How to get an accurate body fat measurement for women
Options
Replies
-
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.
i wouldn't really take an average of anything to get bf%, there is too much room for error with most devices. i would get one device and use it at the same time of the day under the same circumstances, and use that number to track "changes" rather than track the actual number. And dont get too caught up on it, its just one of many ways to measure weightloss.0 -
I used online calculators and then used one of the scales at the health outreach program at the hospital. Both gave me the same exact bf% (that was 2 years ago). Maybe not 100% accurate, but good enough for me. I figure I'll go back and use the scale. It may not be completely valid, but using the same method should be a fairly reliable way to measure if you have lost body fat.0
-
I used online calculators and then used one of the scales at the health outreach program at the hospital. Both gave me the same exact bf% (that was 2 years ago). Maybe not 100% accurate, but good enough for me. I figure I'll go back and use the scale. It may not be completely valid, but using the same method should be a fairly reliable way to measure if you have lost body fat.
I think the bolded is important. If you are able to use the same method/machine/whatever throughout your process you will be able to see you are making progress. That said, you will likely know when you are at a body fat percentage you like, simply by looking in the mirror. Unless you are intending to compete in fitness/bikini competitions you don't really need to worry about hitting a specific %, as much as you should make sure you're happy with what you see in the mirror.0 -
GuitarJerry wrote: »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.
Fat is fat. Discounting your bust is not really a reliable way to measure something. It is what it is. When you step on a scale, you don't subtract 20 lbs to compensate for your bust size, it's part of it. Same goes with overall body fat. As you lose fat, you will also lose it from your bust, so you need to account for it in measurements of weight, body fat, and lean body mass. It's not extraneous.GuitarJerry wrote: »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.
Fat is fat. Discounting your bust is not really a reliable way to measure something. It is what it is. When you step on a scale, you don't subtract 20 lbs to compensate for your bust size, it's part of it. Same goes with overall body fat. As you lose fat, you will also lose it from your bust, so you need to account for it in measurements of weight, body fat, and lean body mass. It's not extraneous.
You are completely missing the point and do not understand what I'm asking. I'm not subtracting bust, I am saying that I'm afraid the method doesn't take it into account, thereby exaggerating my lean mass, which is the opposite of the assumption you're making. I take offense at the suggestion that I'm trying to take a shortcut or not count something. What I'm saying is that I wanted to know if there was a way to watch your body composition as accurately as possible while losing weight to ensure you are losing fat only and not muscle. I have lost 115 lbs before and lost a lot of muscle along with the fat and do not want that to happen again. If you disagree with this being necessary or think that women fit into every mold created for men, I don't know if this is the place to voice it. I wanted to open a dialogue not have someone jump in and do the whole "get to work and stop belly aching about the details routine. " I understand "fat is fat"and even mentioned that in one of my comments, which tells me you didn't read everything before jumping in. You certainly don't get the issue I'm describing with the measurements. At the very least the point of the thread was simply to ask other women if they've had accurate readings and what gives them the most accurate readings and share my concerns about our unique fat distribution not being accounted for in some methods. If you, as a male, think it's a non-issue, great, but don't disagree while not addressing the actual question, then fail to give a good reason why, and then dismiss my curiosity as an attempt to get some fatty tissue to not count into my bf %.0 -
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.
- THANK YOU! !! finally an answer to the question lol. I would still be a lot more comfortable with a method that took all of your measurements though as opposed to just a few even if it is assuming a percentage of fat exists on the chest, because at least it would have a better guesstimate of how much. It's a factor that varies among women just as much as fat distribution between belly and hips/thigh.0 -
Not a woman, but just in to say that there really isn't an accurate at home method to tracking body fat. You could see the trends maybe, but even those will be skewed a lot of the times so what's the point? I have had a Tanita scale tell me I'm 7% literally right after telling me I was 27% (I was neither of those at the time), and this was an expensive unit that a RD used.
You will also certainly lose muscle when you are losing weight as we all do.
Wish there was a better answer, but short of weekly Dexascans, which would be costly and still a bit inaccurate, there aren't any options.0 -
hsmith0930 wrote: »I used online calculators and then used one of the scales at the health outreach program at the hospital. Both gave me the same exact bf% (that was 2 years ago). Maybe not 100% accurate, but good enough for me. I figure I'll go back and use the scale. It may not be completely valid, but using the same method should be a fairly reliable way to measure if you have lost body fat.
