Body fat % estimation

TBargar101
TBargar101 Posts: 30 Member
edited November 2024 in Fitness and Exercise
Which practical method is most accurate?

I have a set of calipers, and also have bookmarked the "Army Body Fat Calculator".

TIA

Replies

  • AllanMisner
    AllanMisner Posts: 4,140 Member
    It is hard to caliper yourself and it is important to do it the same way each time. As a substitute, you can just take body measurements (neck, chest, stomach, waist, hips, upper arms, upper legs). These will approximate your fat loss.

    A dexa scan, which is quite expensive is the most accurate method for measuring body fat. All other methods have an error rate that can be quite big (even calipers). So, don’t lose too much sleep about it. I’d just do the measurements and go from there.
  • McCloud33
    McCloud33 Posts: 959 Member
    However you choose to do it, just keep looking for progress over time. Sometimes comparing pictures can get you as close/closer to your actual BF% than the other methods.
  • TBargar101
    TBargar101 Posts: 30 Member
    Thanks! :)

    The Army Body Fat Calculator is a tape measurement method. I ask my wife to take the caliper measurements for me (I definitely cannot get to my back), although I'm not confident she uses them consistently.
  • hoyalawya2003
    hoyalawya2003 Posts: 631 Member
    FWIW, I used the Army Body Fat Calculator and got dunked, and they both were within 0.5% of each other. I know that sometimes the Army formula is wrong, but I think it is probably fairly accurate for the vast majority of people, and seems pretty easy to be consistent in your measuring.
  • jchite84
    jchite84 Posts: 467 Member
    edited February 2015
    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/31129422#Comment_31129422

    I did some testing and wrote this a few weeks ago. It's a little nerdy, but basically I found all of those calculators to be inaccurate to a level that is almost useless as far as actually predicting body fat percentages compared to a water displacement test. But, as long as you are consistent in your method of measurement you could really use any of the models to track relative progress, just keep in mind that the number that you are tracking is probably not an accurate measure of your actual body fat %.

    EDIT: I reread the post - I checked the YMCA and Covert-Bailey methods, I did not test the set against the army measurement method, but I think on the whole my findings would stand - there are a lot of different factors that go into your body fat % and too much room for error/inconsistency with the tools available for measuring and the measurements taken by untrained folks.
  • TBargar101
    TBargar101 Posts: 30 Member
    jchite84 - your model might be the same as that used by the Army calculator - don't know. But it uses the same measurements, for men. There is an additional measurement for women.
  • xcalygrl
    xcalygrl Posts: 1,897 Member
    One option is to take pictures and post them in this thread. I did, then went and had a BodPod done. SideSteel and Sarah were within 1.5% bodyfat for myself. http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/826435/bodyfat-estimation-thread#Item_743.

    I also have this link bookmarked. I created a spreadsheet of all the formulas and keep a monthly comparison for my own informational needs. I've done this for several months, with a couple of BodPod readings scattered in there as well. From my experience, the YMCA modified is the closest to accurate for me (within 1.5% body fat). If you want to average one or more of the methods together, the Covert Bailey and DOD averaged together give me a really really close reading (within 0.5% body fat).
    http://strengthunbound.com/measure-body-fat-easily-accurately-home/
  • jchite84
    jchite84 Posts: 467 Member
    No, my model is not the one used by the Army, the army model uses logarithms to normalize the variables, my formula is based off of a simple linear regression. The measurements are used in most if not all of the body fat calculators, some just use more (thigh and bicep measurements for instance). I guess the point is that no calculator predictive model is going to be accurate for everybody because factors such as bone density, muscle mass, and fat distribution can and will skew any model other than a body scan or water displacement test for a certain percentage of the population. According to BMI method a majority of professional athletes are "obese".

    So my point is don't get hung up on accuracy, because chances are no calculator method is going to be "accurate" in an absolute way. Just be consistent with the way you measure to prevent too much flux from measurement inconsistency and think of your model as a way of measuring relative progress, but not your actual body fat percentage.
  • TBargar101
    TBargar101 Posts: 30 Member
    Thanks! :)
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 49,043 Member
    While Dexa and hydrostatic are more accurate, the mirror and a tape are your best and least expensive ways to monitor it. Definition is more visible with less body fat and you'll learn where fat distribution is highest on your body.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png
  • AllanMisner
    AllanMisner Posts: 4,140 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    While Dexa and hydrostatic are more accurate, the mirror and a tape are your best and least expensive ways to monitor it. Definition is more visible with less body fat and you'll learn where fat distribution is highest on your body.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png

    I agree, but I’d focus on tape measurements as people often have a hard time with visual self evaluation (unless the change is significant).
  • sgthaggard
    sgthaggard Posts: 581 Member
    I use my Fitbit Aria scale just to track trends.

    I know that the number I'm getting is nowhere near accurate but I figure that, if I'm consistently measuring (first thing in the morning before consuming anything) and I'm seeing a gradual downward trend, then I'm doing something right.
  • TBargar101
    TBargar101 Posts: 30 Member
    I'm interested in accuracy more than following trends because it helps me to understand how much of the weight loss and/or gain is loss of body fat relative to muscle.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories