BodyRecomposition Support Forums

BodyRecomposition Support Forums (http://forums.lylemcdonald.com//index.php)
-   General diet questions (http://forums.lylemcdonald.com//forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Non-caliper bodyfat measurement (http://forums.lylemcdonald.com//showthread.php?t=564)

lylemcd 06-13-2008 09:02 AM

Non-caliper bodyfat measurement
 
For those who want a non-caliper method for estimating bodyfat percentage (that's not the BMI method in Rapid Fat Loss or A Guide to Flexible Dieting).

Surprising to me the first and second gave me reasonably decent estimates. I don't remember if I tried the third.

http://www.freeweightloss.com/calculator1.html

http://www.he.net/~zone/prothd2.html

http://www.linear-software.com/online.html

Thansen 06-19-2008 09:13 PM

Lyle these are great, but my problem is the variety of percentages you get with each equation, so which one is correct? Based upon your experience, which equation do you utilize with your clients or recommend?

lylemcd 06-20-2008 08:25 AM

none, I use calipers and don't use estimations equations in the first place

the first equation gave me personally fairly close numbers

Natalia 06-20-2008 08:42 AM

the 1st link gave me really close results to my calipers measurements. Thanks 4 da link, Lyle.

Thansen 06-20-2008 12:53 PM

Hey Lyle,
If you use calipers but dont use estimation equations, then how can you determine the figures? Also, how does one waist circumference measurement determine how much fat is on the rest of the body? Must be more factored into this then what is shown. Thanks.

AJS 06-20-2008 01:09 PM

Because individual's fat patterning is different, relative caliper measurements at specific trouble spots can be more useful than making up a % number based on an equation that kinda-sorta works on populations.

If the caliper numbers are going down, then goodness is occurring. For instance, I only use a mirror and an ab caliper reading.

If my ab caliper reading is 11mm I am fat. If its headed towards 4mm, I am getting leaner. I really don't care about the back of my tricep or my thighs, there is never appreciable fat there on me.

lylemcd 06-20-2008 01:30 PM

what he said

Thansen 06-20-2008 05:52 PM

Makes sense. Thanks to the both of you.

52-7 03-03-2009 12:17 AM

I asked this question once in another post weeks ago, but I think it got lost in the shuffle, so I'll try again.

How much are tape-measurement methods thrown off by loose skin in the abdominal area?

I've lost 100+ pounds, gained it back, and lost it again, so I'm worried the tape-measure reading across the navel is getting thrown off by what seems to me to be loose skin.

bamfette 03-03-2009 09:40 AM

The first link had me at a decent/acceptable BF% and I think I "look" that

The second didn't work

The third uses calipers and I don't have any

I used a few others that were like the first that found online and the range was about 2-3% differences/variations. Some included thigh, calf in addition to hips, waist and neck...one included forearm.

I agree that Look is ONE way to be content but I also do not want to fool myself. Also I happen to be a numbers gal and when I see charts and postings about females under 25% I then aim for that. Sue me

lylemcd 03-03-2009 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 52-7 (Post 25469)
I asked this question once in another post weeks ago, but I think it got lost in the shuffle, so I'll try again.

How much are tape-measurement methods thrown off by loose skin in the abdominal area?

I've lost 100+ pounds, gained it back, and lost it again, so I'm worried the tape-measure reading across the navel is getting thrown off by what seems to me to be loose skin.

I would expect it to affect measurements to some degree but I'm not sure what you're expecting to do about it.

52-7 03-03-2009 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lylemcd (Post 25507)
I would expect it to affect measurements to some degree but I'm not sure what you're expecting to do about it.

Thanks for the response. It's more of a good piece of information to know than anything else.

I figure I've got two choices if I want more accurate measurements: Buy calipers and use the caliper measurements I can do by myself (no one to help with the caliper) or paying $50 for a Dexa scan at a local clinic to see the degree of difference between it and the tape measurement method.

mpipes 03-03-2009 10:38 PM

If you can get a DEXA scan for only $50, the other measurement methods are pretty much a waste of your time (and money).

52-7 03-03-2009 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpipes (Post 25605)
If you can get a DEXA scan for only $50, the other measurement methods are pretty much a waste of your time (and money).

I was leaning calipers because the $50 only covers one DEXA scan while I'd have the calipers forever for less than $50. I didn't know $50 was cheap for a DEXA scan. I just assumed that was kinda pricy.

I realize this isn't very scientific, but my idea with the DEXA scan was to do my usual tape measurements the morning of the scan and then have the scan done. I'd then compare the scan to the measurements and come up with a differential - if the scan said 15 percent and the measurements said 17 percent, for example, then I'd just assume a 2 point differential on future measurements.