I think the bolded is important. If you are able to use the same method/machine/whatever throughout your process you will be able to see you are making progress. That said, you will likely know when you are at a body fat percentage you like, simply by looking in the mirror. Unless you are intending to compete in fitness/bikini competitions you don't really need to worry about hitting a specific %, as much as you should make sure you're happy with what you see in the mirror.
Thanks! And agreed. My main purpose isn't to hit a certain %, it's just to monitor that I'm not losing muscle and verify that my losses are fat losses.
0 -
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.
- THANK YOU! !! finally an answer to the question lol. I would still be a lot more comfortable with a method that took all of your measurements though as opposed to just a few even if it is assuming a percentage of fat exists on the chest, because at least it would have a better guesstimate of how much. It's a factor that varies among women just as much as fat distribution between belly and hips/thigh.
I would have to think that the various methodologies take that variance into consideration though. It's not as if the people who created the calculations didn't factor in differences between men and women. They clearly did, considering that they have different calculations. IMO one could infer that they looked at women with various chest sizes and built the calculation based on average, which is the best that any calculation like this can do.
Why are you so interested in trying to be ultra exact? It truly does not matter if you are 43% fat or 42% fat or 41.9% fat. I cannot think of anything that requires ultra exact BF info. If you calculate yourself as 43% and a year from now you're 33%, when you actually started at 42.4% and ended up at 34.6%, it does not matter. You will have still lost a lot of fat and likely are much healthier.
I have no idea of my actual real starting BF% (48%? 50%) or current % (30%? 32%?) and it doesn't affect me negatively at all. I calculate it according to the calculations because numbers are interesting, but it isn't something to fixate on, as far as being ultra accurate.0 -
Why are you so interested in trying to be ultra exact? It truly does not matter if you are 43% fat or 42% fat or 41.9% fat. I cannot think of anything that requires ultra exact BF info. If you calculate yourself as 43% and a year from now you're 33%, when you actually started at 42.4% and ended up at 34.6%, it does not matter. You will have still lost a lot of fat and likely are much healthier.
Can't say about the OP, but some of us are just geeky like that.
Heck, I came across a thread in the fitness section about VO2 Max...plugged some numbers into the formula someone posted and thought "Really? Can that possibly be right?" Don't know...not planning to spend money checking it out because I have no real need. Plain ol' curiosity.
So if it is strange to wonder if a gal with a big rack and narrow hips, or a woman with a small hips and big thighs, will get anything like an accurate body fat percentage from a formula that only measures neck, hips, and waist then I'm strange too.
From another posters link:
Navy Tape
For both males and females the formulas tend to underestimate body fat %. While this is fine for evaluating if soldiers are overweight or not, for personal use formulas that don’t err on the side of caution are preferable. The women’s formula does provide a good balance between both apple and pear shaped bodies.
YMCA Formula
Like the DoD formulas, the YMCA formulas tend to underestimate body fat percentage for both men and women. For females the standard YMCA formula is only appropriate for the apple and apple/pear hybrid body types as only waist measurements are used.
Modified YMCA Formula
For males the modified YMCA formula is nothing more than simple adjustment that to the constant that shifts the calculated body fat percentage upward a bit. For females the formula is totally different than the standard YMCA formula. The female modified YMCA formula is appropriate for pear body types due to the large contribution from the hip measurement.
Covert Bailey
The Covert Bailey formulas tend to give a little lower body fat percentage than the other formulas and have a notably flatter trajectory.
So what about the other female body shapes? Busty? Hourglass?
Who knows...maybe a random college student studying health or some such will wander by. Could be someone's thesis project.
Desire for the best available data doesn't equal unwillingness to work from the imperfect data that is available.
0 -
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.
You will inevitably lose LBM while cutting. There are ways to minimize it, by eating enough protein, keep a moderate deficit over severe, weight lifting - however you will lose some. How much is impossible to say.0 -
Why are you so interested in trying to be ultra exact? It truly does not matter if you are 43% fat or 42% fat or 41.9% fat. I cannot think of anything that requires ultra exact BF info. If you calculate yourself as 43% and a year from now you're 33%, when you actually started at 42.4% and ended up at 34.6%, it does not matter. You will have still lost a lot of fat and likely are much healthier.
Can't say about the OP, but some of us are just geeky like that.
Heck, I came across a thread in the fitness section about VO2 Max...plugged some numbers into the formula someone posted and thought "Really? Can that possibly be right?" Don't know...not planning to spend money checking it out because I have no real need. Plain ol' curiosity.
So if it is strange to wonder if a gal with a big rack and narrow hips, or a woman with a small hips and big thighs, will get anything like an accurate body fat percentage from a formula that only measures neck, hips, and waist then I'm strange too.
From another posters link:
Navy Tape
For both males and females the formulas tend to underestimate body fat %. While this is fine for evaluating if soldiers are overweight or not, for personal use formulas that don’t err on the side of caution are preferable. The women’s formula does provide a good balance between both apple and pear shaped bodies.
YMCA Formula
Like the DoD formulas, the YMCA formulas tend to underestimate body fat percentage for both men and women. For females the standard YMCA formula is only appropriate for the apple and apple/pear hybrid body types as only waist measurements are used.
Modified YMCA Formula
For males the modified YMCA formula is nothing more than simple adjustment that to the constant that shifts the calculated body fat percentage upward a bit. For females the formula is totally different than the standard YMCA formula. The female modified YMCA formula is appropriate for pear body types due to the large contribution from the hip measurement.
Covert Bailey
The Covert Bailey formulas tend to give a little lower body fat percentage than the other formulas and have a notably flatter trajectory.
So what about the other female body shapes? Busty? Hourglass?
Who knows...maybe a random college student studying health or some such will wander by. Could be someone's thesis project.
Desire for the best available data doesn't equal unwillingness to work from the imperfect data that is available.
LOL!
The YMCA calculator gives me 19%. I am decidedly not 19% BF.
It's weird though. When I was training for a bodybuilding competition, the online Navy calculator and others gave me higher BF than I looked visually.0 -
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.
- THANK YOU! !! finally an answer to the question lol. I would still be a lot more comfortable with a method that took all of your measurements though as opposed to just a few even if it is assuming a percentage of fat exists on the chest, because at least it would have a better guesstimate of how much. It's a factor that varies among women just as much as fat distribution between belly and hips/thigh.
I agree a method usually all measurements would make more sense. I've done a multitude of online calculators lately, most of them gave me around 20-21%, though one was as low as 17%. One said 25%, which is probably the closest to reality. Based on photos, I think I'm closer to 27%, possibly higher. After I get back from vacation I plan on having the BodPod done.0 -
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.
- THANK YOU! !! finally an answer to the question lol. I would still be a lot more comfortable with a method that took all of your measurements though as opposed to just a few even if it is assuming a percentage of fat exists on the chest, because at least it would have a better guesstimate of how much. It's a factor that varies among women just as much as fat distribution between belly and hips/thigh.
I agree a method usually all measurements would make more sense. I've done a multitude of online calculators lately, most of them gave me around 20-21%, though one was as low as 17%. One said 25%, which is probably the closest to reality. Based on photos, I think I'm closer to 27%, possibly higher. After I get back from vacation I plan on having the BodPod done.
I had a Bodpod done. I wish I'd saved the money and gone for hydrostatic. It's cheaper and probably more accurate. But, as stated already, all the methods are flawed. Navy tape puts me at 25%. I'm pretty sure I'm lower than that. In the photos I look more like 20%.
0 -
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.
- THANK YOU! !! finally an answer to the question lol. I would still be a lot more comfortable with a method that took all of your measurements though as opposed to just a few even if it is assuming a percentage of fat exists on the chest, because at least it would have a better guesstimate of how much. It's a factor that varies among women just as much as fat distribution between belly and hips/thigh.
I agree a method usually all measurements would make more sense. I've done a multitude of online calculators lately, most of them gave me around 20-21%, though one was as low as 17%. One said 25%, which is probably the closest to reality. Based on photos, I think I'm closer to 27%, possibly higher. After I get back from vacation I plan on having the BodPod done.
I had a Bodpod done. I wish I'd saved the money and gone for hydrostatic. It's cheaper and probably more accurate. But, as stated already, all the methods are flawed. Navy tape puts me at 25%. I'm pretty sure I'm lower than that. In the photos I look more like 20%.
