How to get an accurate body fat measurement for women

Options
Adah_m
Adah_m Posts: 216 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I'm focusing on muscle and strength and just started a lifting program. I'm not really concerned with weight loss but with fat loss/recomposition. Rather than weighing in I'd prefer to track body fat % and measurements as I go. I'd like to see if I'm able to increase lean% and decrease fat at the same time- which is possible, but the studies seem to focus on men.
I have used measurements with the Navy method and YMCA method of calculating it to get an idea, but I honestly feel like these methods might fall short for women. They don't ask for bust size, which means if it assumes a smaller bust than I have it is assuming the pounds are elsewhere (possibly assuming more lean mass than I have.) Although bust would be fat tissue and not lean, I think it's a significant enough factor in my body shape to throw those numbers off.
I believe somewhere in the range of 54-55% is an accurate measurement for me right now, but when I say that and we know 32% is obese for women it makes me sound incredibly large. I am obese, yes, but I'm a very proportional size 16-18, (265 lbs, 5'8'').

So, I'm new at this. Does anyone know whether these measurement calculators do take things like bust into consideration? (P.S. I don't have the means to do a water displacement test or do the bod pod thing, so it's either measurements or bioelectrical testing.) I think I just have too much fat to be able to use calipers and separate the fat from the muscle to get an effective measurement, but maybe I'm wrong.
Specifically, I'm looking for how women get an accurate reading. If it's just not possible, I'll stick to measurements only but I would like to be able to track it.

b8483403onmo.png
«1

Replies

  • SonyaCele
    SonyaCele Posts: 2,841 Member
    edited February 2016
    Options
    i have done the dunk tank and compared it to my morning biometric measurement, and strangely enough they were the same. I have tracked bf% on my biometric for years to see changes, and the amount of lean mass changes was so slight, i always hovered around 112 lbs lean body mass no matter what my weight is. So i just use that # for any bf weight calculations and i dont stress it too much. Even if you are weight lifting, your lean mass isnt gonna change more than a few pounds over time. So if you can figure out your lean mass with a biometric, you can just use that number and divide it by your current weight to get your lean mass % (subtract that from 1 to get your bf%) and it will be close enough. BF measurements are always just estimates anyways, there is no way get it super accurate. I think the dunk take is the most accurate but even that has some room for error like how much air in your lungs, food in your belly, etc.
  • ilex70
    ilex70 Posts: 727 Member
    Options
    I've been curious about this too.

    Per Navy tape my body fat is 42%. I think it is the neck measure that makes me curious...I've never had visible fat on my neck or noticed that it has changed size at all.

    Did the Omron impedance thing with the metal plates and metal hand grips at the gym and it shows 2% less.

    On the one hand I've seen many people post that the impedance devices are crap. On the other there is a thread right now in the Exercise and Fitness section stating that this type of impedance device is good enough to follow your fat percentage trend and one poster who said that they had Bod Pod (IIRC) and that the place that did it used said impedance device first and the results were virtually identical.



  • Maxematics
    Maxematics Posts: 2,287 Member
    Options
    Navy Tape puts me at 22%. My Fitbit Aria says 19 to 20%. I'm 5'3" and 110.7 pounds. I'm hesitant to believe either one, honestly. I think they're most likely too low.
  • middlehaitch
    middlehaitch Posts: 8,484 Member
    Options
    I used my scale to track the downward trend. It is useful for that, but not to give a precise reading.
    I am at 20.3 on my scale at home, but running through a number of different sites that have calculators I get anything from 19- 25. I would estimate from photo compartisons I am in the high 23 to mid 24 range.
    Take photos and compare yourself to photo charts on the Internet.
    Chose one way to estimate and just stick with that.

    Cheers, h.
    http://www.fat2fittools.com/tools/mbf/
    The military BF calculator.
  • Adah_m
    Adah_m Posts: 216 Member
    Options
    SonyaCele wrote: »
    i have done the dunk tank and compared it to my morning biometric measurement, and strangely enough they were the same. I have tracked bf% on my biometric for years to see changes, and the amount of lean mass changes was so slight, i always hovered around 112 lbs lean body mass no matter what my weight is. So i just use that # for any bf weight calculations and i dont stress it too much. Even if you are weight lifting, your lean mass isnt gonna change more than a few pounds over time. So if you can figure out your lean mass with a biometric, you can just use that number and divide it by your current weight to get your lean mass % (subtract that from 1 to get your bf%) and it will be close enough. BF measurements are always just estimates anyways, there is no way get it super accurate. I think the dunk take is the most accurate but even that has some room for error like how much air in your lungs, food in your belly, etc.

    I think that's an accomplishment itself- changing weight and not losing any lean mass. If I remember the last calculator was estimating my lean mass at 119 lbs. Do you get strength gains without your lean mass increasing? Do your muscles somehow get stronger without getting bigger? Interesting.
  • Adah_m
    Adah_m Posts: 216 Member
    Options
    It just occurred to me that then knowing your lean mass would be a great way to calculate goal weight, which I've been having a lot of trouble with. Although they say anything as low as 130 is healthy for my height, if I'm carrying 119 lbs of lean mass (and I don't lose any lean mass) and my goal is to get under 30% body fat, my goal is roughly 170. If I want to get down to 25%, my goal is 158, and If I want to get to 20% my goal would be 148.

    If my math is right, here's how I'm calculating that:
    (current lean mass ×100)÷(100-goal%)

    So to calculate goal weight at 20% body fat, assuming I retain my lean mass, (119×100)÷(100-20)=148.75

    Someone check my math...

    But I like those numbers. They're much more realistic and comfortable than the numbers I had in my head.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    dexa scan but still a margin of error, just small and reliable
  • tomteboda
    tomteboda Posts: 2,171 Member
    Options
    synacious wrote: »
    Navy Tape puts me at 22%. My Fitbit Aria says 19 to 20%. I'm 5'3" and 110.7 pounds. I'm hesitant to believe either one, honestly. I think they're most likely too low.

    If your first two profile pictures are current, you're well under 22% body fat. I say that because you have clearly visible ribs, your arms display a tremendous amount of muscle definition, and your abs are quite well-defined.

    Take a look at the images here.

  • Maxematics
    Maxematics Posts: 2,287 Member
    edited February 2016
    Options
    tomteboda wrote: »
    synacious wrote: »
    Navy Tape puts me at 22%. My Fitbit Aria says 19 to 20%. I'm 5'3" and 110.7 pounds. I'm hesitant to believe either one, honestly. I think they're most likely too low.

    If your first two profile pictures are current, you're well under 22% body fat. I say that because you have clearly visible ribs, your arms display a tremendous amount of muscle definition, and your abs are quite well-defined.

    Take a look at the images here.

    Thanks. Yeah, they're current except I'm a few pounds less now. I saw the body fat pictures and descriptions, but I guess it's still hard for me to believe since I hold the most weight in my legs, especially my thighs. Some of the descriptions are vague and I know they're not one size fits all. So I feel like while my upper half looks like it's below 22% BF, my lower half looks like 24 to 25%. That's why I'd estimate myself closer to 24% or so overall. I think the Navy Tape % is more accurate than the Fitbit Aria definitely. It's been giving me readouts of 17 to 18% lately.
  • Sumiblue
    Sumiblue Posts: 1,597 Member
    Options
    @synacious , me too. I had a Bodpod assessment earlier this Winter and it said I was at 23%. I've lost 5lbs since then and I got leaner. I've lost fat from all over but I carry more weight in my Glutes/hips. @Sidesteel from the Eat, Train Perform group said he thought I was much leaner than 23% based on my profile pic (current) but my lower half does not match my upper half. We lose weight evenly but we don't store it that way. It's going to take longer for me to see my booty look like the rest of me. I am very curious about my BF is now. I feel like Bodpod was off. I may try hydrostatic soon.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    Options
    tomteboda wrote: »
    synacious wrote: »
    Navy Tape puts me at 22%. My Fitbit Aria says 19 to 20%. I'm 5'3" and 110.7 pounds. I'm hesitant to believe either one, honestly. I think they're most likely too low.

    If your first two profile pictures are current, you're well under 22% body fat. I say that because you have clearly visible ribs, your arms display a tremendous amount of muscle definition, and your abs are quite well-defined.

    Take a look at the images here.

    People always quote those images but I'm honestly not seeing much of a difference between the 25% and 30% women.
  • Adah_m
    Adah_m Posts: 216 Member
    Options
    As an update I tried the method with the hand plates and got a 47.55% fat and 138 lbs lean mass. I think I'm just going to take the average between the two numbers I've gotten and use that, so each time I check in I'll do both and keep the average.
  • Adah_m
    Adah_m Posts: 216 Member
    Options
    GuitarJerry wrote: »
    Whatever method you would use for a woman, the exact same method would also work for a man, just so you know.

    I still haven't seen an answer to how the measurement methods take bust into account, because they don't. In that case, no, not all the same methods work for men and women. If you have 20 lbs worth of chest as a woman and it does not ask for that number, it makes an assumption about your distribution based on making your weight fit in the parameters you provide with the measurements. If 20 lbs of fatty tissue don't actually fit in those measurements but it thinks they do, they'll assume more lean mass is distributed across your body. At least this is what I'm theorizing because I have yet to see any indication that the YMCA or Navy method takes that into account.

    What I'm looking for is a fairly reliable way to know if I'm losing muscle mass along with fat. I have found that the studies concerning body building and body recomposition overwhelmingly and exclusively seem to use men as their test subjects so I want to know both if women on here have tried and had success and what methods they used to track their progress, that's all.

  • jemhh
    jemhh Posts: 14,261 Member
    edited February 2016
    Options
    I use the formulas from this article. I just keep a spreadsheet with the formulas and pop in the numbers every so often. The results are all slightly different due to formula and input differences but my goal is just that they continue on a downward trend. There are several female formulas.

    http://strengthunbound.com/measure-body-fat-easily-accurately-home/
  • Adah_m
    Adah_m Posts: 216 Member
    Options
    tomteboda wrote: »
    synacious wrote: »
    Navy Tape puts me at 22%. My Fitbit Aria says 19 to 20%. I'm 5'3" and 110.7 pounds. I'm hesitant to believe either one, honestly. I think they're most likely too low.

    If your first two profile pictures are current, you're well under 22% body fat. I say that because you have clearly visible ribs, your arms display a tremendous amount of muscle definition, and your abs are quite well-defined.

    Take a look at the images here.

    When I look at the pictures I look between 40-45%.... curious to see what a 50% with proportional fat distribution would look like because the person in the picture had a poor body shape to begin with which makes it look worse I think. I'd need to see 50% at my height, not on a 5' tall person.
  • CasperNaegle
    CasperNaegle Posts: 936 Member
    Options
    Here is an interesting read on body fat. You are probably just as good using a tape measure, a mirror and calipers.

    https://legionathletics.com/how-to-calculate-body-fat/

  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    Options
    CasperNaegle wrote: »
    Here is an interesting read on body fat. You are probably just as good using a tape measure, a mirror and calipers.

    https://legionathletics.com/how-to-calculate-body-fat/

    Interesting, although if you have loose skin it's going to mess up results anyway...

    It's just odd though how those body fat pictures only show the midsection... it's hardly an accurate representation of body fat % depending on where you carry your fat...
  • jemhh
    jemhh Posts: 14,261 Member
    Options
    The "Navy" (i.e., Department of Defense) formulas, YMCA formulas, Modified YMCA formulas, and Covert Bailey formulas all differ based on sex due to physiological differences between the two sexes. That means that breasts and other spots where women carry more fat are taken into account.

Categories