Trying to get an accurate body fat measurement

Options
jswigart
jswigart Posts: 167 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I have been trying to measure my body fat percentage with a set of digital calipers I recently obtained.
I am using the 3 point method. Measuring the chest, abdomen, and thigh.
My best guess with the calculations is that I am about 7.1% body fat. However I cannot get a consistent measurement. It seems that I can be inconsistent as much as 1mm each time I take a measurement.
Is there a better way, (without extremely expensive equipment) to do this?
Is there a method of using the calibers that will create more consistancy?
Thanks j

Replies

  • singletrackmtbr
    singletrackmtbr Posts: 644 Member
    Options
    Practice makes perfect. There's definitely a learning curve. A couple of things:
    I prefer the 7 point calculator to the 3 point for a better representation.
    To use the 7 point you will need another person to measure you, ideally the same person each time.
    Until you get really good you can take 3 measurements of a site and use the average in your calculations.
    Take photos to go along with measurements. It will help you to get an idea of what each number really looks like and provide a bit of quality control in the long run.

    Good luck!
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    If you are in the 7% BF range, there is not that much variability. Are you expecting to be able to differentiate between 6.5% and 7.2%? That's not going to happen.

    Even for hydrostatic weighing, the actual protocol calls for performing 10 measurements and taking something like the closest 4 and averaging them.

    At your level of BF, calipers are usually the measuring method of choice. You would get a tad more consistency if another person took the measurements, esp someone with a lot of experience. But, unlike females, males can do a decent job of pinching themselves.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,594 Member
    Options
    As mentioned by Azdak, the difference in percentage is going to be 1%-2% at most. I know that 1% may sound like a lot, but if you're under double digits, it only really matters if you're competing in bodybuilding contests.

    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
    9285851.png
  • WalkingDeadFrank
    WalkingDeadFrank Posts: 124 Member
    Options
    singletrackmtbr wrote: »
    Practice makes perfect. There's definitely a learning curve. A couple of things:
    I prefer the 7 point calculator to the 3 point for a better representation.
    To use the 7 point you will need another person to measure you, ideally the same person each time.
    Until you get really good you can take 3 measurements of a site and use the average in your calculations.
    Take photos to go along with measurements. It will help you to get an idea of what each number really looks like and provide a bit of quality control in the long run.

    Good luck!

    Agreed...the 7 point calculation is more accurate.

    Frank
  • WalkingDeadFrank
    WalkingDeadFrank Posts: 124 Member
    Options
    jswigart wrote: »
    I have been trying to measure my body fat percentage with a set of digital calipers I recently obtained.
    I am using the 3 point method. Measuring the chest, abdomen, and thigh.
    My best guess with the calculations is that I am about 7.1% body fat. However I cannot get a consistent measurement. It seems that I can be inconsistent as much as 1mm each time I take a measurement.
    Is there a better way, (without extremely expensive equipment) to do this?
    Is there a method of using the calibers that will create more consistancy?
    Thanks j

    First thing in the morning do the 7 point calculator and it's never going to be 100% perfect.

    That being said superman, you're at 7% BF plus or minus about 1-1.5%, I wouldn't worry to much about that unless you're going into a bodybuilding contest.

    Frank
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    WalkingDeadFrank wrote: »
    singletrackmtbr wrote: »
    Practice makes perfect. There's definitely a learning curve. A couple of things:
    I prefer the 7 point calculator to the 3 point for a better representation.
    To use the 7 point you will need another person to measure you, ideally the same person each time.
    Until you get really good you can take 3 measurements of a site and use the average in your calculations.
    Take photos to go along with measurements. It will help you to get an idea of what each number really looks like and provide a bit of quality control in the long run.

    Good luck!

    Agreed...the 7 point calculation is more accurate.

    Frank

    I don't have the reference at hand, so feel free to dismiss this, but for those at lower (under 20% males) body fat levels, the 3-site method, performed by an experienced practioner is as accurate as 7-site, and almost as accurate as hydrostatic weighing.
  • WalkingDeadFrank
    WalkingDeadFrank Posts: 124 Member
    Options
    Either way, this guy is really fit (low BF) and even if his results are off .5-1%, it won't make much of a difference, look wise.

    Frank
  • jswigart
    jswigart Posts: 167 Member
    Options
    Thanks guys for taking time to comment. I appreciate your input.
    Yes for the first time in my life (I'm 61 years young) I do feel good and fit. When I started with MFP I was 245 lbs and 5'6".
    Now I have lost 100 lbs and work out daily.
    What I am trying to do now is gain muscle. I'm trying to discern between muscle weight gain and fat weight gain.
    Thanks and Merry Christmas. Jay

Categories