If your profile picture is accurate I can't even see how you would be 25%, lol.0 -
It is and I'm not. Stupid Navy tape measurement! These things can drive a person crazy. Tracking your own measurements and photos, how your clothes fit are better ways of tracking BF loss.0
-
It is and I'm not. Stupid Navy tape measurement! These things can drive a person crazy. Tracking your own measurements and photos, how your clothes fit are better ways of tracking BF loss.
It's like it's backwards. I am definitely above 20% now and the Navy calculator gives me slightly over 20%. But when I was very clean in contest prep, I got higher numbers and was definitely at 20 or lower.0 -
The university here offers hydrostatic weighing, though it costs more which is why I was leaning towards BodPod, but maybe I'll do hyrdroststic instead.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.
- THANK YOU! !! finally an answer to the question lol. I would still be a lot more comfortable with a method that took all of your measurements though as opposed to just a few even if it is assuming a percentage of fat exists on the chest, because at least it would have a better guesstimate of how much. It's a factor that varies among women just as much as fat distribution between belly and hips/thigh.
I agree a method usually all measurements would make more sense. I've done a multitude of online calculators lately, most of them gave me around 20-21%, though one was as low as 17%. One said 25%, which is probably the closest to reality. Based on photos, I think I'm closer to 27%, possibly higher. After I get back from vacation I plan on having the BodPod done.
I had a Bodpod done. I wish I'd saved the money and gone for hydrostatic. It's cheaper and probably more accurate. But, as stated already, all the methods are flawed. Navy tape puts me at 25%. I'm pretty sure I'm lower than that. In the photos I look more like 20%.
0 -
[/quote] You will inevitably lose LBM while cutting. There are ways to minimize it, by eating enough protein, keep a moderate deficit over severe, weight lifting - however you will lose some. How much is impossible to say. [/quote]
To those asking why I'm pushing for the most accurate measurement possible- that's why. I'm trying to avoid losing lean mass as much as possible. I've read several studies that experiment with losing fat and retaining or growing lean mass and unfortunately the participants are always males.
Also, I'm curious about it for exactly the reason ilex70 said. I'm just a geek. I like numbers and data, I get curious, and I like to have something else to measure outside of weight. I especially like to feel justified about my body shape and build- and be able to feel okay about weighing much more than other women who are near my height and wear the same size clothes. I've been trying to embrace for some time that not all women are ballerinas and some women are bulldozers. I'm super strong and for me it's part of the journey to embrace that and be cool with it because I spent so many years thinking I needed to eat like other women and work out like other women (meaning vegan or super, super low cal, and work out by running or dancing only.)
So, I'm experimenting. I'm finding out if a woman CAN lose fat and retain lean muscle, or even grow lean muscle- and if it's absolutely inevitable to lose some- then how much? Can it be minimized? What numbers I start and end with are important for that. So far, I eat to a 2lb per week deficit but I never max out my calories and I never eat back my workout calories. I do try to get 100-150 g of protein per day and I'm slowly getting better at that. I'm training with a friend of mine and doing strong lifts 5x5. You know what? Even with a good size deficit, I've made decent gains already. That tells me that you can get stronger on a deficit. I assume getting stronger will translate to preservation of my current lean mass at the very least- but we'll see.
As to the notion that you WILL lose some lean mass- I'd assume it's because your organs, blood, and bones are factored into your lean mass. When you decrease in size, especially if you lose a lot of weight, say half your body weight, you are going to have significantly lower blood volume. Since blood is counted as lean mass wouldn't that appear as a lean mass reduction for every weight loss? I'm not arguing that I won't lose muscle because this is an experiment, after all, and I don't know the results yet, but I'm keeping in mind that lean mass might fluctuate for other reasons so if I've made strength gains greater to the body weight I've lost by the time I'm done, I'll feel good about it.
0 -
Great thread and info! I don't have the slightest clue where I would go to get properly tested so I just type my stats into a variety of online calculators every so often. Currently I am sitting at 24-27%bf based on those and I am ok with the range. It would be great to be able to track lean mass better to ensure I am working hard enough and fueling properly to keep those losses to a minimum but the best I can do is just keep working. I am happy to see there are others who just like to see the numbers as well, funny thing but those calculators keep me motivated and "in the game" even if their accuracy is fairly questionable.
Good luck op!!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions