Had a body scan today - thoughts on results?
Options
LJay89
Posts: 91 Member
Hey,
So today I had a body scan done as i am about to start a weightlifting program with a PT.
I am female, 5'1.. results:
Weight: 78.7kg
BF %: 24.2%
Fat Mass: 19.1kg
Lean Mass: 59.6kg
Waist to hip ratio: 0.82
My goals are to increase my lean mass & reduce my fat BF% & to get stronger on the SL 5X5 lifts.
Any comments, thoughts, tips would be welcome.
So today I had a body scan done as i am about to start a weightlifting program with a PT.
I am female, 5'1.. results:
Weight: 78.7kg
BF %: 24.2%
Fat Mass: 19.1kg
Lean Mass: 59.6kg
Waist to hip ratio: 0.82
My goals are to increase my lean mass & reduce my fat BF% & to get stronger on the SL 5X5 lifts.
Any comments, thoughts, tips would be welcome.
1
Replies
-
You have down 5'1". Is that correct? Seems very low for height and stats.1
-
Hey,
So today I had a body scan done as i am about to start a weightlifting program with a PT.
I am female, 5'1.. results:
Weight: 78.7kg
BF %: 24.2%
Fat Mass: 19.1kg
Lean Mass: 59.6kg
Waist to hip ratio: 0.82
My goals are to increase my lean mass & reduce my fat BF% & to get stronger on the SL 5X5 lifts.
Any comments, thoughts, tips would be welcome.
These are good goals to have, so keep it simple:
Increase lean mass = strength train and focus on protein as a priority
Reduce bf% = strength train and eat at a realistically reasonable deficit
Get stronger = strength train and progressively increase the load over time7 -
-
I’d like to know about the scan. Was it the DEXA scab? Where did you go to have it done? How much did it cost?
Would like to try something besides the little hand held machine.0 -
mom23mangos wrote: »
This is where you are going to explain the machine isn't accurate?
Nope, I am 5'1... 24% body fat. Which actually is pretty standard? So if 24% of my mass is fat then it would make sense that lean mass would make up 76%. Also, by lean mass, the definition giving by the company is skeletal, muscle and water. Which would be a higher %0 -
-
Low height - 5'1
High weight - 78.7kg/173lbs/12 stone 5lbs
And an "ideal to average" BF% of 24%
That's an unusual combination.
Have you been training a long time and are unusually strong/muscular?
(Irrespective of your stats I think your stated goals are great so kudos to you.)3 -
Low height - 5'1
High weight - 78.7kg/173lbs/12 stone 5lbs
And an "ideal to average" BF% of 24%
That's an unusual combination.
Have you been training a long time and are unusually strong/muscular?
(Irrespective of your stats I think your stated goals are great so kudos to you.)
No I haven't. Okay thank you - will take with a pinch of salt!
I have been looking at some articles which show what different body fat % look like - I would probably put me 30%
In this case, if I was to rescan in 6 weeks, would it be a stupid to look the lean mass as an indicator of how much muscle I may have gained?0 -
Low height - 5'1
High weight - 78.7kg/173lbs/12 stone 5lbs
And an "ideal to average" BF% of 24%
That's an unusual combination.
Have you been training a long time and are unusually strong/muscular?
(Irrespective of your stats I think your stated goals are great so kudos to you.)
No I haven't. Okay thank you - will take with a pinch of salt!
I have been looking at some articles which show what different body fat % look like - I would probably put me 30%
In this case, if I was to rescan in 6 weeks, would it be a stupid to look the lean mass as an indicator of how much muscle I may have gained?
Muscle gain is slower than people imagine, 6 months might be better.
You are female, petite and in a calorie deficit so your progress really would be better measured by strength gains, tape measurements and progress photos TBH. All those are free!
Plus in the early weeks of starting a new routine some water retention/soreness is very likely and water is lean mass too. In the UK we don't seem to have access at an affordable level to hydrostatic and DEXA scans and the alternatives have a pretty varied accuracy level. I did BodPod scans and wasn't terribly impressed.
You might be better off using the money on other things - training session with a good PT perhaps?1 -
Low height - 5'1
High weight - 78.7kg/173lbs/12 stone 5lbs
And an "ideal to average" BF% of 24%
That's an unusual combination.
Have you been training a long time and are unusually strong/muscular?
(Irrespective of your stats I think your stated goals are great so kudos to you.)
No I haven't. Okay thank you - will take with a pinch of salt!
I have been looking at some articles which show what different body fat % look like - I would probably put me 30%
In this case, if I was to rescan in 6 weeks, would it be a stupid to look the lean mass as an indicator of how much muscle I may have gained?
Muscle gain is slower than people imagine, 6 months might be better.
You are female, petite and in a calorie deficit so your progress really would be better measured by strength gains, tape measurements and progress photos TBH. All those are free!
Plus in the early weeks of starting a new routine some water retention/soreness is very likely and water is lean mass too. In the UK we don't seem to have access at an affordable level to hydrostatic and DEXA scans and the alternatives have a pretty varied accuracy level. I did BodPod scans and wasn't terribly impressed.
You might be better off using the money on other things - training session with a good PT perhaps?
Yeah i think you are right. Okay thank you - I will start taking some photos then!
2 -
ya no sorry im pretty sure im not even as low as 24% bf and im 5 ft 3 and 125 lol. Dont worry about it though just go train like a beast let the numbers fall where they fall0
-
JerSchmare wrote: »I would believe you if you said 5’ 1”, 110 lbs and 24% BF.
Either something is wrong with the scan, or you are not correctly interpreting the results.
It says BF % 24% so I don't think I am interpreting it incorrectly... live and learn!
Out of interest...anyone know HOW to work out BF% or is it quite difficult?0 -
JerSchmare wrote: »I would believe you if you said 5’ 1”, 110 lbs and 24% BF.
Either something is wrong with the scan, or you are not correctly interpreting the results.
It says BF % 24% so I don't think I am interpreting it incorrectly... live and learn!
Out of interest...anyone know HOW to work out BF% or is it quite difficult?
Hydrostatic (water) weighing DEXA scan are generally considered the most reliable.0 -
"LJay89 wrote:
Out of interest...anyone know HOW to work out BF% or is it quite difficult?
Most accurate way is postmortem dissection.
A bit tricky to repeat though for progress tracking....
That's actually the only way fat is directly measured - all the other estimates rely on measuring something else (buoyancy, X-ray density, electrical resistance etc...) and trying to interpret the results to come up with a number.
From what I can gather the one you tried sounds very unusual, using infrared body measurements and then attempting to compare your measurements to a library of Dexa scans. (Please correct me if I got that wrong as only looked briefly.)
I guess if they have a large sample of scans with similar dimensions it could work but that's more likely to be the case for someone average height and size otherwise they have to make a lot of assumptions to extrapolate to an outlier.2 -
"LJay89 wrote:
Out of interest...anyone know HOW to work out BF% or is it quite difficult?
Most accurate way is postmortem dissection.
A bit tricky to repeat though for progress tracking....
That's actually the only way fat is directly measured - all the other estimates rely on measuring something else (buoyancy, X-ray density, electrical resistance etc...) and trying to interpret the results to come up with a number.
From what I can gather the one you tried sounds very unusual, using infrared body measurements and then attempting to compare your measurements to a library of Dexa scans. (Please correct me if I got that wrong as only looked briefly.)
I guess if they have a large sample of scans with similar dimensions it could work but that's more likely to be the case for someone average height and size otherwise they have to make a lot of assumptions to extrapolate to an outlier.
I don't want an accurate BF% that badly...
I ran some of the measurements through online calculators and came up with similar numbers. Nevermind.
Yes, they worked with various insitutions, from what i gather, and created catalogue of measurements.
Thanks for your input - been helpful.
2 -
Seems somewhat inaccurate. I'm 5'1", 56.8 kg and probably about 22-24% based on pics
0 -
Something to keep in mind: some machines report lean mass as muscle + bones + organs, not necessarily just muscle. So that may explain the unusually high lean mass number.1
-
Just saying that 10-12% is scary
7 -
Silkysausage wrote: »Just saying that 10-12% is scary
Some of those outfits are scary too.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions