Body fat calculator?

I also have this scale....and I don't actually know how accurate all the other measurements are except for weight. I know the weight is right bc I've compared to other more traditional scales. I believe that it uses slight electric current through your body to measure fat percentage (I assume this measures how fast the current moves through your body and has something to do with muscle/fat/organ.....ect....having different densities and affecting how easily the electricity moves through you).

I am also on the lower end of my 'healthy weight' range --- I'm 5'3" and can weigh anywhere between 114-120....but my body fat percentage according to the Renproh is staying consistently at 20-21% and I can also grab fat in the usual places.

So...maybe it's just not accurate? I'm not sure.

You can see if there is somewhere they can use calipers to measure your body fat (gym/doctor) or use the measurement way to get an estimate: https://www.calculator.net/body-fat-calculator.html
Compare that stuff and see?

I'm female 5'5", 125 lbs, figure I'm somewhere in the lower 20s percent body fat.

The BIA scales aren't very accurate, as a generality. Today, mine said 22.9%. Last time I checked one of the online body fat estimators (where you input measurements of many body points), it estimated 23%. In comparison of appearance to example photos online, I think my upper body looks like upper teens percent, lower looks upper 20s, so lower 20s overall seems semi-realistic. I have no breasts at all (post mastectomies, no reconstruction).

I'm fairly defined in upper body, but not major muscle mass (that's my arm & back in the profile photo).

I have a hard time believing a woman near my height and weight would be at 14.3 percent body fat.

She'd have to be very muscular to have body fat that low, or be *ultra* thin if with minimal muscle.

With muscle, I think she'd also need to be very narrowly built, because muscle is heavy, and enough to wrap around a 5'5" average frame would drive weight above 120s at that low a body fat. (Seriously muscled women I know around my height with low body fat weigh much more than me.)

If ultra thin without muscle, frame size would need to be wider, or weight would be lower at that height. (With my currently estimated muscle mass, I'd be around 110 pounds at 14% BF, lower weight if less muscle . . . and would look pretty bad at that weight. I've been at 116 not that long ago, and that was Not Good IMO, on my frame, which is somewhat narrow.)

Breasts are usually at least partly fatty tissue, but actual breast tissue could shift the probability somewhat for a non-muscular woman.

14% just seems improbable, though.

BTW: At a healthy body fat level, most women, especially non-athletic ones, are going to be able to pinch up a bit of fat here and there. Trying to lose all pinchable fat is not likely to be a good goal, IMO, especially if not much muscle mass. I don't think either health odds or appearance would be favorable.

One option would be to take clear full-body front/side/back photos in a 2-piece swimsuit or sports bra & boy shorts (not undies), post in the Bodybuilding part of the Community forum here, ask for a bodyfat percent estimate. Some of the experienced personal trainers who participate there are good at ballpark visual estimates.

Viktoria2022 wrote: »

Your arm and back is a serious goal of mine. Yes, I think this scale just doesn't work for me, at least not the body fat calculation. I wish I was courageous enough to post those pictures of me. I have very underdeveloped muscles honestly. I really hope I'll be able to build them! One thing though is that the scale helped me set more realistic weight goals. I was pushing for 115, but that seems just crazy now. Now I am wondering if I should just try to hit 125 and then maintain and aim to build muscle. We will see.

No need to agonize too much over exact goal: You can change your mind at any point.

If you get to 125 and things feel good, you can maintain there for a bit, see if you can maintain happily there longer term with good life balance, maybe later decide to lose more or gain a little. Or, reach 125, decide 120 sounds better, hang out at 120 for a while. Whatever, it's flexible! Keep it healthy, that's the big thing.

Best wishes!

I have one of those kinds of scales, but it always seems on the high side to me. I think they are inaccurate because they use electric resistance. The electricity will always find the shortest path. Since you’ve said you have very thin legs, the path up and down your legs would be very fast = lower number.

I use health status .com website bf% calculator https://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/body-fat-percentage-calculator/

You measure, enter, it calculates using four commonly used USA bf% algorithms.

I then take the average of the five (my scale + the 4 from the calculator)

If you don’t have a flexible tape measure then use a piece of string, take the measurement, hold or mark the string, then measure the string using a ruler.

At the end of the day, bf% is inaccurate unless you do a water displacement test — which, unless you are an elite athlete, isn’t necessary. How you feel is what is important.

Take care