Body fat calculator (US Navy Method)

Options
Mellouk89
Mellouk89 Posts: 469 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
It's the first result on google search when typing body fat calculator, it does seem accurate for me. It puts me at 16% which is pretty much what I look like. Have you tried it and how accurate is it for you?


y2l3u9lta6p0.png

«1

Replies

  • wunderkindking
    wunderkindking Posts: 1,615 Member
    Options
    I didn't do a screencap, but it's actually too generous for me. Possibly because I have a twiggy neck and straight hips/waist thing going on, or because they're not measuring chest or something in women, but it is OFF.
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,393 Member
    edited May 2021
    Options
    I know it grossly overstates my fat. I do have a very thin neck, but my waist is not particularly slim. Not because of belly fat (not much) but because there's little distance between my quite wide ribs and my massively wide pelvis bone. Which of course also influences my hips. Hey, I can be overweight, and I have a thigh gap because my hips are so far apart.

    I just tried it. This calculator puts me at 30.5% (obese), with a bmi of 21, and a good amount of muscles. Go figure.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,154 Member
    edited May 2021
    Options
    Plausible. I don't have what I'd consider an *accurate* comparative, but I'd guess somewhere lower half of 20s from comparison with photos on sites designed for that (upper body looks teens-ish, lower looks mid/upper 20s), and my 2-point BIA scale consistently estimates around 23% +/-.

    xuiejktlcd5k.jpg

    ETA results from the gymgoal calculator linked in a post below, FWIW:

    cp8f0vs1ov2z.jpg
  • penguinmama87
    penguinmama87 Posts: 1,158 Member
    Options
    I like the calculator here: http://www.gymgoal.com/dtool_fat.html which uses several different methods, including the US Navy Method, to calculate. I am not super concerned about any particular number, but I like to use the average for tracking purposes because there's quite the range, though I expect as I weigh less there should be less disparity between the methods. At least you'd think. Hm.
  • PKM0515
    PKM0515 Posts: 2,937 Member
    edited May 2021
    Options
    Deleted
  • Mellouk89
    Mellouk89 Posts: 469 Member
    Options
    penguinmama87 wrote: »
    I like the calculator here: http://www.gymgoal.com/dtool_fat.html which uses several different methods, including the US Navy Method, to calculate. I am not super concerned about any particular number, but I like to use the average for tracking purposes because there's quite the range, though I expect as I weigh less there should be less disparity between the methods. At least you'd think. Hm.

    I just tried this calculator and I got 15.5% which is pretty much the same.
  • Mellouk89
    Mellouk89 Posts: 469 Member
    Options
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    Plausible. I don't have what I'd consider an *accurate* comparative, but I'd guess somewhere lower half of 20s from comparison with photos on sites designed for that (upper body looks teens-ish, lower looks mid/upper 20s), and my 2-point BIA scale consistently estimates around 23% +/-.

    xuiejktlcd5k.jpg

    ETA results from the gymgoal calculator linked in a post below, FWIW:

    cp8f0vs1ov2z.jpg

    If that's your photo in the avatar I would think you'd be below 20% based on muscle definition.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,154 Member
    Options
    Mellouk89 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    Plausible. I don't have what I'd consider an *accurate* comparative, but I'd guess somewhere lower half of 20s from comparison with photos on sites designed for that (upper body looks teens-ish, lower looks mid/upper 20s), and my 2-point BIA scale consistently estimates around 23% +/-.

    xuiejktlcd5k.jpg

    ETA results from the gymgoal calculator linked in a post below, FWIW:

    cp8f0vs1ov2z.jpg

    If that's your photo in the avatar I would think you'd be below 20% based on muscle definition.

    Reread the part of my post where I said "upper body looks teens-ish, lower looks mid/upper 20s"? 😆🤣

    I'm a li'l ol' lady, age 65. I don't know whether it's the influence of genetics, or decades of exposure to gravity, but most of my remaining body fat stores are below my rib cage, and generally above mid-thigh. My upper body looks more defined, when I flex (avatar I'd call semi-flexed), except for the parts that look bony; much more of lower body still looks a bit flab-ish. My muscle development is not balanced, in that most of it comes from rowing (boats, as much as possible), not from a well-rounded lifting program. (I'm not stressed about my appearance in any way, BTW: I'm fine with me as I am, and try to be frank and realistic in thinking/talking about body stuff here.)

    If you care enough, there's a thread with photos in the thread linked below, though there have been some minor changes since those photos: Lost a couple of pounds-ish (depending on which day you ask), and ramped up my exercise schedule the past several months, so I may look a little different at this moment, dunno.

    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10809632/loose-skin-50lbs-loss-at-60-4-years-maintenance#latest
  • age_is_just_a_number
    age_is_just_a_number Posts: 630 Member
    Options
    I use these four body fat % calculators on health status https://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/body-fat-percentage-calculator/

    Then I take the average of these four + the one on my scale.

    I want to body skin fold callipers, but my husband and children say I’m too obsessed with my weight and body imagine and that getting skin fold callipers is excessive.
  • sgt1372
    sgt1372 Posts: 3,978 Member
    Options
    The Navy calculator always reads high for me. Might be a racial bias because I'm not white.

    I have many DEXA and hydro readings as a basis of comparison
  • Pipsqueak1965
    Pipsqueak1965 Posts: 397 Member
    Options
    I get 19.8 body fat (athlete!) But 31% BMI - so I am not following? I would guess realistically I'm around 22-24% body fat.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,154 Member
    edited May 2021
    Options
    Pipsqueak1965 wrote: »
    I get 19.8 body fat (athlete!) But 31% BMI - so I am not following? I would guess realistically I'm around 22-24% body fat.

    @Pipsqueak1965, What do you mean by 31% BMI?

    Is it the "Body Fat (BMI Method)" in the results of the first calculator? In my results, that value (34.5%, in my case) seems like it might be the body fat percent that might be statistically inferred from BMI & age.

    For example, putting it another way, if I put that body fat percent into one of the BMI calculators that will use BF% (such as Sailrabbit), I get a BMR result similar to what I'd get if I just put in my age/weight/height but no BF% (if I let it assume a BF%, in effect); but if I put in a more realistic BF% estimate for me, I get a higher BMI estimate (not surprisingly). That's what makes me think it could be a statistically/demographically estimated BF%.

    https://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/ is the multi-formula site, if you want to play with it to see if something similar is true with your numbers.
  • age_is_just_a_number
    age_is_just_a_number Posts: 630 Member
    Options
    I just compared the calculator.net to the one I use. When I enter the waist at the narrowest part of waist, the the US navy method on the health status site is the same as the body fat % on the calculator.net site. They are both using US navy algorithm.

    Let’s face it, none of these are ‘accurate’. They are all educated guesses based on measurements of many many other people.
  • dave_in_ni
    dave_in_ni Posts: 533 Member
    Options
    US Navy is about 3% off for me
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,393 Member
    Options
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    Pipsqueak1965 wrote: »
    I get 19.8 body fat (athlete!) But 31% BMI - so I am not following? I would guess realistically I'm around 22-24% body fat.

    @Pipsqueak1965, What do you mean by 31% BMI?

    Is it the "Body Fat (BMI Method)" in the results of the first calculator? In my results, that value (34.5%, in my case) seems like it might be the body fat percent that might be statistically inferred from BMI & age.

    For example, putting it another way, if I put that body fat percent into one of the BMI calculators that will use BF% (such as Sailrabbit), I get a BMR result similar to what I'd get if I just put in my age/weight/height but no BF% (if I let it assume a BF%, in effect); but if I put in a more realistic BF% estimate for me, I get a higher BMI estimate (not surprisingly). That's what makes me think it could be a statistically/demographically estimated BF%.

    https://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/ is the multi-formula site, if you want to play with it to see if something similar is true with your numbers.

    ah, just played with sailrabbit again. I'm someone whose numbers don't add up: BMI of 21, body fat according to various calculators like the one above around 30-31. When I use a fat of 22% then Katch-McArdle get in the range of my TDEE for sedentary and Cunningham overestimates. Interesting. Using 30% fat I'm way below my sedentary TDEE.
  • Speakeasy76
    Speakeasy76 Posts: 961 Member
    edited May 2021
    Options
    The average for mine is 23%, which is probably fairly accurate based on the pictures I've seen. The only thing that could throw it off is that I do have a bit of a booty and thick calves.

    Using the sailrabbit, if I put myself betwen moderately and very active, the TDEE is pretty inline with my Fitbit.

    ETA: I actually went back to sailrabbit and played around using BF % ages and realized I didn't input my age, which lowered my TDEE. Actually was a bit low for me averaging between moderately and very active using the 23%. Who knows...really there are only a few really good ways to test BF and TDEE, and even those probably have a bit of margin of error.
  • Mellouk89
    Mellouk89 Posts: 469 Member
    Options
    tgillies003 wrote: »
    I just compared the calculator.net to the one I use. When I enter the waist at the narrowest part of waist, the the US navy method on the health status site is the same as the body fat % on the calculator.net site. They are both using US navy algorithm.

    Let’s face it, none of these are ‘accurate’. They are all educated guesses based on measurements of many many other people.

    Yeah, I wonder if I start training my neck intensively if it would result in a lower bf % based on the Navy calculator :D .
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,154 Member
    Options
    yirara wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    Pipsqueak1965 wrote: »
    I get 19.8 body fat (athlete!) But 31% BMI - so I am not following? I would guess realistically I'm around 22-24% body fat.

    @Pipsqueak1965, What do you mean by 31% BMI?

    Is it the "Body Fat (BMI Method)" in the results of the first calculator? In my results, that value (34.5%, in my case) seems like it might be the body fat percent that might be statistically inferred from BMI & age.

    For example, putting it another way, if I put that body fat percent into one of the BMI calculators that will use BF% (such as Sailrabbit), I get a BMR result similar to what I'd get if I just put in my age/weight/height but no BF% (if I let it assume a BF%, in effect); but if I put in a more realistic BF% estimate for me, I get a higher BMI estimate (not surprisingly). That's what makes me think it could be a statistically/demographically estimated BF%.

    https://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/ is the multi-formula site, if you want to play with it to see if something similar is true with your numbers.

    ah, just played with sailrabbit again. I'm someone whose numbers don't add up: BMI of 21, body fat according to various calculators like the one above around 30-31. When I use a fat of 22% then Katch-McArdle get in the range of my TDEE for sedentary and Cunningham overestimates. Interesting. Using 30% fat I'm way below my sedentary TDEE.

    Suspect BMR/TDEE can vary for reasons other than BF%. My point in the Sailrabbit reference in this thread was to support my speculation that BMR estimated without body fat percent implicitly relies on an implied body fat percent, and that implied (statistical artifact) body fat percent may be what the "Body Fat (BMI Method)" label is referring to. I admit it's speculative.

    But none of that speculation relies on the idea that Sailrabbit (or any other calculator) is right on for any specific person, with any particular set of (accurate) inputs. For sure, its sedentary TDEE estimate for me is wrong by a few hundred calories at sedentary, with or without a reasonable BF% input. (It's a little closer with a BF input, that's all.) I don't know whether the discrepancy (vs. 5+ years of logging experience) is in BMR or multiplier or my logging practices, don't see how I could know unless I pay $$ for a metabolic lab test. Don't care, personally. I know how much to eat to lose/gain/maintain; that's all I care about, really.
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,393 Member
    Options
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    yirara wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    Pipsqueak1965 wrote: »
    I get 19.8 body fat (athlete!) But 31% BMI - so I am not following? I would guess realistically I'm around 22-24% body fat.

    @Pipsqueak1965, What do you mean by 31% BMI?

    Is it the "Body Fat (BMI Method)" in the results of the first calculator? In my results, that value (34.5%, in my case) seems like it might be the body fat percent that might be statistically inferred from BMI & age.

    For example, putting it another way, if I put that body fat percent into one of the BMI calculators that will use BF% (such as Sailrabbit), I get a BMR result similar to what I'd get if I just put in my age/weight/height but no BF% (if I let it assume a BF%, in effect); but if I put in a more realistic BF% estimate for me, I get a higher BMI estimate (not surprisingly). That's what makes me think it could be a statistically/demographically estimated BF%.

    https://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/ is the multi-formula site, if you want to play with it to see if something similar is true with your numbers.

    ah, just played with sailrabbit again. I'm someone whose numbers don't add up: BMI of 21, body fat according to various calculators like the one above around 30-31. When I use a fat of 22% then Katch-McArdle get in the range of my TDEE for sedentary and Cunningham overestimates. Interesting. Using 30% fat I'm way below my sedentary TDEE.

    Suspect BMR/TDEE can vary for reasons other than BF%. My point in the Sailrabbit reference in this thread was to support my speculation that BMR estimated without body fat percent implicitly relies on an implied body fat percent, and that implied (statistical artifact) body fat percent may be what the "Body Fat (BMI Method)" label is referring to. I admit it's speculative.

    But none of that speculation relies on the idea that Sailrabbit (or any other calculator) is right on for any specific person, with any particular set of (accurate) inputs. For sure, its sedentary TDEE estimate for me is wrong by a few hundred calories at sedentary, with or without a reasonable BF% input. (It's a little closer with a BF input, that's all.) I don't know whether the discrepancy (vs. 5+ years of logging experience) is in BMR or multiplier or my logging practices, don't see how I could know unless I pay $$ for a metabolic lab test. Don't care, personally. I know how much to eat to lose/gain/maintain; that's all I care about, really.

    Yeah, agree. I'll never know. This kind of testing is ridiculously expensive to not available here. I know I can eat a decent amount of food and maintain my weight even without exercise. And I'm certain I don't have <30% fat as that would be a rather odd combination.
  • viajera99
    viajera99 Posts: 252 Member
    Options
    The real value of a calculator like the USN one is not so much the number it gives, but to take serial measurements and use it to compare current you to past you. I like it because it's simple and repeatable.

Categories