 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / March 2004Body Fat Calculator - Ping: Roger
Roger, You posted a link to a website called am-i-fat.com in the last couple days. Do you know what the margin of error is for the detailed calculation which this site does for body fat calculation? Clearly this is just an estimate but when I put my physical stats in and it reports me as 16% body fat. I'm not certain that I believe that number, at least not yet. Comments?  SignatureJJ. 275/188/183, BMI 27.0 - as of Mar 19, 2004 Atkins since Sep 1, 2003 http://f2.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/jjsmythe/my_photos 68.4% of the man I used to be. Hi JJ, I don't remember posting that link, but I have used similar sites before. While I don't know much about the calculation that site does, I would have some issues with it. Even if you're doing caliper measurements yourself and punching them in to the website, there is still the question of skill in doing the measurements. And if you're not doing caliper measurements, but just punching in certain body dimensions, I'd have even greater concerns. So no, I would not believe a number coming from a website. Anyone else have comments? :: Roger, :: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] :: http://f2.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/jjsmythe/my_photos :: 68.4% of the man I used to be. > Hi JJ, > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Anyone else have comments? Hmmm, I could have sworn it was you but I was obviously mistaken. My apologies then to whoever did post this. I haven't had caliper measurements done in a very long time, and am certainly not skilled in doing them myself. I probably should go get this done when I get down to the low 180's but I don't see much point in doing it now. I still have a good chunk of fat to get rid of, probably another inch or so around my chest, two inches around my waist, maybe two inches in my hips (current tape measurements are 42/34/39.) I'm much closer to ideal than when I started but still I cannot believe the 15-16% value being spit out by these, apparently, rudimentary calculations. Any comments are appreciated. I realize that there will likely be no substitute for a formal set of measurements, but I am just starting to educate myself on this (again.) SignatureJJ. > Any comments are appreciated. I realize that there will > likely be no substitute for a formal set of measurements, > but I am just starting to educate myself on this (again.) Last year I did an experiment. I was a sponsor of a women's' weight loss support group (I'm a trainer at a YMCA) and did measurements on all the women who wanted their weight, measurements and BF% tracked. I brought in a Tanita scale so that the women wouldn't have to weight out in public. So after doing caliper BF% test, Tanita reading and using their measurements punched into two different BF% calculators, I found that the Tanita was closer to the caliper BF% test and that the measurement BF% test were more widely off base. I do suggest that you take measurements for the sake of seeing how your shape changes, but I wouldn't use them to calculate your BF%. SignatureRudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond. "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" -Emiliano Zapata Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm > > Any comments are appreciated. I realize that there will > > likely be no substitute for a formal set of measurements, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I do suggest that you take measurements for the sake of seeing how > your shape changes, but I wouldn't use them to calculate your BF%. I am certainly not an expert on body fat measurement and I am not saying you are wrong, but let me raise a complication with your test. There seem to be two issues with caliper measurement: 1/ The force applied is to some extent subjective. but the one I mostly want to discuss is 2/ Calipers measure subcutaneous fat but cannot measure visceral fat. This is fine for gym-rats, since low subcutaneous fat is what they care about. However it appears that it is visceral fat which is a risk factor in type 2 diabetes. Visceral fat is also a large contributor to a "spare tyre". While the amounts of subcutaneous and visceral fat are related, the proportions will vary according to the individual, and therefore I presume that caliper measurement must be a relatively poor way to measure visceral fat. Now as it happens, I think my body shape shows I have moderate amounts of subcutaneous fat but far too much visceral fat for my own good. Reducing the risk of type 2 diabetes is important to me, because I think I am at risk and half the people I know seem to be developing it. Since waist girth reflects both subcutaneous and visceral fat, perhaps it is a better way of measuring body fat than you might think, especially for "pear-shaped" people. Discuss! >>Last year I did an experiment. I was a sponsor of a women's' weight >>loss support group (I'm a trainer at a YMCA) and did measurements on [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>the Tanita was closer to the caliper BF% test and that the measurement >>BF% test were more widely off base. > I am certainly not an expert on body fat measurement and I am not saying > you are wrong, but let me raise a complication with your test. > > There seem to be two issues with caliper measurement: > > 1/ The force applied is to some extent subjective. With Accu-Measure calipers I could see someone using different amounts of "force", but with the Lange calipers I use (and what most professional facilities use) are spring-loaded levers and force wouldn't be an issue. Also, I place the the calipers at least 1/2 inch from where my fingers are pulling the skin out so that my finger pressure isn't an issue. Maybe you've read about Accu-Measure test? > but the one I mostly want to discuss is > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > in type 2 diabetes. Visceral fat is also a large contributor to a "spare > tyre". From the people I've tested, there's never been someone who had a "spare tire" and didn't have a large amount of subcutaneous fat. The two just go together. Someone might have a slightly lower level on their tricep, but their subscapula (back), axilla (near arm pit), iliac, ab and often their thigh are high. Its the total mm amount that goes toward the BF% estimate. So even if one area is low the others easily make up the difference. The original poster was asking about tape measurement calculations for BF%. I have seen people who were small, looked average or even lean, had no "spare tire" but when I touched them there was very little muscle mass and their subcutaneous fat was thick. They of course would be the ones where the tape measurement method would be very off. But when I tested the women from the support group, it was also those who had a great deal of BF that the tape measurement method BF% was under reporting their BF%. The formula must simply fail past some point. That said, I think that the higher about of BF you have the more 