most accurate body fat % measurement

eljip
eljip Posts: 5
in Health and Weight Loss
I'm at school in a health and wellness program, so I have access to a lot of equipment and tools. About 6-7 weeks ago, I used a Tanita scale that spit out a receipt reading that I was 33% body fat. I am 5'4" and at that time I was about 136lbs. That kind of devastated me, because if you look at average charts of what 33% looks like, I don't think I look that way at all. I'm inbetween somewhere, not all these fat hanging around, but not all muscle, either. Today I had skinfolds done, with 4 different quality of calipers for accuracy, and when all the calcuations and measurements and normative data charts were done, it says I'm 15.5% body fat (at the highest, the lowest with one caliper was 13.4%!) I mean, I've been at the gym and eating better in the past 6 weeks, but I don't see how I could have possibly changed that much. I am ready to chalk it all up to user error - measuring skinfolds is obviously a skill one has to learn - but I mean, I trusted the person that they knew what they were doing. I'm not happy accepting I'm on the higher, "at risk" end of body fat percentage, because I don't think I'm that high at all. But I'm also not wading in the fit/athletic waters, either. Right now I'm 131lbs. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say I'm more in the 20-25% range.

But really, what's the deal? Do you guys have a preferred method when it comes to finding out these numbers?
«1

Replies

  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,268 Member
    dexa scan...

    Most methods have a margin of error due to hydration levels or user error.
  • BigT555
    BigT555 Posts: 2,068 Member
    this is why bf% is crap, its too hard to get an accurate reading without spending a good chunk of cash on a bodpod or dexa scan

    i used to be concerned about bf% too, but now i just use the scale to track weight loss progress, my lifts to track muscle strength and the mirror to gauge when ill be done
  • eljip
    eljip Posts: 5
    good old dexa! I knew that, but I mean .. of those of us (most of us, to be honest) who can use more affordable and readily available methods :)
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,268 Member
    this is why bf% is crap, its too hard to get an accurate reading without spending a good chunk of cash on a bodpod or dexa scan

    i used to be concerned about bf% too, but now i just use the scale to track weight loss progress, my lifts to track muscle strength and the mirror to gauge when ill be done

    I agree with BigT...

    I was concerned with it too...got similar news and was like WTH :noway: :explode: :noway:

    Now I found a site use my measurments and watch a downward trend...along with my weight, clothing sizes and how I feel...

    Numbers as individual numbers don't give the whole story...stick with trends and groups of numbers.
  • ASKyle
    ASKyle Posts: 1,475 Member
    Unfortunately it's almost impossible to get an "accurate" number.

    The Bod Pod told me I was 24%
    Calipers give me 21%
    Scale at home gives me 17.4% (ha!)

    I'm 5'2, 120lbs. I feel the Pod and the calipers are the most accurate for me.

    Unfortunately, as a woman, I doubt you're anywhere near the 13-16% range (unless you're competing in a figure competition!). 10-13% is the minimum requirement for basic health.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,876 Member
    Hydrostatic testing is the most accurate. Outside of that, you would likely want to do a combination of measurements and calipers. Those scales aren't accurate in the least as they can't tell the difference between water and fat. You're best bet is to also have someone else do the measurement and caliper pinch (preferably someone who knows exactly what they're doing) as it is difficult to measure exactly the same spot and also our own personal bias gets in the way of accurately taking measurements.

    If you are indeed 13% - 15% then that is incredibly lean for a female...typical female athletic/fitness type body is around 20ish% give or take...typical average healthy female is somewhere between 20 - 25%.
  • Shropshire1959
    Shropshire1959 Posts: 982 Member
    good old dexa! I knew that, but I mean .. of those of us (most of us, to be honest) who can use more affordable and readily available methods :)

    Well if you don't want it accurate (and you've already seen that Tanita i.e Bioelectrical Impedance scales are rubbish because of the constantly changing water content of the subject and environment!) - Don't bother trying to measure it ..

    Go DEXA or go Home :-p
  • MagnumBurrito
    MagnumBurrito Posts: 1,070 Member
    Don't get hung up on a machine giving you validation or unhappiness.

    The BF% numbers don't matter. Just like your overall weight. My BMI says I'm overweight ... lol. Look in the mirror, that's all the matters. From your pic, your BF% is in an attractive range. Now go back to lifting weights and selfies )
  • albayin
    albayin Posts: 2,524 Member
    I don't want to spend my stack of cash on those fancy machines, and more likely I am afraid of a terrible reading after I spent that money...

