD POD - check out the link I provided.

ETA: I am not saying she is that BF% - just that there is not enough information to say she is not.

IGbnat24

I know I do not want a low-carb diet.

I'm trying to figure out what to aim for as far as the protein and fat goes, and carbs, too.

The easiest thing to do is aim for 1/3 of each P/F/C. No need to over complicate. Eat at a deficit, get a balance of all three macros, and watch the weight come off.

Timshel_

The easiest thing to do is aim for 1/3 of each P/F/C. No need to over complicate. Eat at a deficit, get a balance of all three macros, and watch the weight come off.

You all CRAZY gurl wit dat simple talk. Yo ain't nevah gettin in shape like that.
Must.....do.....lots.....of.....senseless........calculation!

Sarauk2sf

I know I do not want a low-carb diet.

I'm trying to figure out what to aim for as far as the protein and fat goes, and carbs, too.

The easiest thing to do is aim for 1/3 of each P/F/C. No need to over complicate. Eat at a deficit, get a balance of all three macros, and watch the weight come off.

Actually the easiest thing to do is just focus on calories.


To the guy who said pi was in here, I think i came across this, yet i can't find it. It had all the special numbers in 1 equation. Body fat % is in there some where..

Maybe, but that would not answer the question.

Sarauk2sf

I know I do not want a low-carb diet.

I'm trying to figure out what to aim for as far as the protein and fat goes, and carbs, too.

The easiest thing to do is aim for 1/3 of each P/F/C. No need to over complicate. Eat at a deficit, get a balance of all three macros, and watch the weight come off.

Actually the easiest thing to do is just focus on calories.


To the guy who said pi was in here, I think i came across this, yet i can't find it. It had all the special numbers in 1 equation. Body fat % is in there some where..

Maybe, but that would not answer the question.

Yes it does. If you Add up the numerical value for macros they need to = 1. SO it would be -e^(i*pi)

I was referring to the first sentence.