Muscle Mass/Body Fat
getskinny1973
Posts: 73 Member
I am a 44 year old woman.
My muscle mass is 61.3%
Bone Mass is 3.3%
But my body fat is at 35%!!!
How is this even possible?
I've looked at charts and the Bone Mass is at the percent of an "athlete"
The muscle mass is way above average.
How do I have such a high percentage of body fat?
What am I doing wrong?
How do I get them to balance and have "normal" %'s across the board?
I would appreciate any advise.
I go to the gym regularly, and I'm sure all 35% of my fat is in my belly area. and I'm a far cry from an Athlete.
My muscle mass is 61.3%
Bone Mass is 3.3%
But my body fat is at 35%!!!
How is this even possible?
I've looked at charts and the Bone Mass is at the percent of an "athlete"
The muscle mass is way above average.
How do I have such a high percentage of body fat?
What am I doing wrong?
How do I get them to balance and have "normal" %'s across the board?
I would appreciate any advise.
I go to the gym regularly, and I'm sure all 35% of my fat is in my belly area. and I'm a far cry from an Athlete.
0
Replies
-
What method was used to determine these %'s ?1
-
I have an expensive scale that measures it for me5
-
How was that measured? It's likely that the method used is inaccurate and the charts are not really helpful.
If you are at a healthy weight for your height do some form of lifting or resistance training and eat at maintenance.
If you are overweight do some form of lifting or resistance training and eat at a deficit.2 -
I'm betting your numbers are wrong. Based on your picture and the fact that a scale was the source of the numbers, I'm pretty sure they are wrong.2
-
getskinny1973 wrote: »I have an expensive scale that measures it for me
That method is called Bioelectrical Impedance and is really inaccurate.6 -
Uhm...Where's water percentage factored in?2
-
Sorry babe. No way you have 61% muscle. Most people are 60% *water,* +/- a bit.5
-
Well that makes me sad, I was counting on the scale to help me keep track of these things.
What is a better way to get accurate numbers?1 -
I really want to make sure my body fat % is in a healthy range.
And if not for the scale to tell me where I'm at, what can?0 -
It said my water is at 45%
I'm pretty new to all of this, so I only have the internet to go off of to find the "norms" and I don't even know what half of it means
0 -
getskinny1973 wrote: »I have an expensive scale that measures it for me
No, it really doesn't measure bone, fat and muscle!
You have an expensive scale that sends a tiny electrical current through your body (sometimes just part of your body...), measures your electrical resistance and then tries with incredibly varied accuracy to interpret that resistance in terms of body composition.
In your case I wouldn't give it much credence.8 -
getskinny1973 wrote: »I really want to make sure my body fat % is in a healthy range.
And if not for the scale to tell me where I'm at, what can?
Visual, skin fold measurements, tape measure. All of those combined with body weight trends.3 -
getskinny1973 wrote: »Well that makes me sad, I was counting on the scale to help me keep track of these things.
What is a better way to get accurate numbers?
calipers, dexa scans, bodpod, etc.
FWIW, while the numbers may not be accurate, then change in those numbers over time is probably a reasonable gauge of progress. While you may not be at 35% BF now, if you check it in 6 months and are at 30%, the 5% drop is probably reasonable. Like scale weight, I'd watch trends in changes rather than actual numbers.9 -
If you want a truly accurate measurement you can get a dexascan. It is often referred to as a gold standard for body fat testing, body composition, DEXA scans, muscle, heart rate fitness, and metabolic tests.2
-
getskinny1973 wrote: »I am a 44 year old woman.
My muscle mass is 61.3%
Bone Mass is 3.3%
But my body fat is at 35%!!!
How is this even possible?
I've looked at charts and the Bone Mass is at the percent of an "athlete"
The muscle mass is way above average.
How do I have such a high percentage of body fat?
What am I doing wrong?
How do I get them to balance and have "normal" %'s across the board?
I would appreciate any advise.
I go to the gym regularly, and I'm sure all 35% of my fat is in my belly area. and I'm a far cry from an Athlete.
Just to clarify lean mass actually just refers to the amount of mass you have that isn't fat. So if someone weighs 100 pounds and has 20% bodyfat then they have 20 pounds of fat and 80 pounds of everything else not 80 pounds of muscle. People often refer to muscle as being lean mass but muscle is only a component of lean mass and not even the dominant one. For the average person most of lean mass is going to be water weight, some of it is organ weight and only a fraction of it is muscle.
