Body fat percentage of 37%, but my weight is 138 at 5'5". Seriously???
myszka0611
Posts: 17 Member
Hey y'all wonderful board members! Started on MFP 31 pounds ago. A friend got me a Withings scale, which tells me my body fat percentage is now 37%. It steadily dropped as my weight dropped from 39% or so. I never gave it much thought. I weigh 138, am a 56-year old 5'5" female, want to get to 128. I wear a size 4/6 bottom, a size 8/10 top (DD boobs). I have bangin' legs (if I say so myself), no fat AT ALL on calves or thighs, slender hips and have little to no badonkadonk. I do have a gushier than I'd like tummy, but waist indents in, not out. Measurements 36-29-35.
I walk 5-7 miles a day, so I have *some* muscle tone. Not a lot, but some.
Out of curiosity I googled "37% body fat" and was told by multiple sites that that's obese! I'm a little put out by that. Apparently I should be at 25% for my age, so... what... should I diet down to 78 pounds? (Kidding...sort of). Since I have no fat on legs or hips, I'm guessing that means my midsection must be made out of butter... While jiggly, my midsection does not look like a Santa Claus' though, so I am flummoxed as to why I have such a high body fat percentage...? I don't see anywhere how to calibrate a fat sensor on Withings. Is my scale mocking me, or am I really fatter than my actual weight tells me I am? What say you?
I walk 5-7 miles a day, so I have *some* muscle tone. Not a lot, but some.
Out of curiosity I googled "37% body fat" and was told by multiple sites that that's obese! I'm a little put out by that. Apparently I should be at 25% for my age, so... what... should I diet down to 78 pounds? (Kidding...sort of). Since I have no fat on legs or hips, I'm guessing that means my midsection must be made out of butter... While jiggly, my midsection does not look like a Santa Claus' though, so I am flummoxed as to why I have such a high body fat percentage...? I don't see anywhere how to calibrate a fat sensor on Withings. Is my scale mocking me, or am I really fatter than my actual weight tells me I am? What say you?
0
Replies
-
Those scales are notoriously inaccurate. If you like what's in the mirror then the numbers don't matter. Due to gender and age, if you haven't been involved in fitness your whole life it's possibly you have lower lean mass and would benefit from a form of resistance training.0
-
The scale is not likely to be accurate. I wouldn't worry about it.0
-
Not likely. Your lean body mass would then be 87lbs and even at 25% body fat that would leave you at 116lbs, which would be like a size 0 at your height and underweight.
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
0 -
Maybe get a dexa scan.
Maybe lift some weights/resistance training
But like others said those scales should be taken with a grain of salt. Especially body fat percentages.0 -
The scale is probably wrong, though ladies can hide a lot of fat...I get 20% by caliper and 21% by calculation based on measurements/height/weight and 20% on the handheld machine, and the fiancé measures at lower body fat % but looks much more padded than I do, and weighs about 55lb more than me (same height). Like, we could have the same # of pounds of fat and he would look fatter!
In any case, the answer would be to build some muscle to change that ratio, and maybe some of the fat would burn off in that process, but do not seek to lose all your fat. You need some of that fat, maybe more than you think.0 -
I could have written this post. I have dropped 42lbs and my last BF (Feb 2016) reading was 32%, just 4% lower than 2 years ago and up 2% from the previous measurement. I'm 5'8" and 135lbs. It took me a while to process that 2% jump and it really messed with my head.0
-
The scale is probably inaccurate but it's usually not way off. I would incorporate good quality foods, body fat is where the calories in calories out thing is debunked.0
-
gataman3000 wrote: »I would incorporate good quality foods, body fat is where the calories in calories out thing is debunked.
0 -
gataman3000 wrote: »I would incorporate good quality foods, body fat is where the calories in calories out thing is debunked.
Hey its true, stay under your calories and eat twinkies all day and see if your waist size goes down.0 -
The scale is probably a little off with the %, but probably not significantly. My measurements are pretty similar to yours (36,29,38 a size 8), BUT I'm 5'4" and 170lbs. I've spent a lot of time working on building muscle and losing fat and my body fat is roughly 28%. The small difference between your waist and hip measurements does suggest visceral abdominal fat that isn't going to be as visually obvious as subcutaneous fat. I would focus on strength training and building muscle rather losing "weight".0
-
The scale is probably a little off with the %, but probably not significantly. My measurements are pretty similar to yours (36,29,38 a size 8), BUT I'm 5'4" and 170lbs. I've spent a lot of time working on building muscle and losing fat and my body fat is roughly 28%. The small difference between your waist and hip measurements does suggest visceral abdominal fat that isn't going to be as visually obvious as subcutaneous fat. I would focus on strength training and building muscle rather losing "weight".
Have you had a DEXA scan?0 -
gataman3000 wrote: »gataman3000 wrote: »I would incorporate good quality foods, body fat is where the calories in calories out thing is debunked.
Hey its true, stay under your calories and eat twinkies all day and see if your waist size goes down.