'off' even caliper test get. Those who I've done test on who where in the range of 35%+ I've questioned that the BF% was likely higher. > Now as it happens, I think my body shape shows I have moderate amounts > of subcutaneous fat but far too much visceral fat for my own good. > Reducing the risk of type 2 diabetes is important to me, because I think > I am at risk and half the people I know seem to be developing it. Have you had a test done? Maybe you have more subcutaneous fat than you're estimating. If often hard to get a reading on just how much BF you're carrying on your back for instance. > Since waist girth reflects both subcutaneous and visceral fat, perhaps > it is a better way of measuring body fat than you might think, > especially for "pear-shaped" people. > > Discuss! Just to end up on this, when I test people remind them that a caliper test is an estimate, to find their absolute true BF% they would need a total body MRI. I'll also show them the next level of BF% if the total mm is within 2 mm, or if their just went from one age category to the next. I keep the sheet with each measurement number so they have it for future test, but write their BF%, BF & LBM lbs on a sheet that has the ACE suggested BF% ranges. It also has the method to do their BMI (which I usually also calculate for them as well --- and explain the problems with BMI ranges if they're carrying a lot of LBM). The sheet also has hip to waist ratio info. (Waist-hip ratio is determined by dividing waist circumference by hip circumference. For both men and women, a waist-hip ratio of 1.0 or higher is considered "at risk" or in the danger zone for undesirable health consequences, such as heart disease and other ailments connected with being overweight. Many studies considered the ratio risky if it is greater than: .80 for women, or .90 for men.) SignatureRudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond. "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" -Emiliano Zapata Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm Thanks - interesting comments. I did have a caliper test done by a local gym several years ago. I was (and remain) pretty unconvinced about its accuracy, but I now suspect that they did not have the right calipers - and probably not the training to use them properly. > So no, I would not believe a number coming from a website. > > Anyone else have comments? > > :: Roger, Sure it is fun to punch in numbers on a computer, but if you are not using a caliper, they have no meaning at all. Curt SignatureStarted low carb May '03 211/183/180 . . 6'2" 15.78% BF Age 38 Highest weight 250 5+ years ago >> Roger, >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> http://f2.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/jjsmythe/my_photos >> 68.4% of the man I used to be. Hi JJ, I just tried it myself and I was delighted to see only 33% bodyfat! Yeah right! I know that is very wrong for me. When I weighed 260 I had a body composition test and I was at 152 lb of LBM with 42% body fat. As you can tell from my current weight below, those figures don't apply anymore, just as the 33% bodyfat doesn't either. You have to take these web tests with a grain of salt. Though apparantly they are more accurate on thinner people such as yourself. Monica SignatureStarted 01/20/04 362/327.4/250 ________________________________________________________ "Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack. - Harry Emerson Fosdick > Hi JJ, > I just tried it myself and I was delighted to see only 33% [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > don't apply anymore, just as the 33% bodyfat doesn't > either. But you'll be 33% soon :) > You have to take these web tests with a grain of salt. > Though apparantly > they are more accurate on thinner people such as yourself. For me, 20% I would believe. 15-16% is where I expect to get but I'm still 8-10 pounds (based upon the ring I still have around the middle) from there as best I can tell. As I said, I'll have to get a "real" test to find out. Thinner people such as me? Never, and I do mean never, have I read or heard those words describing me. Lots of words around the topic lately, of course, and many many words of encouragement from this group. Thanks for making my morning Monica. SignatureJJ. >> TavliGal wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> >> But you'll be 33% soon :) Thanks for having the faith in me! And better yet, I have the faith in myself that I know I will someday soon too! >>> You have to take these web tests with a grain of salt. >>> Though apparantly [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> encouragement from this group. Thanks for making my morning >> Monica. Hey anytime! Glad I made your morning. :) Monica SignatureStarted 01/20/04 362/327.0/250 ________________________________________________________ "Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack. - Harry Emerson Fosdick > Roger, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > fat. I'm not certain that I believe that number, at least > not yet. Comments? All measurements of body fat are an approximation. Patrick Holford is a highly respected UK nutrionist, and one of his books "The 30-day Fat Burner Guide" (not low-carb!) has an appendix with a table of weight and waist-girth, which you can plug into a formula to get an estimate of body fat. He says using calipers is a better method if you can. http://davedraper.com/bodyfat-calculator.html uses the same calculation as Patrick Holford (unlike www.am-i-fat.com you can read the calculation they use). For me, this gives a figure 2% higher than www.am-i-fat.com. I have no idea what formula the latter uses to calculate body fat, since they do not say. Body fat calculation is an important motivational tool for me, since I am not losing weight at all, but I am shedding inches around my waist quite fast! Using the calculator on the website is a lot quicker than fiddling around with the formula by hand, which is quite complicated. Incidentally I also have a Tanita digital weight scale which estimates body fat. This gives a much lower figure than either method above, although the exact number varies a lot according to the time of day (known effect) and (it seems) whether I have eaten recently. I don't have a lot of faith it in, but at least it is also showing a downward trend. > All measurements of body fat are an approximation. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > uses to > calculate body fat, since they do not say. Thanks Stefan. I understand about this being an approximation. I went to the am-i-fat site only because I thought I saw a referral to it by Roger, hence my note to him. Obviously I was mistaken. After looking at the site, and seeing nothing for details behind how the calculations are being done and finding the reported number questionable, I just wanted to dig a bit. My intent is not the speak ill of this, or any other calculator, just understand them. I'll check out the Dave Draper site later today when I have some time. SignatureJJ. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.