Another BF fat % question

[kelownagirl]

And no, I don't mean boyfriend... :rolleyes:

For those of you who have Body Fat % scales at home, I'm curious how close this online calculator is. If anyone has the time, can you measure your neck, waist and hips, plug it into the calculator here (http://www.my-calorie-counter.com/Body_Fat_Calculator.asp), and tell me if the resulting % is similar to the data you get from your home scale?

Thanks. :)

[kelownagirl]

I forgot to also mention I thought it was interesting that the bigger your neck measurement is, the lower your BF %.

[Eden]

hmmmmm - underestimated me by a good amount. I have a bf scale and I went and did the bod-pod the other day to see how accurate the scale is. The bf scale is usually under by a percentage point or so, compared to the bod-pod (which is more accurate than I expected). The online calculator you linked to underestimated my correct percentage by a good 5-7% (depending on what I put in for waist size- can't put in fractions, so rounding up or rounding down)

[kelownagirl]

Hmmm, I thought mine was a tad low too but I was optimistic. :)

[shootingstar]

well am normal 23% BF. 5 years ago I was 19.5% --underweight.

Not sure I'm absolutely keen about this. See my new topic post.

[Wahine]

I will do my measurements and check what the clac says but in the meantime...

Those scales and girth measurements are not that accurate. If you really want to know what your BF% is you have to go for a hydrostatic weighing. It is really the only accurate method. So I wouldn't assume that those fancy scales are giving the right measurements.

[kelownagirl]

Yeah, that's what I figure. I thought maybe someone who has done an accurate analysis could tell me if this online calculator was anywhere near accurate.

[Tuckervill]

I stood on one of those scales at the gym this morning (my gym is a physical therapy place, so it has a good scale). It said my BF was 41.9% (down 1 point, yay!) The calculator puts me at 42%....so I don't know what that tells you.

I need to find out where I can get dunked around here. I know my BF is too high, but it would be nice to have a baseline to start at.

Karen

[GLC1968]

Interesting. I happen to know what my approximate lean body mass is, so I can estimate my body fat based on my fluctuating weight pretty accurately.

Right now, my BF is about 30% and that calculator was spot on.

Just out of curiosity, I keyed in my measurements from when I had a 19% body fat (measured in multiple ways) and it said it would have been 23%.

I think it's probably less accurate (or more sensitive to body shape differences) when your body fat is lower. When I was 19%, my upper body was somewhat emaciated, but my lower body still held visible fat. That calculator can't tell that with no chest, back or arm measurements (my neck measurement has never changed). Someone who was more apple shapped than me might see a lower than accurate number (small hips). Yep, just keyed in DH's numbers from when he was at 6% BF (body builder) and it said he was 3%.

In general, it's probably a fairly decent gauge if you aren't already quite lean.

[VeloVT]

well am normal 23% BF. 5 years ago I was 19.5% --underweight.


You may be confusing body fat % with BMI (which gives a ratio of height to weight) here.

While a BMI of 19.5 is considered borderline underweight (although BMI doesn't do a great job accounting for differences in body frame size and body composition), bodyfat of 19.5% for a woman is pretty normal/healthy. Elite female athletes often have BF% of 12-15%, with some female marathoners considerably lower than this (although these extremely low bf%'s -- <12% -- are a concern for bone density issues later in life, since they can cause amenorrhea).

23% bf is also pretty normal/healthy for a woman. According to the government agencies :), a BMI of 20-25 is healthy, so a BMI of 23 is healthy too. (I think my BMI is actually about 19.5 right now -- no idea what my bf% is).

EDIT: Oops, looks like I was wrong -- they consider BMIs of 18.5 or below underweight, not 19.5.

[kelownagirl]

She might have taken those figure right from the page the calculator was on. There was a chart at the bottom that said under 23% was underweight but it didn't take athletes into account. All the other charts I've seen are more in line with what you are saying. That's why I'd like to get down to under 20%.

[VeloVT]

She might have taken those figure right from the page the calculator was on. There was a chart at the bottom that said under 23% was underweight but it didn't take athletes into account.

Of course you're right. I hadn't visited the page before :o ...
That chart looks high -- for instance it considers 20-40 year old men underweight if their bf is below 8%.

According to this calculator I have 19% bf. I have no other data from other kinds of tests to compare this to, though.

[VeloVT]

I will do my measurements and check what the clac says but in the meantime...

Those scales and girth measurements are not that accurate. If you really want to know what your BF% is you have to go for a hydrostatic weighing. It is really the only accurate method. So I wouldn't assume that those fancy scales are giving the right measurements.

Are caliper tests a decent alternative, if one doesn't have access to hydrostatic weighing?

[kelownagirl]

I had the caliper test dopne. It's supposed to be fairly reasonable. The part I didn't like was being weighed during the day with my clothes on. :rolleyes:

[OakLeaf]

Isn't the caliper test really dependent on the skill of the person who's doing the measuring?

[GLC1968]

Isn't the caliper test really dependent on the skill of the person who's doing the measuring?

Yes!

[lph]

I don't know my body fat %, but I think that link underestimated mine. I have narrow hips, though, maybe that threw it off.

[roadie gal]

From what I've read, the hydrostatic method is the most accurate, followed by callipers. The body fat scales can be all over the board and are considered the least accurate.

I think these measurements should be thought of as points on a line rather than an absolute number. If you're trying to lose (or gain) weight you want to see a trend in the numbers rather than focusing on what the number is right now.