Body measurements going down but fat % same?

Two weeks isn't long enough to figure out what average weekly results will be. Bodies are weird. Wait for at least 4-6 weeks on the same regimen to evaluate.

Also, remember that if weight goes down a few pounds, but body fat percent stays the same . . . you've lost fat, in pounds.

27% of a bigger number of body pounds is more fat pounds than 27% of a smaller number of body pounds.

Think about it. Example in round numbers:

30% body fat at 200 pounds = 60 pounds of fat.

30% body fat at 150 pounds = 45 pounds of fat.

Same principle applies even at smaller changes in body weight.

My advice: To evaluate body fat changes, always convert to pounds or kilos. Percents can mislead.

We see people here losing weight thinking they gained muscle because body fat percent dropped, when I'm reality the opposite was true. Another example:

Start: 30% body fat at 200 pounds is 70% lean mass, or 140 pounds lean mass.

End: 20% body fat at 150 pounds is 80% lean mass, or 120 pounds lean mass.

If a person had that start/end situation, they lost 20 pounds of lean mass alongside losing 30 pounds of fat, which may not be the goal they were really shooting for, and is probably not the grand result they're thinking.

Lean mass isn't exactly the same as muscle mass, but you get my point. Very generically we expect and even want to lose some lean mass when losing fat, but preferably not lots. 75% fat to 25% lean is a generic fairly average-good outcome. My example person above lost 60% fat, 40% lean. Not so great.

Always convert body fat percent to body fat pounds to avoid being mislead.

Best wishes!

Honestly, any of the estimates we can make of body fat - short of autopsy, which isn't a good option for obvious health reasons - have an error rate. Some are closer than others, but all are imprecise.

It's a reasonable thing to track, but I'd suggest sticking with a consistent method of estimating, then watch the trend of it (converted to pounds 😉). If your estimated pounds of fat are dropping, and your estimated pounds of lean mass are dropping at a substantially slower rate, you're doing OK.

Even then, expect the body fat estimates to fluctuate up and down around a certain range, not be points on a straight line, because the estimating methods are a little squishy that way; and don't put a lot of stock in the absolute number being accurate.

You'll know when you feel and look the way you want to, right? Don't let some number run the show. That applies to specific body weight, body fat estimates, tape-measurements. Use the metrics to proceed in a positive direction trend-wise, and you'll know when you get where you want to be, as long as not afflicted with serious body dysmorphia. If in doubt, ask your doctor, not your friends. 😉

Personally, I also think it's fine to try various methods, and even try them all repeatedly . . . but not to compare one against the other, or try to construct a trend based on all of them at once. Separate trends for separate methods, if someone's that obsessed . . . which is probably a different problem in its own way, obsession-wise. 😆 For myself, when various wildly different estimating methods tend to converge in the same general range, I figure probably my body fat really might be in that general range . . . someplace.

Speaking as a woman, I wouldn't suggest hip measurement - considered by itself - as a good indicator of body fat levels for women. Some of us do accumulate fat more around the hips, but it's not true for all. Moreover, some of us have widely-spaced pelvic bones, which also results in a bigger hip measurement, whereas others of us have narrower-set pelvic bones so a smaller measurement. That also affects hip measurement, not solely fat levels.

For most women, waist-to-hip ratio is a somewhat better, and even waist measurement alone would tend to be preferable as a health metric to hip measurement alone. I suspect the so-called Navy fat calculator online is better for predicting body fat than any of those, for women . . . the more measurement points taken into account, the better. That's because women tend to have more widely-distributed subcutaneous fat stores than men, and genetics may cause more or less fat to accumulate in particular ones of those areas.

I'm still going to encourage people not to obsess about body fat percent estimates.

waist measurement at the navel doesn't lie. 

It could lie when your navel is no longer where it used to be or where it is supposed to be! Which is probably the case with most morbidly obese, and quite possibly some obese, people who have lost a lot of weight. Not to neglect other reasons as to why belly buttons may move!

I've used, in the past, the WHO definition (halfway between the iliac crest and the lowest rib). However some reputable sites do suggest the top of the iliac crest which, since it is skipping the halfway business, would be lower! Keeping the tape straight and parallel to the ground would also make sense and is mentioned by some.

Which one is more "correct"…. well then. We would have to get back into a discussion of measurement errors and definitions and the fact that most of these measurements are intended to be "gross" SCREENING instruments that flag for "gross risk levels". They are not precise scalpels of deep meaning where that 0.5 cm means your artery will be severed and you will die from blood loss.