Don't understand body fat percentage calculation.

What says. How are you calculating your body fat?

I used two different online ones. Both came out the same. I did waist at navel, hips, neck, wrist and forearm.

My understanding from various things I have read is that a man's waist should be measured at the navel and a woman's waist should be measured at it's smallest circumference, which for women is usually a couple of inches above the navel. You could try redoing your waist measurement and see if it comes out different. Also for women, hips measurements should be taken at their largest circumference.

I did my body fat percentage which came out to 28.4%. For females that's in the normal range. I know at my weight, I am not in a healthy range. Doesn't make sense! It says 0% body fat for me would be 156 pounds. WHAT?!? Please explain!

This is more of an academic answer, because trying to estimate body fat via circumference measures is one of the least accurate.

That being said, when it comes to determining "recommended" ranges for individuals, esp for females, what is considered "healthy" is not necessarily what appears "attractive" or "optimum for physical performance".

From a medical/public health standpoint, what counts is risk of onset of disease or premature mortality. If you look at any risk factor--cholesterol, blood pressure, smoking, body fat %, etc--you can compare the degree of that risk factor (e.g. 20% BF vs 25% BF vs 30% BF, etc) with the incidence of disease, early mortality, etc. Usually as the degree of the risk factor increases beyond the "lowest risk", the increase in risk is modest at first, then the slope increases a little bit more; at some level, there is often a "break point" at which risk levels begin to steeply increase.

You can choose whatever range along that risk curve you feel represents "recommended", "modest risk", "high risk", etc. There is usually fairly strong agreement about what constitutes "lowest risk" and "highest risk" -- it's that middle range that is usually up for debate. In that range, the science is not always conclusive. So competing interests and philosophies can come into play as heath authorities debate the relative risks. In the case of recommended levels of body fat for women, there is a constituency that argues that the risks of poor body image and EDs outweigh the relatively modest increase in disease risk factors that comes with moderately increased body fat %.

So we have seen a steady increase in the upper limit body fat % number that is considered "acceptable" or "healthy range" for women over the last 25-30 years. When I was in graduate school, the "ideal" body fat % range for women was defined as 18%-22%, with no real allowance for age.

As a health/fitness professional, I am faced with a bit of a conflict. On the one hand, our primary professional directive is to emphasize recommendations that are based on "good health" first and foremost. On the other hand, I have never met a woman who was happy with, or felt comfortable, at 32% body fat.

Anyhow, that's an explanation of why the guidelines are written the way they are. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to be thinner or seek a lower body fat leve for improved performance. But, from a public health standpoint, those are not the primary goals, so the justification for the "standards" is a different that what the average person thinks is important.

Azdak,

I'm just curious about that 32% you quoted. I know I need to get a REAL body fat analysis done, but do you think there is any way the calculation I got on the online calculator is correct? It calculated my body fat at just over 37%. :noway:

I am 5'8", weigh 130 pounds, and have measurements of 36-25-36. I think I am a bit "flabby," but not obsese. A measurement of 37% body fat just seems so outrageous to me.

Highly unlikely. I would say almost impossible except that I did measure someone in the past year who was 5'9", 118 lbs and 28% fat. She just had a really tiny frame (and her "upper" measurement is nowhere near 36"). ,

Even if you have a frame size a little smaller than average for your height, and maybe a little low on muscle mass, that would still only be in the 27%-28% range. It would be unusual to see the fat % much higher than that.

I'm just speaking from experience--there's not any written guidelines or anything, I just know from having done so many.

Keep in mind that the 32% is an "acceptable" standard when it comes to long-term health issues and early mortality. I would not consider it a "recommended" body fat level.

It may be that someone, somewhere, has developed an accurate online bodyfat calculator using only circumference measurements, but I have never seen one. Any information I have ever had says they are way, way, off.

compare yourself with the pics here..
http://www.leighpeele.com/body-fat-pictures-and-percentages

Interesting to see visual depictions of different body fat percentages on real people.