Body Fat Percentage???

jtotheno

Okay, so I am 5'7'' and 198 pounds. I am not huge, I have a bit of a belly and I think my thighs are huge, but I am tall, and I fit into a size 12. Yesterday a trainer at my gym figured out that my bod fat percentage is over 40!!! Is there anyone else out there who is about my height? Because I know that being this tall I would look ill anywhere under 150 (I have been under, and I did look gross) I just can't see how I can have that high of a percentage of body fat, that basically means that almost 100 lbs of me is fat!! And my ideal weight is only 30lbs away... If anyone is willing to share their Body Fat percentage (AND HEIGHT , LOL), please do , so I can get a better understanding of what's out there? THANKS!!!

mola71580

I'm 5'7 and a half so we are about the same. I run between 153 at my lowest and 160 . I wear between a size
10 and 12. I'd like to be solidly a 10 but that is the way it goes. I am around 25 percent body fat.

Lyadeia

I have been told similar things when I was trying to lose weight, so i know how much of a slap in the face it feels like.

I am 5'5" tall and when I was just starting to see a change in the scale back when I actually had a gym membership in 2005-2006, I weighed around 150 pounds. I was wearing a size 12/14 and was calculated at 33% body fat. I couldn't believe it, I was clinically obese even though I didn't necessarily look obese. Yeah, I knew that i was overweight, but obese???

So when I started working out more intensely, I did intense cardio 3 days a week and circuit training (intense weight training with a cardio effect is basically what I was doing) 3 days a week. At first, the scale did NOT drop. It was so darned stubborn! I lost maybe 10 pounds total in half a year, but I was also wearing size 8 clothes. I was then calculated at 24% body fat. I then started working out at home doing P90X which has a similar format to what I was doing anyway, and I dropped more body fat to about 19% and was wearing size 6 clothes.

Moral of the story? Even skinny looking people can have lots of fat around their muscles and organs. That thing called "skinny fat" is real. But when we increase our cardio intensity and add some weight training to the mix, we can change our body composition more quickly and easily and our body fat percentage will drop.

As an aside, how was your body fat being measured? Some methods are more accurate than others, and you can do a search here for more threads talking about the different ways.

4lafz

I use the BMI calculator on MFP's tools tab. I started at 212 and I am 5'7" (I was a 1X) . That was a 33 BMI. I am now 165 and 25.9 BMI - and a size 12. I am aiming for the Healthy or Normal range - my first goal is 150 and this is where I will be a size 10 - maybe some 8's. Once there I may want to lose 5-10 more. I am large boned. Normal/Healthy BMI for 5'7" begins at 159.6 for our height.

khskr1

I'm 5'7 and my weight right now is 140, in my wedding photo I was 131. Which is where I like to be. I also have a small frame. There are many factors that need to be considered when trying to find your "ideal" weight. Right now my body fat % is around 28. That's due to being WAYYYYY to comfortable in my first year of marrige and not hitting the gym or strength training. So I would say 40% is probably close. (BTW..my % was taken by my nutritionist).

jtotheno

He did it on some fancy pants scale. lol. I am at about a 31BMI, which is obese as well, but like you said, I don't look fat. I am overweight but most people couldn't even tell if I was walking by on the street fully dressed! I am currently nursing an 8 month old, but only once a day, so I don't have a huge amount of milk, but there is no way half of my body is fat... I know for a fact my legs are super muscular, because I can do leg presses of over 300 pounds and not even break a sweat. I just thought it seemed high for my height. Maybe if I was 5'2'' and 198, I can see that making a huge difference. I am not worried about it really, was just curious, because i have never had the test done before. Thanks for the replies

jtotheno

I'm 5'7 and my weight right now is 140, in my wedding photo I was 131. Which is where I like to be. I also have a small frame. There are many factors that need to be considered when trying to find your "ideal" weight. Right now my body fat % is around 28. That's due to being WAYYYYY to comfortable in my first year of marrige and not hitting the gym or strength training. So I would say 40% is probably close. (BTW..my % was taken by my nutritionist).

I have a large frame, my rib cage is big and so are my hips. (I carried and naturally delivered two 10 pound babies! LOL. I'm not meant to be too small!) I was 129 when I got pregnant with my oldest daughter and I really did look sick. But then I have a friend taller than me who is about 130 and looks just great. I think I looked my best around 165-170, and that's what I am going for right now (Although I wouldn't mind being a little lower eventually.)

ickybella

Ok, I am just a half inch shorter than you and I have my wii set to 5'7" because it can't handle half inches. It says that a woman who is 5'7" should ideally weigh 140. I'm shooting for 135-140, and I have a bigger frame. Right now, I weigh 164-166 and I still have too much fat. I don't know what my percentage is, but I work out 6-7 days a week alternating cardio and strength. I do have muscles under the fat, but it's a thick layer of fat! lol. Anyway, I think you should get to where you're healthy and happy.

PJilly

He did it on some fancy pants scale. lol. I am at about a 31BMI, which is obese as well, but like you said, I don't look fat. I am overweight but most people couldn't even tell if I was walking by on the street fully dressed! I am currently nursing an 8 month old, but only once a day, so I don't have a huge amount of milk, but there is no way half of my body is fat... I know for a fact my legs are super muscular, because I can do leg presses of over 300 pounds and not even break a sweat. I just thought it seemed high for my height. Maybe if I was 5'2'' and 198, I can see that making a huge difference. I am not worried about it really, was just curious, because i have never had the test done before. Thanks for the replies

Beware of those fancy pants scales. I have one, and it's not even close to accurate. I'm 5'6", weigh 137, and my body fat measured hydrostatically is 21.5%. My scale says my body fat is 30%.

SHBoss1673

Don't get your BF% done on a scale. They use Bio-electrical impedance, and depending on your hydration levels, they can be very very off. If you want to really know with accuracy, get a bod pod measurement or a hydrostatic measurement. Or maybe if you know the person is really experienced, a caliper test.

kjensen15

I am 5'7" as well and I weigh about 145, my body fat is about 22%. I wear a size 6 in dresses and pants I wear a 6 or an 8. I agree with everyone else to not trust a scale to give you an accurate BF%.

HollyMac20

I am 5'7" as well and weigh 155. I believe my BF% is around 23-21%. The reading does vary depending on hydration, time of day and all that good stuff. I wear a size 10 pant and on a good day can squeeze into an 8. I have super muscular legs, we are talking tree trunks here. They usually control my pant size. I believe I would look thin at 145 or so. Anything below that might be too much.

Uptopargolf

The scales are accurate if used while you are properly hydrated. It is tough to measure body exactly. But some ways are better than others. However, like everyone else has said.. there is such a thing as 'skinny fat'. I used to weigh 159, but I probably had more body fat, than I do now at 193.

Body fat is what everyone should be more aware of, not the number on the scale!


P.S holymac, I love the tip of the day in you're signature. Gotta love tony.

utamore

I am 5'10" and when I weighed 187 I was over 25% body fat. Not sure how much that helps but like you, I did not look fat but I was technically obese. It's definitely shocking and scary. Now I'm under 15% and weigh 162... looking a lot better but still not quite there. I'll let everyone know when I get below 10%.

tater8589

I don't like the scales. I have one at home that as I lose weight (I'm running, doing calesthenics [sp?] and lifting) the scales has been telling me that my fat percentage and weight is going up! I've lost inches and by the scales at the gym lbs, and have gained some muscle (I can see more tone when I look in the mirror). I'm also 5'7" and my goal weight is 130-125 (I have a small frame) but I'm currently floating around 145-139. Having hypothyroid doesn't help me any either, and the drs won't treat me cause its "borderline".

Uptopargolf

I don't like the scales. I have one at home that as I lose weight (I'm running, doing calesthenics [sp?] and lifting) the scales has been telling me that my fat percentage and weight is going up! I've lost inches and by the scales at the gym lbs, and have gained some muscle (I can see more tone when I look in the mirror). I'm also 5'7" and my goal weight is 130-125 (I have a small frame) but I'm currently floating around 145-139. Having hypothyroid doesn't help me any either, and the drs won't treat me cause its "borderline".

It could be because you're not hydrated enough when weighing yourself at home. Remember working out and all will mean you need at least a gallon of water or more a day.

SHBoss1673

The scales are accurate if used while you are properly hydrated. It is tough to measure body exactly. But some ways are better than others. However, like everyone else has said.. there is such a thing as 'skinny fat'. I used to weigh 159, but I probably had more body fat, than I do now at 193.

Body fat is what everyone should be more aware of, not the number on the scale!


P.S holymac, I love the tip of the day in you're signature. Gotta love tony.

I disagree with the accuracy of Bio electrical impedance scales. Their margin for error, even using professional equipment in a lab environment, is far higher than air displacement or water displacement methods, never mind more advanced options like DEXA or MRI testing (both are very expensive anyway). IMHO having a 10 or 15% error factor is akin to useless (some companies tout a 5% MfE for BIA, in my research, it's usually closer to 10% for professional equipment and 15% for home scales ). And that's the error factor IF you have correct hydration, which in and of itself is difficult to judge in the extreme as hydration levels aren't anything most of us can directly measure with any level of accuracy. Add to that the fact that you must have balanced electrolytes in your body when you do this test, or it can also play havoc with the results, and you're talking about an extremely shaky method of measurement.

By the way, you MUST avoid acohol for 24 hours minimum before attempting to do a BIA or the results will be skewed.

Uptopargolf

Yeah you are right, they are no where near perfect. But they are at least something.

Azdak

Don't get your BF% done on a scale. They use Bio-electrical impedance, and depending on your hydration levels, they can be very very off. If you want to really know with accuracy, get a bod pod measurement or a hydrostatic measurement. Or maybe if you know the person is really experienced, a caliper test.

The problem I have is that the average person these days is so overweight, most will not fit the standard calipers. And a bod pod is out of the question.

We use a top-end commercial tanita scale which has its pros and cons. For people under 30% or so I have found it to match my skinfold results almost exactly. Most of the time, my initial readings pretty closely match the body I see in front of me (and after 27 years and thousands of assessments, I can eyeball someone and be almost as accurate as the scale).

I just measured a woman last night who lost 25lbs in 3 months doing some wacky diet (GM diet) and 1 hr of cardio a day. Of the 25lbs lost ( I had measured her previously on the tanita scale), it showed that 10lbs was LBM, which is what you'd expect on that type of crash program.

Where I (and some clients) get frustrated is with the retests. We can't really control for hydration status so they can be variable. What is really frustrating is that I have spoken with Tanita reps at a number of trade shows and they don't really have any suggestions other than to take daily readings and average them out.

SHBoss1673

Don't get your BF% done on a scale. They use Bio-electrical impedance, and depending on your hydration levels, they can be very very off. If you want to really know with accuracy, get a bod pod measurement or a hydrostatic measurement. Or maybe if you know the person is really experienced, a caliper test.

The problem I have is that the average person these days is so overweight, most will not fit the standard calipers. And a bod pod is out of the question.

We use a top-end commercial tanita scale which has its pros and cons. For people under 30% or so I have found it to match my skinfold results almost exactly. Most of the time, my initial readings pretty closely match the body I see in front of me (and after 27 years and thousands of assessments, I can eyeball someone and be almost as accurate as the scale).

I just measured a woman last night who lost 25lbs in 3 months doing some wacky diet (GM diet) and 1 hr of cardio a day. Of the 25lbs lost ( I had measured her previously on the tanita scale), it showed that 10lbs was LBM, which is what you'd expect on that type of crash program.

Where I (and some clients) get frustrated is with the retests. We can't really control for hydration status so they can be variable. What is really frustrating is that I have spoken with Tanita reps at a number of trade shows and they don't really have any suggestions other than to take daily readings and average them out.

Baaahhh! The whole point of professional equipment is so that you DON'T have to do stuff involving standard deviations and averages. Why are MRI machines so expensive?! A half percent MfE would be so nice to have.

edorice

Don't get your BF% done on a scale. They use Bio-electrical impedance, and depending on your hydration levels, they can be very very off. If you want to really know with accuracy, get a bod pod measurement or a hydrostatic measurement. Or maybe if you know the person is really experienced, a caliper test.

There are bodpod's all around the U.S. these days. Going by the scale is inaccurate.

I am also 5'7 @ 215 lbs. my body fat is currently 24%

Azdak

I have done thousands of body fat measurements over the last 27 years, mostly with skinfolds. One thing I have noticed since I got back into the fitness business last year is that, for females, 40% body fat is not all that unusual anymore.

I find that many people have a poor sense of their body size or what is appropriate for them. Many people think only in terms of scale numbers, or they get caught up in past scale weights. I see people who think that at age 50, they should weigh the same as they did at 17, and others who bristle at the idea that, at 35%-40% body fat, they could stand to lose a few pounds.

And I see way too many fitness professionals who just throw numbers around without putting them in context or without corroborating their calculations with the body of the person sitting in front of them.

Trying to compare scale weights with other people based on their height is not productive. There are too many differences in body shape, frame size, muscle mass, etc.

As a fitness professional, I am ultimately guided by science and consensus health recommendations. Along with that, I take the individual's personal desires into consideration, as long as they are realistic and do not pose a health risk. For individuals who are overweight and have associated medical issues (e.g. hypertension, diabetes), it is also important to inform them that, from a health standpoint, the first 5%-10% of weight lost is a lot more important than the last 5%-10%.

My main goal is to provide people with the most accurate information, put it into the appropriate context, help them set their personal goals and then help outline a plan to meet them.

I find it is especially important to get a reasonably good estimate of lean body mass, because that really determines everything else. It is especially important because almost all of the general health information available in general medical offices and the popular press is derived from broad-based population guidelines or the inappropriate application of group statistical measurements like the BMI.

I find that there are as many people out their whose estimate of their "ideal" weight is too high as there are people whose "ideal" is too low.

Azdak

Don't get your BF% done on a scale. They use Bio-electrical impedance, and depending on your hydration levels, they can be very very off. If you want to really know with accuracy, get a bod pod measurement or a hydrostatic measurement. Or maybe if you know the person is really experienced, a caliper test.

The problem I have is that the average person these days is so overweight, most will not fit the standard calipers. And a bod pod is out of the question.

We use a top-end commercial tanita scale which has its pros and cons. For people under 30% or so I have found it to match my skinfold results almost exactly. Most of the time, my initial readings pretty closely match the body I see in front of me (and after 27 years and thousands of assessments, I can eyeball someone and be almost as accurate as the scale).

I just measured a woman last night who lost 25lbs in 3 months doing some wacky diet (GM diet) and 1 hr of cardio a day. Of the 25lbs lost ( I had measured her previously on the tanita scale), it showed that 10lbs was LBM, which is what you'd expect on that type of crash program.

Where I (and some clients) get frustrated is with the retests. We can't really control for hydration status so they can be variable. What is really frustrating is that I have spoken with Tanita reps at a number of trade shows and they don't really have any suggestions other than to take daily readings and average them out.

Baaahhh! The whole point of professional equipment is so that you DON'T have to do stuff involving standard deviations and averages. Why are MRI machines so expensive?! A half percent MfE would be so nice to have.

I can't speak for the technology behind MRIs or DEXA, but every other method for estimating body fat is an estimate of an estimate. Techniques such as hydrostatic weighing, bod pod, calipers, etc. really determine body density. The equation that translates body density to body fat % has its own error factor.

The only accurate way to measure body fat is to render the person into their various components and weigh each part.

Unfortunately, it can only be done once.

