I think Lisa is referring to the methods for women where they take several measurements and "calculate" body fat that way. A while back I used several different home methods and my results were everything from 17.5% (bah ha ha! ) with the Navy Circumference Method to 28% using some other one where you took measurements of your hips, forearm, wrist, waist, and (I think) neck. I am fairly muscular, which is why I think the one method placed me so high--it assumed that bulk is fat, not muscle. If you do a Google on "body fat measure" you'll get about 20 gagillion hits.

I don't know that you can get a really accurate measurement. Everything I've read says even the most accurate are +/- 2% and others can be +/- 5%.

About the rolls...I think when you are lean, they actually can be more pronounced. I have very definite patches on the tops of my hips, the backs of my legs, and (like you) on my back (I hate that too ). I have a very lean torso (in the front anyway) and lean arms, so the extra on my hips, legs, and back looks extra extra bad to me. It is what it is. It jiggles when I run, but oh well. I'm in pretty good shape and am actually lighter than I have been in years (most recently due to stress and a cold, bad way to lose it...). I figure my actual percentage is probably 21-22%, maybe higher, maybe lower, but that's really not a bad place to be.

I have to keep reminding myself that what really matters is my health and how I feel. Sure, I go through periods where I get obsessed with the numbers on the scale, but in the long run, I know that I'm not doing too badly. I could always eat better, rest more, and love more, all of which would probably improve how I feel. But then I could also eat more poorly, sleep all the time, and be a cranky middle aged woman.

Perspective, my friend. But I think you know that. (and please remind me of that next time I whine about stepping on the scale and seeing a couple more pounds... )