Sebeka 08-31-2009 01:36 PM

The second site still seems to be broken.
The first site listed me as 17.14% (no way, no how)
The third site said 29.8% (much better. I'm probably around 31, 32.)

Going only by this experience, I'd say that unless they're fit or built like an apple, women will probably get a better tape-measure estimation with calculators that ask for more than just a waist measurement.

Zoso 08-31-2009 02:51 PM

The calculator in the second link is broken, but this site does the same thing (US Navy Circumference method):
http://www.scientificpsychic.com/fitness/diet.html

Sebeka 08-31-2009 03:53 PM

Thanks for the link. I like that it posts the formulas used right on the page.

cycomiko 08-31-2009 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpipes (Post 25605)
If you can get a DEXA scan for only $50, the other measurement methods are pretty much a waste of your time (and money).

and DEXA can provide enough variability to make it not much use as well...

PlankIt 08-31-2009 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cycomiko (Post 55909)
and DEXA can provide enough variability to make it not much use as well...

could you elaborate?

cycomiko 08-31-2009 06:31 PM

No form of measurment is perfect

DEXA measurement of bodyfat is based on equations developed on people who are not you

Your body water can vary

the food in your belly can vary

teh type of dexa and/or their software can vary

teh operator can vary

the day definately varies

all of the above can influence what result comes out the other side.

even same day, same operator, same machine can have variation

woot for DEXA

PlankIt 08-31-2009 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cycomiko (Post 55925)
No form of measurment is perfect

DEXA measurement of bodyfat is based on equations developed on people who are not you

Your body water can vary

the food in your belly can vary

teh type of dexa and/or their software can vary

teh operator can vary

the day definately varies

all of the above can influence what result comes out the other side.

even same day, same operator, same machine can have variation

woot for DEXA

Oh, I'm sorry, I should have been more specific.... I was just wondering if you could give a numerical value to "enough variability"

Thanks

cycomiko 08-31-2009 08:22 PM

fat normals - same day, same machine, same operator +- 1kg lean, +- 0.6kg fat

drinking beforehand a gain in lean

eating before hand can also reduce your BMD

excellent

as an example

Blue is the difference between two repeat measures for total mass
Pink is the difference between two repeat measures for fat mass
Yellow is the difference between two repeat measures for lean mass

1 - 8 is the subject number

The Y axis is the difference in kilograms (1kg = 2.2lbs)


PlankIt 08-31-2009 08:29 PM

interesting......thank you

jesse 09-21-2009 06:50 PM

Wonder how the first link can even be considered. You can not measure BF based on the waist size alone.

lylemcd 09-21-2009 08:09 PM

And yet it shows decent correlation with other measures.

jesse 09-23-2009 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lylemcd (Post 58895)
And yet it shows decent correlation with other measures.

I dunno depends on who you ask. For me it gives me 15% BF as I carry weight around my waist. Multi-site calipers give me 11-12%, so I would agree that it is very close.

Multi-site calipers for my wife give her 25-28%. The waist measurment gives her 17%. There is no way she is 17%.

lylemcd 09-23-2009 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jesse (Post 59041)
I dunno depends on who you ask. For me it gives me 15% BF as I carry weight around my waist. Multi-site calipers give me 11-12%, so I would agree that it is very close.

Multi-site calipers for my wife give her 25-28%. The waist measurment gives her 17%. There is no way she is 17%.

Given that women carry fat differently than men, I would expect it to give more accurate results for men than women.

scottuf 09-25-2009 02:23 PM

i've found this to be a fairly accurate tape measure method (at least in correlation to calipers, and when i was cat 3 to lyle's bmi correlation)
http://www.healthcentral.com/cholest...-2774-143.html

deerhunter98 10-22-2009 10:27 AM

The second link said that I was 6.42% BF. I don't think so.:rolleyes: I will try the others out when I get a tape measure handy. Not sure what I actually am, but I am guessing around 12ish.
Does anyone have a recommendation on a descent set of calipers. I was looking at the Accu-Measure Fat Track II Digital Body Fat Caliper. Any feedback on these?

captshiner 10-22-2009 11:40 AM

slim guides from creative health. stay away from anything "accu-measure"

fluteangel 11-14-2009 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lylemcd (Post 4990)
For those who want a non-caliper method for estimating bodyfat percentage (that's not the BMI method in Rapid Fat Loss or A Guide to Flexible Dieting).

Surprising to me the first and second gave me reasonably decent estimates. I don't remember if I tried the third.

http://www.freeweightloss.com/calculator1.html

http://www.he.net/~zone/prothd2.html

http://www.linear-software.com/online.html

The first one told me I'm at 20%, the second didn't work and the third told me I'm at 27%. I'm trying to calculate my bf% for RFL and all I have to go on are tape measurements and my Tanita scale. It says 25% in the morning after I pee and in the evening before I go to bed 23%. Which would be a safer number to go with for determining protein intake?

I'm 29, 5'3", 123.8 lbs (yesterday), 27" waist, and unfortunately, don't have any pictures recently to post up to help.

Any idea? Would it be safer to err on the higher side to prevent losing muscle?

lylemcd 11-14-2009 09:29 AM

I think if you sit down and work through teh recommendations based on those different BF%ages at your weight, the difference in protein recs will amount to maybe 10-15 grams of protein.

To white: if you calcaulte nean body mass at 23% vs. 27% at your weight it ranges from 98-103 lbs and when you multiply that by the protein values, the difference in daily intake adds up to 3/5ths of it doesn't matter.

fluteangel 11-14-2009 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lylemcd (Post 65876)
I think if you sit down and work through teh recommendations based on those different BF%ages at your weight, the difference in protein recs will amount to maybe 10-15 grams of protein.

To white: if you calcaulte nean body mass at 23% vs. 27% at your weight it ranges from 98-103 lbs and when you multiply that by the protein values, the difference in daily intake adds up to 3/5ths of it doesn't matter.

I put in both on the RFL calculator actually and the difference between 23 and 25% on those was what shocked me. At 23% it calculated I needed 191g protein and at 25% it said 116. That seems like a huge difference to me.

lylemcd 11-15-2009 10:17 AM

That's because your changed categories.

laylee 06-04-2010 08:04 PM

Ok according to the first link I have 18% bodyfat and according to the third I have 30% WTF!!! I've been on RFL for a week thinking I had 30%. I'm 5'7, 165.5 lbs, wear a size 8 or 10 and lift heavy3-4 days a week. Can someone shed some light on this?

BillRempel 06-04-2010 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by laylee (Post 101471)
Ok according to the first link I have 18% bodyfat and according to the third I have 30% WTF!!! I've been on RFL for a week thinking I had 30%. I'm 5'7, 165.5 lbs, wear a size 8 or 10 and lift heavy3-4 days a week. Can someone shed some light on this?

(1) They use calculations based on a survey of people in order to estimate bodyfat. Perhaps your body deviates from that large survey group's average enough to make one set of those calculators inaccurate, i.e. a formula mismatch?

(2) More likely IMO is that an improper measurement technique was used on one of those.

Read this and look at the table at the bottom: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...n-numbers.html Female at 18% BF is looking lean as a natural bodybuilder off-season, lean legs, about where someone looks at her and says they look "in shape." It's also at the BOTTOM end of what's recommended for health. So probably the error is on the first link (formula mismatch or measurement error).

PlankIt 06-04-2010 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by laylee (Post 101471)
Ok according to the first link I have 18% bodyfat and according to the third I have 30% WTF!!! I've been on RFL for a week thinking I had 30%. I'm 5'7, 165.5 lbs, wear a size 8 or 10 and lift heavy3-4 days a week. Can someone shed some light on this?

post a picture in the bf% thread

JamesKrieger 06-07-2010 10:30 AM

In relation to this thread, I just posted a couple articles on body fat testing and its inaccuracy. They are the first two parts of a multipart series.

Part 1...Body fat testing is a prediction, not a measurement
Part 2...Hydrostatic weighing a gold standard? More like bronze standard

Anyway, Lyle is dead-on when he talks about not using estimation equations for calculating body fat %. There's too many assumptions and too much inaccuracy to make them reliable for looking at body fat in individuals, although they work fine for populations.

The best thing is to simply take the skinfolds and circumference measurements. If they're going down over time, you're losing fat.

Steve Van Nort 06-09-2010 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lylemcd (Post 4990)
For those who want a non-caliper method for estimating bodyfat percentage (that's not the BMI method in Rapid Fat Loss or A Guide to Flexible Dieting).

Surprising to me the first and second gave me reasonably decent estimates. I don't remember if I tried the third.

http://www.freeweightloss.com/calculator1.html

http://www.he.net/~zone/prothd2.html

http://www.linear-software.com/online.html

Second link is outdated. FYI~

springbody 07-18-2010 02:51 AM

Slightly different combination of sites for untrained female to guess their bf

http://www.bmi-calculator.net/body-fat-calculator/


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:08 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.