Body Fat Percentage

TalkingPiffle
TalkingPiffle Posts: 5 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
At the beginning of my fitness journey, I went to my gym and got my body fat percentage measured. At the time, my BMI was juuuust at 25 which didn't bother me so much, but my body fat percentage came out at 34% which surprised me. Today I found this photo
ysvqvlhbkq3z.png
and frankly I feel like I look a lot more like the 25-26% than the 34-35%. So now I don't know where I'm at. I mean, I'd be inclined to believe the measurement above a random photo on the internet, but 34% also seemed excessive for my weight and over-all fitness level.

For background, I'm 163 cm (5'4") and SW 67 kilos (147.7 lbs), CW 64 kilos (141 lbs) and current GW 60 kilos (132 lbs).

I guess my question is, how accurate are those body-measurement scales at the gym, how accurate does that infographic seem, and/or should I even care?

Replies

  • Xellercin
    Xellercin Posts: 924 Member
    edited November 2021
    No, you should not care and the infographic means nothing.

    It looks like that infographic went out of its way to find the most unflattering photos possible of the last categories. It seems like it was put together by someone pretty fat shaming who values really athletic bodies, because they also could have put photos of really low muscle mass men and women for all of the categories instead. Most low body fat people aren't totally ripped.

    That infographic is designed to promote a certain muscular body type, not to represent what those body fat percentages look like on average.

    It's not like everyone under 26% body fat looks frickin' amazing and then a few percentage points above doesn't. That's not how it works in the population.

    Just focus on your body, your health, and what's best for you.

    If you really want to reference your body, check out My Body Gallery and see photos of real bodies the same weight and height ranges as you. They don't have body fat% but it can help calibrate you to just how different certain weights look on different people.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    Those devices are measuring your body's electrical resistance and not your body composition.
    Based on the impedance recorded a whole series of estimates are then made.
    Variations in hydration levels can have dramatic impact on the guesstimate.

    Sometimes they can be reasonable.
    Sometimes they can give a believable trend (if used under controlled and consistent conditions).
    Sometime the believable trend may have individual rogue readings that need to be excluded.
    Sometimes they can be just laughably inaccurate some of the time or even all of the time.

    A one off or infrequent reading tells you very, very little.

    The infographic works better at low body fat percentages. For normal to high BF% people's fat distribution is just too individual to give much of a guide to the actual number.

    TBH if you are at, or close to, goal weight just looking in the mirror tells you more - or at least the direction you want to go. Progress photos with same pose, lighting and clothing can show your trend over time.
  • JBanx256
    JBanx256 Posts: 1,479 Member
    There are a variety of those infographics floating around (here's a different one):

    lbxpkko0mzat.jpg

    The thing is, everyone stores their bodyfat a little differently than the next person, so the woman in the pic I just posted who is 34% looks considerably different than the one who is 34% in the one you posted (FWIW, there's a LOT of photoshop involved too - especially look at some of the thinner models' "edges" (meaning where their bodies/limbs stop compared to the backgrounds) and their angles are unnatural; as someone else pointed out, posing, lighting, etc are all influencing factors). They could both be "accurate" in the sense of the models pictured being in that bf range, but that doesn't necessarily translate to what it's going to look like on you personally.

    Also, don't put too much stock into any bf measurement they do at your gym. Whatever method they used, there is a margin of error (different methods have wildly varying margins of error, but none of them are dead-on).
  • Speakeasy76
    Speakeasy76 Posts: 961 Member
    Like others have said, I've stopped taking a whole lot of stock in those numbers. I know that the percentage that is supposedly measured on my scale directly correlates with my weight--if it goes up so does the body fat by the same degree, and vice versa. I know that's not accurate. I also have looked at the pictures and can't really determine anything, since I have a lot more muscle definition in the top half vs. the lower half. I could be anywhere from 20-25% based on those pictures. However, I did some thing a few months ago where I took a picture of myself and an app supposedly estimated my body fat, and it was like 29 or 30%. I was extremely depressed, as I've been strength training seriously for a few years now. I'm 45 now, but had my bodyfat determined by the caliper method back in college. I was maybe about the same weight, but I know I was not as muscular, and my body fat was around 21-22%. I thought about having a Dexa Scan, but then asked myself what I would do if I didn't like the number. I decided it just wasn't worth it, because it's not like I was really going to change anything about what I'm doing now. I'm not going to do cutting or bulking, but just continue to try and eat well, eat enough protein, not overeat and progressively overload using a smart strength training program.

  • MichlensRout
    MichlensRout Posts: 2 Member
    edited February 2022
    To be honest, I don't trust pictures like that. I also go to the gym to keep myself in shape. And sometimes, I get on the scale there. After the first weigh-in, I doubted their veracity. I bought myself a Vont plus a digital bathroom scale with BMI through Amazon to dispel my doubts. Even without going to the gym, I monitor my body weight. Since I have to be out in public a lot, it is necessary to take care of myself. I don't often get to relax. This is the cost of my profession.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    The scales that measure BF% aren't accurate at all...IMO, they're a waste of time. The pictures are just to provide some reference point, not really meant to say, "you'll look exactly like this." As a reference point, when I'm at maintenance and in shape I look most similar to 15%...not exactly like the picture, but as a reference, pretty close. That pretty much jives with the caliper tests my trainer does on me. Right now as a reference I look most similar to male 20-22%...which also jives with the caliper tests my trainer does on me. He does a 9 point test and it's much more accurate than those scales or caliper tests that only take 2 or 3 points for the test.
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,913 Member
    Those scales are rubbish! A previous employer once offered a free medical, and this doctor insisted on using such an impedance thing. My BMI at that time was 20.5 and I was doing a fair bit of strength training then. This thing measured 41% bodyfat! and I could not convince this doc that his machine was completely rubbish. Yeah, understanding numbers is an art not everyone masters, but seriously, how would that work?
  • Beautyofdreams
    Beautyofdreams Posts: 1,009 Member
    Unless you have body recomposition goals then a Dexa scan is not really necessary. Tbh I don’t get too concerned about the scale weight anymore. I ran across an old weight training log book from 2011 when 46. At 58, my measurements are the same but I’m 8 pounds lighter and a lot less muscular at 135 pounds. Would suggest taking monthly measurements and monitoring the change versus a scale. Totally agree with @springerling about Dexa scans. I did one last year because had lost 88+ pounds and didn’t really have a sense of myself due to the diastasis recti and loose skin. It just told me what I already knew. I have more functional muscle and lean body mass than the majority of people my age.

Categories