Well, pretty sure I'm "skinny fat", where to start

You don't look skinny or fat and your height and weight also don't indicate either skinny or fat.

designerdiscounts wrote: »

@sijomial They said to eat more protein. The machine printed out a report that said I should gain 4 pounds of muscle and lose 12 pounds of fat.

Who is “they” and what is a “nutrition center”? Are the people who did this test perhaps trying to sell you protein shakes or other products?

designerdiscounts wrote: »

@sijomial They said to eat more protein. The machine printed out a report that said I should gain 4 pounds of muscle and lose 12 pounds of fat.

How much protein are you eating now? How many grams per day? Also, for a woman to gain 4 lbs of muscle will take about 6 to 8 months at best. Good plan and I agree with it. But realize what this means.

Edited to add: I don't think that reading is right at all. But it is easier to lose weight than gain muscle. Gaining muscle is hard work and requires resistance training. I am a proponent of it and it is the way to look and feel your best. To maximize your muscle retention and lose fat requires a slight deficit, adequate protein and resistance training. Honestly, you don't look like you have a lot of body fat and I don't buy the 30% BF. Recomp, eating at maintenance and resistance training would give you more muscle mass and a better shape.

I'm back. I was actually waiting to pick up a pizza earlier, which is ironic.
Also...when entering an online order, the difference on the screen between "pepperoni" and "pineapple" is small, but the difference in the actual pizza is quite substantial.

So the commenters in this thread are very smart and very thoughtful and very analytical. However, in this case, the OP's numbers are almost certainly valid and this is verified by her picture.

Whenever I do (did?) a body composition assessment, I had a list of checks before discussing the results with a client:
1. Were the numbers realistically in the ballpark given the clients height and weight (in this case, check)
2. In marching out the numbers, were the fat levels and lean body mass levels realistic and feasible for the human condition--like if a calculated lean mass was like 60lbs, you'd know right away something was way off (again, check)
3. Did the numbers reasonably match the body that was sitting across from you (check)

This met all three conditions. The InBody has some limitations in that it is bioimpedance, but it is the best bioimpedance machine out there. The 230 is not quite as sophisticated in looking at visceral fat and intracellular/extracellular water as the 570 model I used, but for body fat readings, it is pretty much the same.

In most cases, the main source of inaccuracy is improper test preparation. Subjects should not exercise for 24 hrs at least before the test, should not eat, smoke, or drink caffeine 2 hrs before, and should not ingest a volume of fluid of any kind within 30 min of the test. In this case, if those factors weren't followed, there might be a small difference, but not enough to substantially change either the total body fat percentage or the fat/lean mass relationship.

This also clearly shows (again), the problem with relying on height and weight, or BMI to assess an individual. A number of people have commented that 5'4" and 132lbs could not be 30% body fat. However, if you use the body fat % to estimate lean mass, you come up with 92lbs. That is below average, but hardly unusual for a 5'4" female.

This was also confirmed by the numbers on the report listed by the OP.

Some background: InBody uses an idealized "reference figure" to give context to the numbers generated. The reference figure is based on age and gender. I don't know exactly what the standards are--they don't provide a list of norms and I don't know how the figures are derived. What's important to realize is that the "reference figure" is NOT meant to be used as a hard and fast recommendation goal that everyone should attempt to attain. They mean to show how far one's body deviates from "average" in order to understand the person's body profile.

So when the OP wrote that the "report...said I should gain 4 lbs of muscle and lose 12 pounds of fat" she was referring to this reference profile. (Note: It is a mistake to use those reference numbers as hard and fast "recommendations"; per InBody, that is not the intent.)

When the reference profile indicated her muscle mass was 4lbs less than the reference figure, that reinforces the 92lb lean mass number I calculated, which further validates the initial 30% body fat reading. While the InBody BIA methodology might be affected by hydration levels which would affect the total body fat number, I found the lean mass assessment and fat distribution patterns to be very accurate and reliable. (7 years and over 500 assessments)

Those are some of the steps I went through with every body fat test I ever did in an assessment to make sure the numbers were valid, and that I was giving a client the most accurate and appropriate interpretation. I hope I made it clear how these numbers all fit together to show that the OPs numbers were indeed pretty accurate and she is almost certainly at the body fat level (plus or minus a couple of points) indicated by the test.

The picture also verifies the test numbers, but you are going to just have to take my word on that, because I don't feel comfortable making detailed observations in public.

As others have said, for the OPs age, 30% body fat does not indicate an increased health risk. Whether or not it is "ideal" from an appearance standpoint is a personal decision.

I went into a little extra detail because I wanted to provide some background as to why I was so certain of my conclusions (and I am virtually 100% certain in this case).

I also am always trying to get the idea out that there are real pitfalls in trying to assess body composition or give target weight recommendations based on either height/weight or BMI alone.

designerdiscounts wrote: »

Thank you everyone for responding!

@Azdak thank you for explaining the test. I did work out this morning and I did drink water before the test. If that skews the numbers higher, just don't tell me .

I'm not so much questioning the accuracy of the number (wish it were inaccurate but I was expecting it to be at least as high as 25%). My real wonder is what's the best way to move toward a lower number - do I change caloric input, time on cardio, etc. Ideally, I'd like to weigh 130 lbs and get at or below 22% body fat but those numbers are not set in stone, just something to work toward.

My protein intake is pretty darn low - usually around 50 grams a day. If I add a protein shake and a plain greek yogurt, that will bring it up about 30 grams a day with minimal calorie gain.

I think you may have been the victim of unrealistic expectations. 30% is a perfectly good body fat in your age range. In fact, it is in the range that is listed as "ideal" on most body fat charts for women at your age. You may be able to knock it a couple of percentage points by weight lifting and protein intake, but 22% is pretty low, and I imagine hard to maintain unless you are a proper athlete.

I think sometimes women can see men throw out their BF numbers which are a lot lower and compare themselves to those. But your numbers are supposed to be higher. You have bodyfat in areas that we don't.

MikePTY you bring up an excellent point, and that is healthy body fat percentages based on sex and age. I can’t believe I never looked up what body fat percentage is considered healthy for my age. When I had my Dexa scan my analysis gave me a “percentile chart” and told me what my “percentile range” was, but the staff there never clearly explained what those meant, at least not in a way that was easy for me to understand. I just Googled, and makes me feel great to know I am smack in the middle of the healthy body fat percentage range for my age. So thank you!