Yes, because that's exactly what everyone else in this thread posted.0 -
gataman3000 wrote: »gataman3000 wrote: »I would incorporate good quality foods, body fat is where the calories in calories out thing is debunked.
Hey its true, stay under your calories and eat twinkies all day and see if your waist size goes down.
Do we have to link to the twinkie diet again?
OP, those scales lie. Don't even worry about it.0 -
-
I doubt it's even possible to be 37% body fat at your height and weight. You probably aren't at 25%, but I'd imagine you are < 30.0
-
gataman3000 wrote: »I would incorporate good quality foods, body fat is where the calories in calories out thing is debunked.
Not debunked. Less important, but not debunked, and certainly not UNimportant.
0 -
My scale goes up and down on fat readings by 10%. Part of it is how hydrated or sweaty I am at the moment. I believe it to be very inaccurate and prefer tape measure and the mirror.0
-
Home scales have some accuracy issues, but you also have to follow the right procedures consistently when you use them. Here is a brief list:
https://withings.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/208969538-My-fat-mass-data-seems-inaccurate-What-should-I-do-
Try this and see if things even out. While a 37% body fat at your height and weight is not completely out of the question, it is unusual enough to suggest that you are getting less accurate readings.0 -
You don't have to look fat to be fat. It's called skinny-fat. Set macros 12c/18p/70f. All good.
0 -
The scale is probably a little off with the %, but probably not significantly. My measurements are pretty similar to yours (36,29,38 a size 8), BUT I'm 5'4" and 170lbs. I've spent a lot of time working on building muscle and losing fat and my body fat is roughly 28%. The small difference between your waist and hip measurements does suggest visceral abdominal fat that isn't going to be as visually obvious as subcutaneous fat. I would focus on strength training and building muscle rather losing "weight".
Wow you must have a ton of muscle! I'm about the same measurements as you 31-29-37 (size 8) and I'm 129 lbs. my Aria scale tells me I'm between 31-32% fat in the morning but my measurements when put into a body fat calculator estimates me at about 29%. I really need to get some more muscle!!!!0 -
Home scales have some accuracy issues, but you also have to follow the right procedures consistently when you use them. Here is a brief list:
https://withings.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/208969538-My-fat-mass-data-seems-inaccurate-What-should-I-do-
Try this and see if things even out. While a 37% body fat at your height and weight is not completely out of the question, it is unusual enough to suggest that you are getting less accurate readings.
Thank you! (Actually, I appreciate everyone's input). I just re-adjusted my profile from "Athlete" to "Butter Belly", so I'll see what it says tomorrow when I weigh myself again. Interestingly enough, the scale had been giving me a heart rate of anywhere from 90-100 BPM (and that was just dragging myself from bed to scale in the morning), and I just tried the Withing phone app heartbeat monitor (which is where I changed my profile, per your suggestion above), and it gave me 55 BPM just now. So I'm thinking the scale hates me for some reason and just wanted to mess with my head. Scales these days! Can't trust 'em...0 -
My home scale also tells me 36% and I'm pretty sure I'm closer to 26%.0
-
gataman3000 wrote: »The scale is probably inaccurate but it's usually not way off. I would incorporate good quality foods, body fat is where the calories in calories out thing is debunked.
Utterly, completely, criminally, uselessly off.... how's that for an evaluation?
Sure: the fat % decreases as your weight decreases and (presumably increases when it increases).... woohoo, so we can gleam something about changes over time, right? B.S.
I compared a name brand bio-impedence scale to periodic DXA scans (was fortunate enough to do 5 in a period of a year):
No correspondence to absolute value or % value of fat mass OR lean mass lost for either whole body, legs, or legs + abdomen
Actual usefulness? None!
BMI was a more accurate predictor of my body fat during this time period both as in terms of absolute and relative percent.
If anyone wants data to run an extensive analysis and share results back with me explaining where the scale provided me with useful information (other than confirming that I lost some random amount of fat while losing weight)... they are welcome to PM me.
In the meanwhile you are just as likely to get relevant results by visual inspection and comparison to body fat images, or by using one of the formulas that predict body fat % from BMI.
The information below comes from: http://halls.md/race-body-fat-percentage/
Deurenberg formula #1: Adult Body Fat % = (1.20 x BMI) + (0.23 x Age) – (10.8 x gender) – 5.4
Deurenberg formula #2: Adult Body Fat % = (1.29 x BMI) + (0.20 x Age) – (11.4 x gender) – 8.0
Gallagher formula: Adult Body Fat % = (1.46 x BMI) + (0.14 x Age) – (11.6 x gender) – 10
Jackson-Pollock formula: Adult Body Fat % = (1.61 x BMI) + (0.13 x Age) – (12.1 x gender) – 13.9
Heritage study: Adult Body Fat % = (1.39 x BMI) + (0.16 x Age) – (10.34 x gender) –9
gender = 1 male, 0 female.
For me the Heritage study formula had the least error.
