Obese? Really?

[echidna]

That was a BS measurement. BodPod??? Anything that's even remotely connected to bioelectrical impedance has to be taken with a huge grain of salt (and, sadly, hydration and electrolyte levels will throw your results off, so you can see where this is headed, right?).
Look at it this way: the lowest cutoff for clinically "obese" is 30% bodyfat.
If they estimated your bodyfat to be EXACTLY 30%, that would mean that yor fat-free mass would be 113 pounds, and if you were 15% bodyfat (about the lowest that a female should be at unless they're in contention for Olympic gold), you would weigh 130. That is to say, if they were correct (and you are currently obese), you would be fit, lean, and healthy at 130#. Now imagine yourself down 32#. Would you be lean and fit, or would you be emaciated? If it's the latter, which sounds correct, you've just mathematically proven that you are not "obese" at your current weight.

[DarcyInOregon]

Nicole, what did they determine besides declaring you obese? Did you get a body composition breakdown as to what you lean body mass is in pounds and your body fat in pounds?

A fitness expert gave me a body composition test about three weeks ago, accurate to within 3%. She made certain I was hydrated, and scheduled my test for several days in advance just to make sure I drank a lot of water. I got a printout that told me everything about my body composition. I am 53 years old, I am 5'8", and my lean body mass is 145 pounds. She did not think this was an error because she scrutinized my body and she could see and feel my hard cyling muscles. I also told her I had a bone scan last year and that my bone density measured at over 100% on the scale they used, meaning I was over their top number for calibration, therefore my bones weigh more than most women my age. I need to lose 40 pounds of fat, which is information I wanted because I am a person who used to be heavier, and others might thing OMG she is fat at 40 pounds - but I am happy because it is the light at the end of the tunnel for me. And I am told I should weigh 188 pounds to be at a 23% body fat, which was really useful information because if I didn't know this, and I got to 188, I would have killed myself trying to get to 150, thinking that is what I should weigh, and if I had, I could only have reached that weight by losing muscle and bone weight.

You should have received the same type of information as I did. My advice is to get another body composition test, but from a reliable place, and then compare the two results. If the second body composition test shows you with a low lean body mass number, then my second piece of advice is to get to the doctor and get a bone scan and make sure you are not losing bone density.

Darcy

[onimity]

Look at it this way: the lowest cutoff for clinically "obese" is 30% bodyfat.
If they estimated your bodyfat to be EXACTLY 30%, that would mean that yor fat-free mass would be 113 pounds, and if you were 15% bodyfat (about the lowest that a female should be at unless they're in contention for Olympic gold), you would weigh 130. That is to say, if they were correct (and you are currently obese), you would be fit, lean, and healthy at 130#. Now imagine yourself down 32#. Would you be lean and fit, or would you be emaciated? If it's the latter, which sounds correct, you've just mathematically proven that you are not "obese" at your current weight.

I think that the point of this comment, that the label is surely inaccurate in this case and that isn't something to worry about, but I disagree with the idea that we can calculate our health with numbers on a chart or devices of dubious accuracy. I am 5'10" and 130ish pounds and wouldn't say I'm emaciated by any means. I have a thin frame, but a lot of muscle. A similar machine, BTW, rated my body fat at 27.5%. You can be the 'correct' weight according to all of the scales and be quite unfit; very fit people can end up mis-labeled because the scales are built to the average, not the fit.

It sounds like you know that you are a strong and fit woman. I'd trust that voice over the calculation of some quacky machine.

Anne

[lugged-steel]

I'm not sure if I am overstepping my bounds by posting, as I am fairly estrogen-deficient, but I was doing some research for my wife and I came across this thread.

I remember when I was in college, I got a fairly thorough assessment of my body fat, done with calipers that pinch for fat all over the place, and I was told that I was about 7.5%.

Sadly, those days are just a memory and I am in the high 20s now (but getting better).

Getting back to the glory days, though, I am 5' 11" and weighed about 185-190 at the time. I was not huge, by any stretch of the imagination, but fairly muscular and athletic. I went to participate in one of those pharmaceutical experiments that college students love so much (or is that just in Texas?) and I was told that I could not participate because I was overweight (based on BMI). I challenged them to find the fat on me, but they were not interested.

My wife has the same problem. She has very large, well muscled legs. Yes, she could stand to lose some weight, just like me, but she is 5' 8" and I can't see her ever weighing under 164, which means that the calculators will always have her as overweight.

We try to focus more on cholesterol, blood pressure and fitness in general. Yeah, we need to lose a few pounds, but we know that from looking in the mirror and looking at our fitness goals (we'd like to be 2 mph faster on the bikes).

When I was in college, my goal was 205 lbs. If I could hit that at the same 7.5% body fat (or even 15%), I'd challenge anyone to say I was bordering on obese, but that is what the charts say. Of course now is a different story.

Great site and great community, by the way.