Had a body scan today - thoughts on results?
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 -
This content has been removed.
-
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 -
Silkysausage wrote: »Just saying that 10-12% is scary
That 10-12% is in the competitive figure/bodybuilder range for a contest or photoshoot. Not scary, requires a lot of work, dedication and genetics. Now the 50%+.7 -
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 %
No, just as someone else pointed out that combination is VERY unusual. For example, I am 5'1ish and am probably around 20% at 105lbs. I was around 24% at 111. So to be 24% at 173, I would expect you to be packing massive amounts of muscle mass, like national bodybuilding level.
But as long as you use the same method to compare with, it really doesn't matter. Just as long as your numbers are going down. I find the photo comparisons to be pretty accurate, but sometimes you have to combine a couple.2 -
mom23mangos wrote: »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 %
No, just as someone else pointed out that combination is VERY unusual. For example, I am 5'1ish and am probably around 20% at 105lbs. I was around 24% at 111. So to be 24% at 173, I would expect you to be packing massive amounts of muscle mass, like national bodybuilding level.
But as long as you use the same method to compare with, it really doesn't matter. Just as long as your numbers are going down. I find the photo comparisons to be pretty accurate, but sometimes you have to combine a couple.
I have a difficult time with the photos because I can't accurately compare myself. For me, it's easier for someone unbiased to judge.2 -
Silkysausage wrote: »Just saying that 10-12% is scary
10-12% for a female is at essential bodyfat levels. It's not sustainable for long periods and you'll pretty much only see those kind of BF% levels in a contest-ready physique competitor. It's "scary" only in the sense that it can cause health issues (hormonal disruptions/amenorrhea, etc.). From a personal point of view, I don't find the appearance objectionable at all.7 -
Davidsdottir wrote: »mom23mangos wrote: »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 %
No, just as someone else pointed out that combination is VERY unusual. For example, I am 5'1ish and am probably around 20% at 105lbs. I was around 24% at 111. So to be 24% at 173, I would expect you to be packing massive amounts of muscle mass, like national bodybuilding level.
But as long as you use the same method to compare with, it really doesn't matter. Just as long as your numbers are going down. I find the photo comparisons to be pretty accurate, but sometimes you have to combine a couple.
I have a difficult time with the photos because I can't accurately compare myself. For me, it's easier for someone unbiased to judge.
Me too!
3 -
Davidsdottir wrote: »mom23mangos wrote: »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 %
No, just as someone else pointed out that combination is VERY unusual. For example, I am 5'1ish and am probably around 20% at 105lbs. I was around 24% at 111. So to be 24% at 173, I would expect you to be packing massive amounts of muscle mass, like national bodybuilding level.
But as long as you use the same method to compare with, it really doesn't matter. Just as long as your numbers are going down. I find the photo comparisons to be pretty accurate, but sometimes you have to combine a couple.
I have a difficult time with the photos because I can't accurately compare myself. For me, it's easier for someone unbiased to judge.
Yea same..the more I look at those photos the more confused I get so I just categorize myself as very lean, medium lean and fuller lean and act accordingly.
3 -
Davidsdottir wrote: »mom23mangos wrote: »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 %
No, just as someone else pointed out that combination is VERY unusual. For example, I am 5'1ish and am probably around 20% at 105lbs. I was around 24% at 111. So to be 24% at 173, I would expect you to be packing massive amounts of muscle mass, like national bodybuilding level.
But as long as you use the same method to compare with, it really doesn't matter. Just as long as your numbers are going down. I find the photo comparisons to be pretty accurate, but sometimes you have to combine a couple.
I have a difficult time with the photos because I can't accurately compare myself. For me, it's easier for someone unbiased to judge.
Yea same..the more I look at those photos the more confused I get so I just categorize myself as very lean, medium lean and fuller lean and act accordingly.
I'm six months into this bulk and I honestly think I look the same body fat-wise as I did when I started 12 lbs ago.0 -
Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »mom23mangos wrote: »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 %
No, just as someone else pointed out that combination is VERY unusual. For example, I am 5'1ish and am probably around 20% at 105lbs. I was around 24% at 111. So to be 24% at 173, I would expect you to be packing massive amounts of muscle mass, like national bodybuilding level.
But as long as you use the same method to compare with, it really doesn't matter. Just as long as your numbers are going down. I find the photo comparisons to be pretty accurate, but sometimes you have to combine a couple.
I have a difficult time with the photos because I can't accurately compare myself. For me, it's easier for someone unbiased to judge.
Yea same..the more I look at those photos the more confused I get so I just categorize myself as very lean, medium lean and fuller lean and act accordingly.
I'm six months into this bulk and I honestly think I look the same body fat-wise as I did when I started 12 lbs ago.
Really? Wow. That is awesome. What little abs I had are gone, but I'm rockin the curves so can't complain I guess!0 -
Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »mom23mangos wrote: »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 %
No, just as someone else pointed out that combination is VERY unusual. For example, I am 5'1ish and am probably around 20% at 105lbs. I was around 24% at 111. So to be 24% at 173, I would expect you to be packing massive amounts of muscle mass, like national bodybuilding level.
But as long as you use the same method to compare with, it really doesn't matter. Just as long as your numbers are going down. I find the photo comparisons to be pretty accurate, but sometimes you have to combine a couple.
I have a difficult time with the photos because I can't accurately compare myself. For me, it's easier for someone unbiased to judge.
Yea same..the more I look at those photos the more confused I get so I just categorize myself as very lean, medium lean and fuller lean and act accordingly.
I'm six months into this bulk and I honestly think I look the same body fat-wise as I did when I started 12 lbs ago.
Really? Wow. That is awesome. What little abs I had are gone, but I'm rockin the curves so can't complain I guess!
It's been excruciatingly slow. I'm still seven pounds from goal. Blah.0 -
Not to rain on the parade more, but I am 5'1'' and was around 175 lbs in my profile pic. I have been lifting progressively for a few years and feel like I have a pretty decent amount of muscle mass. My BF% was probably high 30's at that weight. 24% is probably not even close to accurate.
Like others have recommended- use a reasonable deficit and protein goal, have patience, and train!
I lost over 30 lbs and PR'd my competition squat and deadlift by over 30 and 50 lbs.7
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
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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