body fat percentage

The mirror

I bought some scale that uses bioelectrical impedance analysis. BIA is certainly not the most accurate way to get bf%, but it tells me what I want to know ... Up or down. It could be 10% off and I wouldn't know it, but in that case, it's consistently 10% off which is peachy to me since it was only 27 bucks. I thought about the Fitbit aria, but I already gave them $150 plus tax for my charge hr lol. They're sooo not getting another 130 plus tax. I hear they are pretty good for their purpose though. I also believe there are ways if you google body fat percentage calculation. It's something to do with measuring certain areas of your body

The most accurate way is water submersion. There are some places that will do it for you, for a fee. If knowing your BF% is really important to you, then I'd do it once to get an idea, check it with a bioimpedence test to see how accurate that is in relation and then that would give you a baseline. Bioimpedence gets sketchy the more athletic you are and the lower your bf% is. It doesn't work well for very athletic individuals, and is subject to miscalculations due to dehydration.

feisty_bucket wrote: »

drachfit wrote: »

Why do you want to know? The information is not necessary to lose weight and get in shape.

Define "in shape"?

Bodyfat percentage: because it's the best metric. Tons of people (you'll see on here) screw themselves up by using only the scale measurement.

OP, I use my bioimpedence scale and the US Navy tape-measure method, and average them together.

In shape, meaning what most everyone on a dieting app means: losing fat and gaining muscle.

It is not the "best metric" if there is not an accurate way to measure it.

A better metric is strength progress and body weight; if your strength is going up or plateaued while your weight drops, you can pretty much be assured that you are retaining as much muscle as possible given the parameters of your diet.

If your strength is declining, evaluate how rapidly, and look for places to improve your technique, recovery, sleep, and quality of nutrition. If these are all in order, then your cut is too aggressive to maintain strength and you can decide to continue or reduce your defecit.

chaney3000 wrote: »

Well, I get the old caliper method every year for work as part of our fit check in my dept.

chaney3000 wrote: »

Well, I get the old caliper method every year for work as part of our fit check in my dept.

I have found that to be highly inaccurate. I used to get it done every 6 months or so. I finally watched them do the calculations and it was all based on how old I was so the exact same calculation would have me at a lower body fat percentage if I was just slightly younger. That was an eye opener and really discouraging. It shouldn't matter how old I am.

Oh and I'm 19% as of last year.

My daughter it an athlete. She does a sport every season. She always gets a stinking BMI letter sent home from school since her weight is high for her height but she is all muscle. I have never seen anyone with less fat on them. So use a scale until you start gaining muscle then use a tape measurer.

McCloud33 wrote: »

liftsalltheweights wrote: »

chaney3000 wrote: »

Well, I get the old caliper method every year for work as part of our fit check in my dept.

chaney3000 wrote: »

Well, I get the old caliper method every year for work as part of our fit check in my dept.

I have found that to be highly inaccurate. I used to get it done every 6 months or so. I finally watched them do the calculations and it was all based on how old I was so the exact same calculation would have me at a lower body fat percentage if I was just slightly younger. That was an eye opener and really discouraging. It shouldn't matter how old I am.

The reason for age being in there is because as we age, we store more subcutaneous fat around our organs and such that can't be measured with calipers.

I'm an engineer and quite honestly, I don't know why a more accurate equation hasn't been developed. It seems that some combination of caliper, tape measure, age, weight, height, sex, etc... could be used to come up with one. Some college out there could do a study where they did the water submersion and took all kinds of measurements and then compile all that data together.

Because then you'd have to get the government on board and the BMI system is such a part of the governmental regulations, along with insurance companies, it would be a massive change to how things are calculated. At this point, it is too integrated into everything. It could be done but there is no incentive at this point and new studies with new data isn't going to be enough to change the status quo.

wilsoncl6 wrote: »

McCloud33 wrote: »

liftsalltheweights wrote: »

chaney3000 wrote: »

Well, I get the old caliper method every year for work as part of our fit check in my dept.

chaney3000 wrote: »

Well, I get the old caliper method every year for work as part of our fit check in my dept.

I have found that to be highly inaccurate. I used to get it done every 6 months or so. I finally watched them do the calculations and it was all based on how old I was so the exact same calculation would have me at a lower body fat percentage if I was just slightly younger. That was an eye opener and really discouraging. It shouldn't matter how old I am.

The reason for age being in there is because as we age, we store more subcutaneous fat around our organs and such that can't be measured with calipers.

I'm an engineer and quite honestly, I don't know why a more accurate equation hasn't been developed. It seems that some combination of caliper, tape measure, age, weight, height, sex, etc... could be used to come up with one. Some college out there could do a study where they did the water submersion and took all kinds of measurements and then compile all that data together.

Because then you'd have to get the government on board and the BMI system is such a part of the governmental regulations, along with insurance companies, it would be a massive change to how things are calculated. At this point, it is too integrated into everything. It could be done but there is no incentive at this point and new studies with new data isn't going to be enough to change the status quo.

I don't really agree with that stance. The government (military specifically) has funded lots of non-bmi health research and developed various ways to measure body fat, but they all still fall short of DEXA, bodpod, and hydrostatic weighing. The real problem is that the only 100% accurate method is to kill the person and take their body apart and weigh everything, so developing an equation based on an innacurate measurement to start with is going to cause problems. Maybe the government and universities realizes that the equations we have for tape and skin folds is good enough, and that if you really need more accurate information (which almost no one on this website does), then you go get an expensive scan.

Honestly, the white male 20-60 population is well served by decent equations. The minorities and females could use some equations designed for them, but even then using what is available is still good enough for most uses.