A google sheet using the above formulas:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XVK9afzMHNtV6BQ7mHaFJw5oHt-fypNkfz-P-EaNENI/edit?usp=sharing0 -
The scale may not be accurate to the T, but its not 10 to 15 percent off by any means.0
-
My scale said 38%, an hour later I had a DEXA which showed I have 25% body fat. I took part in a study so had a whole body MRI, DEXA, inbody body composition and we used my scales....which apparently measure body fat, and while the scale value for measuring body weight, was very accurate, the body fat values were nowhere near accurate.
They are good for general trends, increasing and decreasing but are generally very inaccurate for women.0 -
I get similar results from the bioimpedence machine and visual chart and caliper & this chart based on measurements but think the BMI formulas overstate my bodyfat somewhat. Which is odd, because I would think a straight BMI calc would understate the fat % if anything as I do not have heavy bones. Though I have not had a scan of the body, so maybe there is more fat hiding in there somewhere.
0 -
gataman3000 wrote: »gataman3000 wrote: »I would incorporate good quality foods, body fat is where the calories in calories out thing is debunked.
Hey its true, stay under your calories and eat twinkies all day and see if your waist size goes down.
High five. That is correct. For weight loss purposes only, yes, it is true.
You literally used the food (twinkies) that a nutrition professor used in his experiment to prove a calorie is a calorie (is a unit of energy) for weight loss purposes.
0 -
The formulas listed above give me an average of 32.85%. The hand-held bioimpedence thingy gave me 33.2% and my home scale gave me 32.7%, so I think I can assume that my body fat is around there. If I consistently use these methods, and my body fat consistently goes down, then the actual number doesn't matter too much to me.0
-
gataman3000 wrote: »The scale is probably inaccurate but it's usually not way off. I would incorporate good quality foods, body fat is where the calories in calories out thing is debunked.
Utterly, completely, criminally, uselessly off.... how's that for an evaluation?
Sure: the fat % decreases as your weight decreases and (presumably increases when it increases).... woohoo, so we can gleam something about changes over time, right? B.S.
I compared a name brand bio-impedence scale to periodic DXA scans (was fortunate enough to do 5 in a period of a year):
No correspondence to absolute value or % value of fat mass OR lean mass lost for either whole body, legs, or legs + abdomen
Actual usefulness? None!
BMI was a more accurate predictor of my body fat during this time period both as in terms of absolute and relative percent.
If anyone wants data to run an extensive analysis and share results back with me explaining where the scale provided me with useful information (other than confirming that I lost some random amount of fat while losing weight)... they are welcome to PM me.
In the meanwhile you are just as likely to get relevant results by visual inspection and comparison to body fat images, or by using one of the formulas that predict body fat % from BMI.
The information below comes from: http://halls.md/race-body-fat-percentage/
Deurenberg formula #1: Adult Body Fat % = (1.20 x BMI) + (0.23 x Age) – (10.8 x gender) – 5.4
Deurenberg formula #2: Adult Body Fat % = (1.29 x BMI) + (0.20 x Age) – (11.4 x gender) – 8.0
Gallagher formula: Adult Body Fat % = (1.46 x BMI) + (0.14 x Age) – (11.6 x gender) – 10
Jackson-Pollock formula: Adult Body Fat % = (1.61 x BMI) + (0.13 x Age) – (12.1 x gender) – 13.9
Heritage study: Adult Body Fat % = (1.39 x BMI) + (0.16 x Age) – (10.34 x gender) –9
gender = 1 male, 0 female.
For me the Heritage study formula had the least error.
A google sheet using the above formulas:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XVK9afzMHNtV6BQ7mHaFJw5oHt-fypNkfz-P-EaNENI/edit?usp=sharing
I am feeling completely stupid right now, so feel free to point it out, but if gender for women is 0 that last part of the equation for women would be 0 in every single equation right? And then I figure mine and at 21.5 BMI I ended up with 44% BF. So maybe it is too early in the morning for me to be jacking around with math?0 -
The information below comes from: http://halls.md/race-body-fat-percentage/
Deurenberg formula #1: Adult Body Fat % = (1.20 x BMI) + (0.23 x Age) – (10.8 x gender) – 5.4
Deurenberg formula #2: Adult Body Fat % = (1.29 x BMI) + (0.20 x Age) – (11.4 x gender) – 8.0
Gallagher formula: Adult Body Fat % = (1.46 x BMI) + (0.14 x Age) – (11.6 x gender) – 10
Jackson-Pollock formula: Adult Body Fat % = (1.61 x BMI) + (0.13 x Age) – (12.1 x gender) – 13.9
Heritage study: Adult Body Fat % = (1.39 x BMI) + (0.16 x Age) – (10.34 x gender) –9
gender = 1 male, 0 female.
For me the Heritage study formula had the least error.
How does one justify using age or gender to calculate body fat exactly? Every single one of these equations uses only weight, age and gender to determine body fat percentage. You might as well say BMI = BF%. Every single one of these is useless.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions