How to get an accurate body fat measurement for women

2»

Replies

  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    ilex70 wrote: »
    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.
  • Coley88
    Coley88 Posts: 114 Member
    edited February 2016
    Adah_m wrote: »
    jemhh wrote: »
    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.
  • Sumiblue
    Sumiblue Posts: 1,597 Member
    Coley88 wrote: »
    Adah_m wrote: »
    jemhh wrote: »
    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%.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    Sumiblue wrote: »
    Coley88 wrote: »
    Adah_m wrote: »
    jemhh wrote: »
    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.
  • Sumiblue
    Sumiblue Posts: 1,597 Member
    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.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    Sumiblue wrote: »
    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.
  • Coley88
    Coley88 Posts: 114 Member
    Sumiblue wrote: »
    Coley88 wrote: »
    Adah_m wrote: »
    jemhh wrote: »
    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%.
    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.
  • Adah_m
    Adah_m Posts: 216 Member
    [/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.


  • youngmomtaz
    youngmomtaz Posts: 1,075 Member
    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!!
This discussion has been closed.

Categories