You can also make the argument that test-retest consistency is more important than actual "raw" accuracy. I mean, from a practical standpoint, there really is little significance between 10% and 15% body fat, or 25%-30% etc.

edorice

I have done thousands of body fat measurements over the last 27 years, mostly with skinfolds. One thing I have noticed since I got back into the fitness business last year is that, for females, 40% body fat is not all that unusual anymore.

I find that there are as many people out their whose estimate of their "ideal" weight is too high as there are people whose "ideal" is too low.

You're right, seeing 40% bodyfat is not unusual at all these days. However, is that a good thing? Seeing a 500 pound man is not unusual these days either.

On your other point about people under or over estimating their ideal weight; i have been seeing that too. I keep seeing thin people that want to lose ten more pounds or twenty more pounds when really they should consider making themselves stronger. These same people are dieting down to nothingness. In their older years they may be plagued with frail bones and a weak heart. But they think nothing of that now.

SHBoss1673

Don't get your BF% done on a scale. They use Bio-electrical impedance, and depending on your hydration levels, they can be very very off. If you want to really know with accuracy, get a bod pod measurement or a hydrostatic measurement. Or maybe if you know the person is really experienced, a caliper test.

The problem I have is that the average person these days is so overweight, most will not fit the standard calipers. And a bod pod is out of the question.

We use a top-end commercial tanita scale which has its pros and cons. For people under 30% or so I have found it to match my skinfold results almost exactly. Most of the time, my initial readings pretty closely match the body I see in front of me (and after 27 years and thousands of assessments, I can eyeball someone and be almost as accurate as the scale).

I just measured a woman last night who lost 25lbs in 3 months doing some wacky diet (GM diet) and 1 hr of cardio a day. Of the 25lbs lost ( I had measured her previously on the tanita scale), it showed that 10lbs was LBM, which is what you'd expect on that type of crash program.

Where I (and some clients) get frustrated is with the retests. We can't really control for hydration status so they can be variable. What is really frustrating is that I have spoken with Tanita reps at a number of trade shows and they don't really have any suggestions other than to take daily readings and average them out.

Baaahhh! The whole point of professional equipment is so that you DON'T have to do stuff involving standard deviations and averages. Why are MRI machines so expensive?! A half percent MfE would be so nice to have.

I can't speak for the technology behind MRIs or DEXA, but every other method for estimating body fat is an estimate of an estimate. Techniques such as hydrostatic weighing, bod pod, calipers, etc. really determine body density. The equation that translates body density to body fat % has its own error factor.

The only accurate way to measure body fat is to render the person into their various components and weigh each part.

Unfortunately, it can only be done once.

You can also make the argument that test-retest consistency is more important than actual "raw" accuracy. I mean, from a practical standpoint, there really is little significance between 10% and 15% body fat, or 25%-30% etc.

both MRI and DEXA are direct measurement. Fat shows up with different hue's than bone, lean tissue, and blood, and therefore a computer can grab it and measure the volume, and since fat (like all tissue) is a constant density, % can be derived.

Hydrostatic and Air displacement are both around 2 to 2.5 % MfE If I remember my numbers correctly (it's been a while), I think hydrostatic is slightly more accurate of the two, but also requires you to get dunked in a giant pool of water and hold your breath.

Azdak

Okay, so I am 5'7'' and 198 pounds. I am not huge, I have a bit of a belly and I think my thighs are huge, but I am tall, and I fit into a size 12. Yesterday a trainer at my gym figured out that my bod fat percentage is over 40!!! Is there anyone else out there who is about my height? Because I know that being this tall I would look ill anywhere under 150 (I have been under, and I did look gross) I just can't see how I can have that high of a percentage of body fat, that basically means that almost 100 lbs of me is fat!! And my ideal weight is only 30lbs away... If anyone is willing to share their Body Fat percentage (AND HEIGHT , LOL), please do , so I can get a better understanding of what's out there? THANKS!!!

At 198lbs and 40% body fat, that suggests a "fat free mass" of about 119lbs. I have measured a lot of people over the years and I would say that no more than 5% fall into that category. So, chances are that figure is not unreasonable, even if you have a larger frame. I am not saying that to be mean, but just to give you a more factual perspective.

The flip side is that, however discouraging that number may seem, it has limited relevance to your situation. If you are trying to improve your body composition, and you say your "goal" weight is 30lbs away, then your body fat % today doesn't mean much. Is that going to change your approach? I would think not.

And keep in mind that body fat %, esp at the beginning of a program, is a moving target. By that I mean that, if you lose weight and you follow an exercise program, your body composition will change. And the farther you are from your "ideal" body fat %, the more inaccurate the numbers can be. As you lose weight and your body changes, you will get a more realistic picture of what your "ideal" weight should be. I would not get fixed on any particular scale number at this point.

Azdak

I have done thousands of body fat measurements over the last 27 years, mostly with skinfolds. One thing I have noticed since I got back into the fitness business last year is that, for females, 40% body fat is not all that unusual anymore.

I find that there are as many people out their whose estimate of their "ideal" weight is too high as there are people whose "ideal" is too low.

You're right, seeing 40% bodyfat is not unusual at all these days. However, is that a good thing? Seeing a 500 pound man is not unusual these days either.

On your other point about people under or over estimating their ideal weight; i have been seeing that too. I keep seeing thin people that want to lose ten more pounds or twenty more pounds when really they should consider making themselves stronger. These same people are dieting down to nothingness. In their older years they may be plagued with frail bones and a weak heart. But they think nothing of that now.

The people I work with who are usually the most surprised are the women with a low FFM who actually look comparatively lean, but who show up as 28%-35% body fat.

It actually leads to good discussions because it allows me to really push the idea that they need to hit the weight room. Esp the women in their 40s. They are much more motivated by the risk of osteoporosis and sarcopenia than by fat thighs.

stormywxs

Measurement is imprecise. What you need to focus on is BF loss. It doesn’t matter where you start – use it as a benchmark so you can see where you are the next time you measure. BF loss is your goal I assume?

Try to keep the conditions (methods, hydration, time of day …..) the same each time you measure so your comparisons are meaningful. I agree scales aren’t necessarily accurate but they are convenient and practical for most of us. Good luck and don’t let numbers make you feel bad. How you feel and look are better measurements than any device can give you. Good luck.

edorice

I have done thousands of body fat measurements over the last 27 years, mostly with skinfolds. One thing I have noticed since I got back into the fitness business last year is that, for females, 40% body fat is not all that unusual anymore.

I find that there are as many people out their whose estimate of their "ideal" weight is too high as there are people whose "ideal" is too low.

You're right, seeing 40% bodyfat is not unusual at all these days. However, is that a good thing? Seeing a 500 pound man is not unusual these days either.

On your other point about people under or over estimating their ideal weight; i have been seeing that too. I keep seeing thin people that want to lose ten more pounds or twenty more pounds when really they should consider making themselves stronger. These same people are dieting down to nothingness. In their older years they may be plagued with frail bones and a weak heart. But they think nothing of that now.

The people I work with who are usually the most surprised are the women with a low FFM who actually look comparatively lean, but who show up as 28%-35% body fat.

It actually leads to good discussions because it allows me to really push the idea that they need to hit the weight room. Esp the women in their 40s. They are much more motivated by the risk of osteoporosis and sarcopenia than by fat thighs.

Woo hoo, thats me!
Do you really see women that are motivated about the risks of osteoporosis over fat thighs? Because the women that I know my age are still in it for the vanity.

mlb929

I will apologize if I repeat any information give above.

My husband uses one of those fancy pants scales on his high school wrestlers as a state requirement. I'm not sure the details, but I do know that you have to be hydrated to get an accurate reading. If you are dehydrated in the least bit, the scale accuracy fails.

I also know that there are differences for men/women and athletic builds. I would question whether all the settings were correct.

This link was previously posted on MFP and I really enjoyed seeing the calculations: http://www.halls.md/ideal-weight/body.htm

WhiskeyBravo

I too am 5'8" weigh around 190 and my BF is around 31 or 32 %