    Anyway, I use a pair of old pants with no stretch and my mirror to track my progress. The fit of pants and the level of jiggling doing jumping jack in front of my full length mirror are my golden rules. LOL
  • hartmamp
    hartmamp Posts: 80 Member
    I've done the BodPod a couple of times, it was about $45 for each session so not too bad. It's very informative.
  • Addy_J
    Addy_J Posts: 1
    skin fold and calipers
  • timbrom
    timbrom Posts: 303 Member
    Dissection.

    Doesn't work out well at the end though.
  • kelleybean1
    kelleybean1 Posts: 312 Member
    I had a bod pod done for $20. Not bad, but the results were eye-opening!
  • leodru
    leodru Posts: 321 Member
    I did bodpod and it told me I'm higher than BMI! I work out with weights and a trainer who was in the Olympics 2 times a week and he drives me hard. I think the bodpod has great marketing and calls itself the "gold standard" but I think they are full of it. I was on a 3 hour flight the day i had the test and the tech had no idea if it had an effect or not. You'll find lots of people with bad bodpod stories of session to session inaccuracies. The independent studies show fluctuations of up to 6%.

    http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=175
  • csuhar
    csuhar Posts: 779 Member
    I did the BodPod and the results had me really scratching my head.

    It said I had "fat mass" of 74.083 lbs which works out to about 37.2 Liters if my density calculations are correct. I know I have fat as a necessary part of my body's design AND I do recognize that I've got some padding around my torso that prevents me from looking cut and that I'd like to chip away at, but I still don't quite see how I've got almost 19 two-liter bottles worth of the stuff on my body.

    But, as others have said, you can really treat body fat much the same way as you treat the scale and focus more on trends and whether you're going up or down over time, rather than focusing on what it says your current state is. As long as you don't have something requiring you to be a certain BF%, that's really all you have to worry about. (Myself, I could potentially lose my job over body composition issues, so I've got to be more concerned with it, but even then it's a matter of passing whatever tests they use on me, more than what my body compositon TRULY is..)
  • DrJenO
    DrJenO Posts: 404 Member
    I did bodpod and it told me I'm higher than BMI! I work out with weights and a trainer who was in the Olympics 2 times a week and he drives me hard. I think the bodpod has great marketing and calls itself the "gold standard" but I think they are full of it. I was on a 3 hour flight the day i had the test and the tech had no idea if it had an effect or not. You'll find lots of people with bad bodpod stories of session to session inaccuracies. The independent studies show fluctuations of up to 6%.

    http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=175
    A typical bathroom scale has 3% fluctuations. Although, mine really does seem to be accurate. It's right on with my calipers, and it rises and falls with my weight, but overall is very consistent every time I step on.
    Mine correlated w/ skin fold measurements (done by a professional, not by me) and I'm always consistent w/ the time of day I measure it - first thing in the morning, before eating or drinking anything. Later in the day, it would give me all kinds of crazy readings.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    I'm at school in a health and wellness program, so I have access to a lot of equipment and tools. About 6-7 weeks ago, I used a Tanita scale that spit out a receipt reading that I was 33% body fat. I am 5'4" and at that time I was about 136lbs. That kind of devastated me, because if you look at average charts of what 33% looks like, I don't think I look that way at all. I'm inbetween somewhere, not all these fat hanging around, but not all muscle, either. Today I had skinfolds done, with 4 different quality of calipers for accuracy, and when all the calcuations and measurements and normative data charts were done, it says I'm 15.5% body fat (at the highest, the lowest with one caliper was 13.4%!) I mean, I've been at the gym and eating better in the past 6 weeks, but I don't see how I could have possibly changed that much. I am ready to chalk it all up to user error - measuring skinfolds is obviously a skill one has to learn - but I mean, I trusted the person that they knew what they were doing. I'm not happy accepting I'm on the higher, "at risk" end of body fat percentage, because I don't think I'm that high at all. But I'm also not wading in the fit/athletic waters, either. Right now I'm 131lbs. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say I'm more in the 20-25% range.

    But really, what's the deal? Do you guys have a preferred method when it comes to finding out these numbers?

    Different methods work better for different bodies. For a relatively lean person without excess visceral fat, caliper measurements taken by a skilled operator can be as accurate as any other method. For other body types, they are worthless.

    Having done over 10,000 skinfold measurements, my first rule is: compare the numbers with the body that is standing in front of you. Hard to believe in a school setting you got that wide a range without anyone trying to sort things out.

    It is really hard to get a sense of muscle from a picture, but I would estimate you closer to the 25% level.
  • DanaDark
    DanaDark Posts: 2,187 Member
    If tracking BF %, stick to one method and stick to the same set of conditions. Otherwise, for accuracy, its a crap shoot.

Categories