If 60+ percent of your body weight is not fat that does not mean that 60+ percent of your body is muscle...it just means that 60+ percent isn't fat.
Scales (yes even expensive ones) "measure" your percent bodyfat by sending an electrical impulse into one of your feet and then measure the amount of time it takes for that impulse to travel from that foot to your other foot. Fat content compared to water content changes your bodies impedence, its resistance to the travel of electricity, so the scale uses that time traveled to give you a very rough estimate of your percent bodyfat. This method of measure can be influenced by a lot of things like how dehydrated you are that day that have absolutely nothing to do with the fat content of your body and yet can definately have an effect on what the scale claims your fat content is. Your scale does not know how much your bones weigh, that is silly.
You want to know if you are losing fat? Measure your total weight overtime and if you want use a tape measurer around your waist and see if those numbers go down over time. The rest is bells, whistles, glitz and distraction.
8 -
"Lean mass" is going to include everything that isn't fat or bone, so that includes organs, muscle, tendons, etc.
What everyone has told you is correct -- body fat scales aren't precise. I wouldn't stress too much about accurate measurements, because the body fat scale probably gave you a good ballpark estimate of where you are. Whether you're actually at 35% body fat vs. 33% or 37% is pretty irrelevant.
If what you want to do over time is to reduce your percentage of body fat, the best thing to do is to eat at a deficit (to lose fat) and do some resistance training (to keep the muscle you have and perhaps start to add a little bit if you're new to resistance training. This will also help keep/increase your bone density). If you do these things and you see your total weight go down, that's as good an indicator as you're going to get that you're losing body fat.
Note that there are more accurate methods of measuring body fat, but they're expensive and, again, not really all that necessary.6 -
Get a Dexa scan. I did yesterday and have 150.6 lean mass 6.6 pounds of bone and I am 3.0 for bone density. I also found out my home scanner was WAY off. I found Dexa on Groupon a usual $150 scan for $76 (San Fran pricing).2
-
I have an Omron Body Comp Scale where you stand on it and also hold the built in handle. I think I paid around $139 for it a few years ago - they are way cheaper now. When I read about them I got the idea that they were fairly accurate - more so than cheap Walmart crap. I don't know for sure about it's accuracy (and I'm not really concerned) but I like tracking the trends over time. I think I get a good idea when Fat%/Muscle% is going up and down.3
-
I have an Omron Body Comp Scale where you stand on it and also hold the built in handle. I think I paid around $139 for it a few years ago - they are way cheaper now. When I read about them I got the idea that they were fairly accurate - more so than cheap Walmart crap. I don't know for sure about it's accuracy (and I'm not really concerned) but I like tracking the trends over time. I think I get a good idea when Fat%/Muscle% is going up and down.
@wanzik
I used one a few years ago and it gave pretty reasonable estimates if you followed the trend, gave some odd spikes (hydration related probably). It matched BodPod scans very closely.
On the other hand I've also used some which gave ludicrous numbers.
My gym gives free use of a Bodytrax unit (it has hand and foot sensors like the Omron) and that seems pretty reasonable/believable too.
The biggest problem with BIA scales is the difficulty in knowing which ones are reasonable and which ones are a complete waste of time.
3 -
getskinny1973 wrote: »I really want to make sure my body fat % is in a healthy range.
And if not for the scale to tell me where I'm at, what can?
A mirror is an absolutely fantastic tool for that.
Your expensive scale, while inaccurate, can still give you decent enough picture about how things are progressing, as long as you keep track of averages and don't worry about usual fluctuations.
5 -
getskinny1973 wrote: »I really want to make sure my body fat % is in a healthy range.
And if not for the scale to tell me where I'm at, what can?
A mirror is an absolutely fantastic tool for that.
Your expensive scale, while inaccurate, can still give you decent enough picture about how things are progressing, as long as you keep track of averages and don't worry about usual fluctuations.
A camera is probably a better tool, the mirror lies.
Have someone you trust take 2 pictures. One from the front and one from the side, Wearing as little as you're comfortable in. Hands at sides, shoulders back and down, belly neither sucked in nor pressed out.
Doesn't need to be an underwear shot, even shorts and a snug t-shirt will give an honest assessment. and may be more honest, because you won't be obsessing over skin definition.3 -
How much do you currently weigh?
Several years ago when I was at my highest weight (5'7", 182 lbs) my trainer measured me with calipers and my average came out around 35%. I also was considered athletic and no stranger to the gym, but I was overweight. Happy to say that the weight I've lost that number has come down considerably.0 -
If you want a truly accurate measurement you can get a dexascan. It is often referred to as a gold standard for body fat testing, body composition, DEXA scans, muscle, heart rate fitness, and metabolic tests.
what does a muscle and heart rate fitness test or metabolic test got to do with fat loss? fat loss doesnt always mean better heart rate fitness or anything else. many overweight people can have good heart rates and be fit(not look fit but actually be in good cardiovascular health). it has nothing to do with your fat percentage.3 -
-
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »If you want a truly accurate measurement you can get a dexascan. It is often referred to as a gold standard for body fat testing, body composition, DEXA scans, muscle, heart rate fitness, and metabolic tests.
what does a muscle and heart rate fitness test or metabolic test got to do with fat loss? fat loss doesnt always mean better heart rate fitness or anything else. many overweight people can have good heart rates and be fit(not look fit but actually be in good cardiovascular health). it has nothing to do with your fat percentage.
What does "fat loss" have to do with this conversation? It's about getting an accurate body comp.0 -
BootyfulBikerZX10r wrote: »Get a Dexa scan. I did yesterday and have 150.6 lean mass 6.6 pounds of bone and I am 3.0 for bone density. I also found out my home scanner was WAY off. I found Dexa on Groupon a usual $150 scan for $76 (San Fran pricing).
If you're in SF, you can get a DXA scan for just $45 ($40 if you buy a pkg) at BodySpec, a mobile service that is available in the City, Peninsula and East Bay.
I use them regularly for my DXA scans and also use a mobile hydro testing service offered by a company called Body Fat that charges $49 for a 1st test and only $39 for retests.
I prefer hydro because it always gives me 2-3% lower results than DXA but DXA is more convenient (you don't have to dunk yourself in water) and provides more data, like VAT size/wt, bone density/wt and BF/LBM distribution by body regions/parts.2 -
Quick question. What is fat? Is glycogen part of the fat number, or the non-fat number?
And I agree with those who are saying that as long as you don't rely on the number, the scales are still useful to show trends.
This is mine for the last year. And while I may be more than 25.5% now, it does show a good downward trend over the last year.
1 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Quick question. What is fat? Is glycogen part of the fat number, or the non-fat number?
And I agree with those who are saying that as long as you don't rely on the number, the scales are still useful to show trends.
This is mine for the last year. And while I may be more than 25.5% now, it does show a good downward trend over the last year.
Fats are hydrocarbons, carbon chains with just hydrogen atoms on them. They are stored in our body as tri-glycerides, a glycerol molecule (which is polar) connected by a carboxylic acid linkage to three fatty acid chains (which are hydrophobic). Triglycerides are packed tightly together in adipose tissue and can be mobilized to be metabolized for energy or other metabolic functions.
Glycogen is the way glucose is stored in the body, it is literally just a long branched chain of glucose molecules. Connected to the protein glycogenin for storage.
So glycogen is carbohydrate storage, tricglycerides are fat storage. Both can be tapped for energy but typically glycogen is used to fuel muscles for bursts of activity and to keep your blood glucose levels stable (glucose leaves blood and adds to glycogen when blood sugar is high and leaves glycogen and adds to blood when blood sugar is low). Fats tend to be mobilized for general energy needs to make up for a deficit.
Glycogen has lots of space in between chains and is polar so it is surrounded in a shell of water which ends up weighing more than the glucose itself. Fat in the form of triglycerides packs tightly and is largely hydrophobic excluding water. I mention this only to point out that when you liberate glucose from glycogen you tend to lose a lot of retained water and therefore weight, but if you add to glycogen you gain a lot of water weight. This is one of the reasons people get tricked into thinking carbs make you "fat".
Might be oversimplified but can view glycogen as short-term storage and triglycerides as long-term storage.
6 -
So, when someone has 30% fat and 70% LBM, where would the glycogen get counted? From what you described, it seems to me it would be part of the LBM, is that correct?1
-
Tacklewasher wrote: »So, when someone has 30% fat and 70% LBM, where would the glycogen get counted? From what you described, it seems to me it would be part of the LBM, is that correct?
Yeah it would be LBM. I mean people act like LBM means muscle...it doesn't, it just means body mass that isn't fat.
Maybe there should be a BJM, beef-jerky mass....where you take your body, workout intensely while fasting to deplete your glycogen and then hop in a freeze-dryer to remove all of the water from your body. BJM would just be muscle, organs and bone then.2
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