Jackson & Pollock Body Fat Percentages

AngryDiet

What is the thinking on these tables? Are they a better measure than the more absolutist percentages I see when seeing things like the body type images that float around?

As a 42 year old male, it would seem that I'll be doing well to hit 15% or 16%. Yet such numbers wouldn't be good for a 20-something at all.

Adding the age factor seems to be something oft overlooked in fora. Is this just a common error, or are these tables questioned?

Chief_Rocka

Looks like using age as an excuse to stay fat.

On a serious note, I'm not familiar with the idea that a healthy bodyfat percentage increases with age.

Also, I suspect that where you're staring plays a role. For example, it's a lot easier for a 50 year old man to maintain 11% bodyfat then it would be for him to start at 30% and diet down to 11%.

AngryDiet

On a serious note, I'm not familiar with the idea that a healthy bodyfat percentage increases with age.

Just to explain where those charts are coming from (without defending the validity of the claim):

There are 3 types of fat: subcutaneous (under the skin), visceral (around the organs), and intramuscular (in between muscle, like a marbled steak). The amount of subcutaneous body fat you have can stay the same, but the visceral and intramuscular fat increases as you age.

http://www.builtlean.com/2010/08/03/ideal-body-fat-percentage-chart/

What is interesting is the tables for the Accufitness caliper use these tables, with the addition of the mm reading across the top. So the same mm reading for a 20 year old would mean a lower body fat percentage than the same reading for a 45 year old.

Chief_Rocka

On a serious note, I'm not familiar with the idea that a healthy bodyfat percentage increases with age.

Just to explain where those charts are coming from (without defending the validity of the claim):

There are 3 types of fat: subcutaneous (under the skin), visceral (around the organs), and intramuscular (in between muscle, like a marbled steak). The amount of subcutaneous body fat you have can stay the same, but the visceral and intramuscular fat increases as you age.

http://www.builtlean.com/2010/08/03/ideal-body-fat-percentage-chart/

What is interesting is the tables for the Accufitness caliper use these tables, with the addition of the mm reading across the top. So the same mm reading for a 20 year old would mean a lower body fat percentage than the same reading for a 45 year old.

Interesting, thanks.

Tw1zzler

I have that same chart for my calipers... the % is always less than my Omron bio-impedance analyzer. (i just look for trends I know it's not especially accurate) I don't think just because you are older you get to carry around more fat... that's backwards thinking. My skinniest grandparent lived to be 99.

Azdak

Charts such as this reflect changes in body composition that occur over time. They were derived from cross-sectional population studies, in this case from 1980 (or even earlier).

Cross-sectional studies reflect a snapshot of an existing population and may or may not reflect how a given population might change over time. A longitudinal study looks at a single cohort and how that group changes over time. Needless to say, a longitudinal study takes some time to conduct and thus has limited availability.

This is another one of those "average population" vs what I would call "focused population" questions. When you look at cross-sectional results, there is a progressive decrease in lean mass and progressive increase in fat mass over time. The question is: is that an inevitable product of aging, or is that merely a consequence of our lifestyle?

We know now that following a vigorous exercise program can slow down many of the changes--decrease in VO2max, decrease in lean mass, decrease in HRmax--that were always described as a "normal" part of aging.

Costill followed a cohort of distance swimmers and found that, among those who maintained the same level of training, VO2 max did not change at all between the ages of 25 and 55 (although performance did decline).

There have been numerous anecdotal reports of individuals maintaining a vigorous training program who have seen no change in maximum heart rate between the ages of 25 and 55.

It stands to reason that those who follow a vigorous resistance training program would maintain lean mass as well--although I don't know to what extent (maybe others have some research).

Making the jump to "what are the IDEAL levels of body fat for a particular age" is a different issue altogether. That discussion can be based as much on ideology and politics as it is on science. (And on valid points of disagreement as well).

Azdak

It's also important to note that when this chart was developed, a) most of the studies were done on younger people by younger people and b) the population as a whole was much thinner than today.

Almost all of the "standards" for fitness and health were much more aggressive back then, given that the baby boomers were in their upper 20s to mid-30s.

I ran my PR-- 17:52 5K-- in 1980 when I was 26 yrs old and didn't even finish in the top 10% overall.

So, yeah, I shake my head a little these days when we do assessments and the new norms print out 35% body fat as "normal" for women over 40.

auroranflash

Charts such as this reflect changes in body composition that occur over time. They were derived from cross-sectional population studies, in this case from 1980 (or even earlier).

Cross-sectional studies reflect a snapshot of an existing population and may or may not reflect how a given population might change over time. A longitudinal study looks at a single cohort and how that group changes over time. Needless to say, a longitudinal study takes some time to conduct and thus has limited availability.

This is another one of those "average population" vs what I would call "focused population" questions. When you look at cross-sectional results, there is a progressive decrease in lean mass and progressive increase in fat mass over time. The question is: is that an inevitable product of aging, or is that merely a consequence of our lifestyle?

We know now that following a vigorous exercise program can slow down many of the changes--decrease in VO2max, decrease in lean mass, decrease in HRmax--that were always described as a "normal" part of aging.

Costill followed a cohort of distance swimmers and found that, among those who maintained the same level of training, VO2 max did not change at all between the ages of 25 and 55 (although performance did decline).

There have been numerous anecdotal reports of individuals maintaining a vigorous training program who have seen no change in maximum heart rate between the ages of 25 and 55.

It stands to reason that those who follow a vigorous resistance training program would maintain lean mass as well--although I don't know to what extent (maybe others have some research).

Making the jump to "what are the IDEAL levels of body fat for a particular age" is a different issue altogether. That discussion can be based as much on ideology and politics as it is on science. (And on valid points of disagreement as well).

Very good points, thanks for all the information. A good reminder to train hard and maintain a good fitness routine.

Natihilator

The Jackson & Pollock chart you posted doesn't look to be very accurate, I actually find this one much better:

AngryDiet

The Jackson & Pollock chart you posted doesn't look to be very accurate, I actually find this one much better:

That one kinda looks like they literally cross-sectioned some of the population.

Natihilator

The Jackson & Pollock chart you posted doesn't look to be very accurate, I actually find this one much better:

That one kinda looks like they literally cross-sectioned some of the population.

Right? It's a very thorough and up-to-date representation.

neandermagnon

The Jackson & Pollock chart you posted doesn't look to be very accurate, I actually find this one much better:

LOVE IT

that's always what comes to my mind whenever I hear about the Jackson Pollock formula(s)

I like Jackson Pollack formula, because last time I did the 4 site one is said my body fat percentage was 19% (other measures say it's more like 22-23%)

kishstl

The value of bodyfat measurements in a real world application are to help someone track their physiology changes throughout a fitness regimen. So the validity or even accuracy of the measurements are, in some respects, secondary to the precision at which you can measure them to accurately track your body changes. i.e. weight loss vs bodyfat loss. One of the most accurate ways to calculate an accurate bodyfat is hydrostatically but that is not very realistic for most people.