Body fat percentage of 37%, but my weight is 138 at 5'5". Seriously???
Options
Replies
-
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 -
I know none of these equations is going to be 100% accurate but I tried out that Heritage one - and for S's and G's I plugged in putting myself as an underweight bmi and I still got that my body fat would be almost 25%.
I'm just going to stick with what I see in the mirror lol0 -
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.
Hate to shatter your beliefs, but that experiment has already been done. He lost 27 pounds in 2 months:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/0 -
I know none of these equations is going to be 100% accurate but I tried out that Heritage one - and for S's and G's I plugged in putting myself as an underweight bmi and I still got that my body fat would be almost 25%.
I'm just going to stick with what I see in the mirror lol
Yes I got the same result, put in the lowest healthy BMI and it calculated 26% bodyfat, I don't think that is impossible or even unlikely (less muscle mass and lighter bones means that fat % is higher), but do think that you'd need height and measurements AND weight to get a good formula, because a lady who has a given volume but is heavier would be lower in fat % than a woman with the same volume and lighter - heavy woman would have heavier bones and muscle.
In practice, I'm almost certain that my bodyfat % has not budged as I have built muscle, and would not budge if I lost weight. I went from thin and reasonably fit to stronger and a little bigger but as far as looks and caliper and calculation, the fat percentage seems the same. Could undoubtedly get fatter, but don't seem to be able to get leaner. 123lb, skinny, 20% bodyfat. 136lb, more muscle, still 20% bodyfat.0 -
My scale is way off. It says I'm around 28% body fat. I'm 5'1, 106lbs and measurements are 34-24-33. I almost have a 6 pack (very visible abs with a tiny bit of fat right under my belly button). My collar bones are visible as are my ribs, and my hip bones stick out a little. I'd put myself at around 18 to 20% body fat.
When I started trying to lose and was 129lbs...my scale said I was 39% body fat. So I probably did drop my body fat percentage quite a bit....but more like 30% to 19%. Not 39% to 28%.0 -
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.
Just wanted to point out that this waist-to-hip estimate thingy does not work on all body types, leaner does not generally=curvier. When I was out of shape I had 30" waist and 41" hips, that's a nice .73. Skinny, I had 28" waist and 35" hips, ratio and much less fat, but the ratio between hips and waist was worse, .80. Now, I've been training heavier and have 29" and 37", that's still close to that .80 ratio. There is no doubt in my mind that my fat % was higher and health worse when I had the better waist-to-hip measurement.0 -
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.
Just wanted to point out that this waist-to-hip estimate thingy does not work on all body types, leaner does not generally=curvier. When I was out of shape I had 30" waist and 41" hips, that's a nice .73. Skinny, I had 28" waist and 35" hips, ratio and much less fat, but the ratio between hips and waist was worse, .80. Now, I've been training heavier and have 29" and 37", that's still close to that .80 ratio. There is no doubt in my mind that my fat % was higher and health worse when I had the better waist-to-hip measurement.
Yeah the waist thing drives me nuts... I have a large ribcage/waist and I don't think I could go under 29 inches for my waist unless I was 110 pounds or something (and I might have to cut bone too)... and I'm 5'5". Hard enough to find clothes that stay on, are not too baggy, and don't give me a muffin top, without being told that I'm too fat too...0 -
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.
Just wanted to point out that this waist-to-hip estimate thingy does not work on all body types, leaner does not generally=curvier. When I was out of shape I had 30" waist and 41" hips, that's a nice .73. Skinny, I had 28" waist and 35" hips, ratio and much less fat, but the ratio between hips and waist was worse, .80. Now, I've been training heavier and have 29" and 37", that's still close to that .80 ratio. There is no doubt in my mind that my fat % was higher and health worse when I had the better waist-to-hip measurement.
Yeah the waist thing drives me nuts... I have a large ribcage/waist and I don't think I could go under 29 inches for my waist unless I was 110 pounds or something (and I might have to cut bone too)... and I'm 5'5". Hard enough to find clothes that stay on, are not too baggy, and don't give me a muffin top, without being told that I'm too fat too...
Me too. I have narrow hips, which throws off the ratio -- probably built kind of like OP, as I'm usually a 4 on the bottom (sometimes a 2) and more of a 6-8 on top. I've had a DEXA and was 25% at the time and no issue with fat around the organs even though I do tend to lose weight last in the middle (sigh). I'm also high-waisted, so measuring around the middle gets my hip bones.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.
Hate to shatter your beliefs, but that experiment has already been done. He lost 27 pounds in 2 months:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
Lol you find the one study in the corner of the world that fits your argument, so do you really think that if 500 people ate Twinkie diets, the majority of those people will lose a substantial amount of body fat sir?0 -
gataman3000 wrote: »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.
Hate to shatter your beliefs, but that experiment has already been done. He lost 27 pounds in 2 months:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
Lol you find the one study in the corner of the world that fits your argument, so do you really think that if 500 people ate Twinkie diets, the majority of those people will lose a substantial amount of body fat sir?
If they are in a calorie deficit, everyone one of the 500 will lose fat. The biggest problem will be reasonably establish the amount in they could have and still be in a deficit.0 -
gataman3000 wrote: »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.
Hate to shatter your beliefs, but that experiment has already been done. He lost 27 pounds in 2 months:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
Lol you find the one study in the corner of the world that fits your argument, so do you really think that if 500 people ate Twinkie diets, the majority of those people will lose a substantial amount of body fat sir?
If they are in a calorie deficit, everyone one of the 500 will lose fat. The biggest problem will be reasonably establish the amount in they could have and still be in a deficit.
Are you saying that if two people want to lose 30 pounds, one person eats a 2k calorie diet of twinkles, and the others eats a 2k diet of boneless skinless chicken, brown rice and broccoli they will lose the same amount of weight and body fat at the end?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions