View Full Version : Body Fat vs Body Weight
One of the most common mistakes people make when dieting is to look only at body weight when what they should be tracking is body fat. Fat is what you are trying to lose when on a diet, and it's fat that needs to be tracked. I cover that topic in my latest vid: Body Fat Testing (http://www.youtube.com/user/willbrink#p/c/7E086A015F4F0FB4/6/2Rl96FILR9o)
I was aware of the mentioned methods of measurement, but always discounted those Accu-Measure devices as junk. I have never accurately monitored BF% because I did not feel I had any fiscally viable means of doing so. I used to have it measured by caliper method occasionally at a gym I previously used. The inconsistency in results indicated inaccuracy though. Maybe I will give this Accu-Measure doohickey a try. I do not care much about absolute measurements. If I can just accurately monitor change, I will be content.
Just to verify, is the product at the following link the device you mention?
http://www.amazon.com/Accu-Measure-Fitness-3000-Personal-Tester/dp/B000G7YW74
I was aware of the mentioned methods of measurement, but always discounted those Accu-Measure devices as junk. I have never accurately monitored BF% because I did not feel I had any fiscally viable means of doing so. I used to have it measured by caliper method occasionally at a gym I previously used. The inconsistency in results indicated inaccuracy though. Maybe I will give this Accu-Measure doohickey a try. I do not care much about absolute measurements. If I can just accurately monitor change, I will be content.
Just to verify, is the product at the following link the device you mention?
http://www.amazon.com/Accu-Measure-Fitness-3000-Personal-Tester/dp/B000G7YW74
Yup, that's it. There have been several studies comparing them to multi site with high end calipers, and they fare very well.
Understanding the difference between body weight and body fat isn't rocket science; however, a lot of people and organizations, SMART people and organizations, have a hard time reconciling the two. Don't even get me started with what/how the military thinks about this....
Understanding the difference between body weight and body fat isn't rocket science; however, a lot of people and organizations, SMART people and organizations, have a hard time reconciling the two.
Yes, it's called the BMI :rolleyes:
See: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=34225
Don't even get me started with what/how the military thinks about this....
I have a whole write up on that, got find it.
Dos Cylindros
08-27-10, 16:20
Yes, it's called the BMI :rolleyes:
See: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=34225
I have a whole write up on that, got find it.
How I hate the BMI. I actually fit into my "correct BMI," but I am a long distance runner rather than a weight lifter and my resistance training is held to body weight exercises such as pull ups, sit ups, push ups and dips in various forms.
I always laugh when guys like NFL running backs, line backers and such are considered morbidly over weight by BMI standards, when in reality their body fat percentage, cardio capacity and muscle mass would put most hard core weight lifters and gym rats to shame.
I understand the intent of the mil's body fat policy; however, I have seen far, far too many good Marines and Sailors, tactically and technicially proficient, and absolute PT studs, get kicked out or have stellar careers derailed by the mechanations of a very poorly written policy. Yes, I am on a soapbox.
How I hate the BMI. I actually fit into my "correct BMI," but I am a long distance runner rather than a weight lifter and my resistance training is held to body weight exercises such as pull ups, sit ups, push ups and dips in various forms.
I always laugh when guys like NFL running backs, line backers and such are considered morbidly over weight by BMI standards, when in reality their body fat percentage, cardio capacity and muscle mass would put most hard core weight lifters and gym rats to shame.
I'm obese by BMI standards also.
I understand the intent of the mil's body fat policy; however, I have seen far, far too many good Marines and Sailors, tactically and technicially proficient, and absolute PT studs, get kicked out or have stellar careers derailed by the mechanations of a very poorly written policy. Yes, I am on a soapbox.
And there's solid data to support what you are saying and seeing:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=61235
Dos Cylindros
08-29-10, 20:33
Will;
Just picked up a set of the accu measure calipers based on your review, and I was very impressed. My home body fat scale puts me regularly at 7.8 to 8.0%, depending on my hydration levels at the time. When I had my body fat done by caliper (7 point) at a local training center I came out at 9.5%. The accu measure calipers put me right at 9.5% for the price of $8.00. These are great, to give you a general idea of how you are maintaining, gaining or loosing. Thanks a bunch.
Will;
Just picked up a set of the accu measure calipers based on your review, and I was very impressed. My home body fat scale puts me regularly at 7.8 to 8.0%, depending on my hydration levels at the time. When I had my body fat done by caliper (7 point) at a local training center I came out at 9.5%. The accu measure calipers put me right at 9.5% for the price of $8.00. These are great, to give you a general idea of how you are maintaining, gaining or loosing. Thanks a bunch.
As you found, and I said, they are amazingly accurate. $8??? I paid $20! :eek:
Dos Cylindros
08-30-10, 14:51
As you found, and I said, they are amazingly accurate. $8??? I paid $20! :eek:
Yup, it was like 8.99 with a Mayo body measuring tape thrown in.
Will, I have friend with an electronic bady fat measuring device. As I understand it, it's used by holding an electrode in each hand between thumb and forefinger and then passes a signal through your body to get a reading to base your body fat off of. Do you have any experience with this type of device? And how accurate is it? Also, if it's not very accurate for overall percentage, is it accurate for establishing a baseline to monitor percentage lost? Thanks.
Will, I have friend with an electronic bady fat measuring device. As I understand it, it's used by holding an electrode in each hand between thumb and forefinger and then passes a signal through your body to get a reading to base your body fat off of. Do you have any experience with this type of device? And how accurate is it? Also, if it's not very accurate for overall percentage, is it accurate for establishing a baseline to monitor percentage lost? Thanks.
He covers resistance-based devices in the video. ;)
Will, I have friend with an electronic bady fat measuring device. As I understand it, it's used by holding an electrode in each hand between thumb and forefinger and then passes a signal through your body to get a reading to base your body fat off of. Do you have any experience with this type of device? And how accurate is it? Also, if it's not very accurate for overall percentage, is it accurate for establishing a baseline to monitor percentage lost? Thanks.
BSF beat me to it....see vid. ;)
BSF beat me to it....see vid. ;)
Roger that. I was lazy and hadn't watched the vid :)
Bill Bryant
09-12-10, 18:30
I'm not sure who will or will not be encouraged by this, but I'm just adding it to the discussion. :p
http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-surprise-fat-guys-are-better-in-bed/
Ok. I purchased a MyoTape and Accu-Measure through Amazon. These are the genuine versions, not the fakes. I played with the Accu-Measure until I could get repeatable results. It indicated 12mm at the suprailiac location, which corresponds to 16.8% for me, according to the supplied conversion chart. Now, first response was “WTF?” Quite honestly, I was anticipating ~10% based on a SWAG. Then I immediately considered the analogy of the doofus at the range not hitting squat and complaining about his/her gun or sights. I do not want to be that guy, so I did a little research.
First off, the calipers do not appear to generate accurate thickness measurements on solid test matter. Based on a quick test, it appears my calipers return results that are ~20% greater than actual. Second, based on some internet sleuthing, I determined that the supplied chart is based on the work of A. S. Jackson and M. L. Pollock. I was able to download the article Generalized Equations for Predicting Body Density of Men, British Journal of Nutrition, 1978 by A. S. Jackson and M. L. Pollock (http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FBJN%2FBJN40_03%2FS0007114578001531a.pdf&code=3bb72203b40c56eb533e435a6523a1b7).
Though a little heavy on math, I was going to use the Accu-Measure calipers to determine skin fold thickness at 3 locations, and along with some other circumference measurements, use one of the supplied formulas with a high correlation factor to determine my BF%. Well, I ended up skipping that because I am not certain where exactly to measure forearm circumference (any help Will?). I was going to run the formula with both skin fold sum as provided by the Accu-Measure, and a sum corrected by 20%.
Since I am waiting on more info for forearm circumference measurement, I decided to just plug the 3 Accu-Measure mm results for chest, abdomen, and thigh into an online, Jackson & Pollock- based calculator (http://sportsmedicine.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=sportsmedicine&cdn=health&tm=5373&gps=448_416_1533_683&f=00&su=p284.9.336.ip_p736.9.336.ip_&tt=2&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.exrx.net/Calculators/BodyComp.html). That returns 10% with uncorrected mm readings, and 8.15% with the corrected mm readings. Now, understand these are based on thickness measurements from a device I already indicated may be very inaccurate. Also, I do not know what formula that online calculator actualy uses.
This is what I take away from this. Though results using the supplied chart may be repeatable, or precise, they are not necessarily even marginally accurate. I would like to utilize DEXA, hydrostatic weighing, or even caliper method performed by a “pro” with good calipers and previously validated results, but I am not laying willing to lay out much $. Even comparing the thickness measurements from my Accu-Measure and a medical- or professional-grade skin fold caliper would be enlightening I believe.
Just some info to consider.
Body Mass Index is only the most crude of fitness tools. It was developed not as a screen for the general population but for demonstrating degree of obesity in the obese. It has value in the bariatric surgery community, not in the general fitness community.
This is what I take away from this. Though results using the supplied chart may be repeatable, or precise, they are not necessarily even marginally accurate.
Key term there...The actual accepted margin of error is 3-4%, and tests have shown they fall within that when tested against multi site high end calipers and water. Generally speaking, the leaner you are, the more that margin comes into play, as there's effectively no major difference between being 25% and 28%, but there is say between 9% and 12%.
Accumeasure type calipers are best for tracking actual progress and not bad for actual numbers, but it aint DEXA.
I will say, many years ago when I was asked to write about the accumeasures, I took one look at the cheapo things and fully expected them to be way off from multi site measurements done using reference calipers (Lang medical calipers) by done by an experienced person, and much to my surprise, accumeasure was dead on.
In my n = 1 testing, much lower margin then the 3-4% considered acceptable.
If you are consistent with them in placement, follow the directions, they are accurate enough for "gubment" work and mostly useful for tracking changes.
If one is really dedicated, getting water dunked, or better yet DEXA scanned, to get accurate numbers of BF% within narrower margins is always a good idea, but having known probably thousands the accu-m and or slimGuide tester, and having used them on a lot of people, a very useful, fairly accurate, cheap, device for tracking changes in BF%.
Body Mass Index is only the most crude of fitness tools. It was developed not as a screen for the general population but for demonstrating degree of obesity in the obese. It has value in the bariatric surgery community, not in the general fitness community.
Truth, the problem is, instead of seeing it as the crude screening tool it is, it's been adopted as gold standard by all manner of places and people who should know better and has been a source of real problems and major PITA for all manner of people who can run circles around the dope who just informed them they are obese according to the BMI. :rolleyes::D:rolleyes:
Key term there...The actual accepted margin of error is 3-4%, and tests have shown they fall within that when tested against multi site high end calipers and water. Generally speaking, the leaner you are, the more that margin comes into play, as there's effectively no major difference between being 25% and 28%, but there is say between 9% and 12%.
Accumeasure type calipers are best for tracking actual progress and not bad for actual numbers, but it aint DEXA.
I will say, many years ago when I was asked to write about the accumeasures, I took one look at the cheapo things and fully expected them to be way off from multi site measurements done using reference calipers (Lang medical calipers) by done by an experienced person, and much to my surprise, accumeasure was dead on.
In my n = 1 testing, much lower margin then the 3-4% considered acceptable.
If you are consistent with them in placement, follow the directions, they are accurate enough for "gubment" work and mostly useful for tracking changes.
If one is really dedicated, getting water dunked, or better yet DEXA scanned, to get accurate numbers of BF% within narrower margins is always a good idea, but having known probably thousands the accu-m and or slimGuide tester, and having used them on a lot of people, a very useful, fairly accurate, cheap, device for tracking changes in BF%.
I am entirely satisfied with my purchase. It was cheap, and will work for tracking change.
I am entirely satisfied with my purchase. It was cheap, and will work for tracking change.
Exactly. :cool:
Truth, the problem is, instead of seeing it as the crude screening tool it is, it's been adopted as gold standard by all manner of places and people who should know better and has been a source of real problems and major PITA for all manner of people who can run circles around the dope who just informed them they are obese according to the BMI. :rolleyes::D:rolleyes:
Sounds like the Army. I was just informed this last weekend that I'm 24lbs overweight for my age and height. I'm expected to weigh no more than 189lbs and have no more than 24% body fat. I'm 39yrs old and weigh 213lbs according to their scales. The last time I weighed anything close to 189lbs was when I hit 192lbs a couple years ago while working with a trainer. That only lasted a couple weeks then I went back up and hovered around 195-198 for the eight months I worked with him. I really wish people would use this for what it is, not some mythical standard that everyone can attain :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Sounds like the Army.
Take a look at:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=61235&highlight=anti+muscle+bias
Take a look at:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=61235&highlight=anti+muscle+bias
I've read that. I even went back and re-read it. I've seen it both ways, but more often than not it's heavier(muscular) guys that get messed with. I'd love to be a hell of a lot lighter than I am now and maintain stength and endurance, but I haven't figured out a way to make it happen. I just put on weight too easily. I tend to run more than anything else right now because that's always been the most difficult thing for me. Mainly trail running nowadays. Diet is a big issue with me too. Due to conflicting schedules and just generally being busy alot, my wife and I don't eat together much and it's usually eat what's laying around or hit some sort of fast food. Pizza is a big weakness for me.
Dos Cylindros
10-14-10, 10:07
I do detest the BMI as it does not provide a realistic measure of physical fitness, especially for those who regularly participate in physical excercise.
Obviously the BMI is most out of whack when you use it on people like NFL and NBA players along with boxers as most of them are huge, carry alot of muscle mass and are generally genetic freaks (all respect due). However I do feel, that the average joe dismisses the BMI out of hand without doing some real soul searching. Weight lifters are the ones I see as the most guilty. Just because you can bench 500, or squat 800 does not mean you are physically fit. Most guys, not all but most I know who can do these feats are carrying alot of extra body fat, and have little or no cardio capacity at all. If they lost some of that body fat they would be alot closer to an ideal BMI (which also goes to show that body fat % is far more important than the BMI).
I am in no way supporting the BMI, but if you don't engage in regular excercise and a decent mix of cardio and strength training and you are fat by BMI standards, guess what..........your still fat. Don't say the BMI is not realistic because people like this don't fall intothe category of people I would say are the exceptions to the BMI. The BMI is a guideline, not a great one, but better than nothing for the sedentary people of the world.
The BMI is a guideline, not a great one, but better than nothing for the sedentary people of the world.
But it's being used as the standard for everybody and it's not 'one size fits all'. I'm also far from sedentary and have always had trouble meeting the BMI. Even when I weighed 155lbs in Basic/AIT I carried a large percentage of body fat. Just to give you an idea of how hard it is for me to lose weight/body fat, my weight never wavered more than 3lbs the whole time I was in Infantry Basic/AIT. So while the BMI is used, it's not taking in to account that individuals vary a great deal.
Dos Cylindros
10-15-10, 09:26
But it's being used as the standard for everybody and it's not 'one size fits all'. I'm also far from sedentary and have always had trouble meeting the BMI. Even when I weighed 155lbs in Basic/AIT I carried a large percentage of body fat. Just to give you an idea of how hard it is for me to lose weight/body fat, my weight never wavered more than 3lbs the whole time I was in Infantry Basic/AIT. So while the BMI is used, it's not taking in to account that individuals vary a great deal.
Totally understand, and totally agree. I was just pointing out that is can be a very rough measuring stick to see how far out of line someone might be.
Totally understand, and totally agree. I was just pointing out that is can be a very rough measuring stick to see how far out of line someone might be.
In the general non athletic population as a crude screening tool, yes. Adopted to athletic populations, and ignoring actual BF% and performance, no. Problem is, that's exactly what has happened.
Totally understand, and totally agree. I was just pointing out that is can be a very rough measuring stick to see how far out of line someone might be.
Yes very rough. It's value is delineating degree of obesity in someone already diagnosed clinically as being obese.
I do detest the BMI as it does not provide a realistic measure of physical fitness, especially for those who regularly participate in physical excercise.
Obviously the BMI is most out of whack when you use it on people like NFL and NBA players along with boxers as most of them are huge, carry alot of muscle mass and are generally genetic freaks (all respect due). However I do feel, that the average joe dismisses the BMI out of hand without doing some real soul searching. Weight lifters are the ones I see as the most guilty. Just because you can bench 500, or squat 800 does not mean you are physically fit. Most guys, not all but most I know who can do these feats are carrying alot of extra body fat, and have little or no cardio capacity at all. If they lost some of that body fat they would be alot closer to an ideal BMI (which also goes to show that body fat % is far more important than the BMI).
I am in no way supporting the BMI, but if you don't engage in regular excercise and a decent mix of cardio and strength training and you are fat by BMI standards, guess what..........your still fat. Don't say the BMI is not realistic because people like this don't fall intothe category of people I would say are the exceptions to the BMI. The BMI is a guideline, not a great one, but better than nothing for the sedentary people of the world.
The typical "fit" US soldier is a supplement-guzzling lard ass who whines and bitches about having to be taped every time.
I've seen these guys and listen to them when I'm on the FOB. The only reasons many of them aren't kicked out is because the rolls of fat on their necks saves them. Bunch of big, undefined body parts that look like Pillsbury dough boys'. And then I listen to their claims of having 10% body fat. Dude, shouldn't you have definition and vascularity? And what about that huge-assed gut you're carrying around?
Trust me, I used to say some of the same things, and then I got in shape, instead.
Way too many Joes bitch about the BMI. It's easier than admitting they are fatasses.
I'm interested to look into this body fat measuring, BMI says I'm obese, good to know, I did a mile on the eliptical today at a high resistance level, then lifted weights for about an hour and a half, did ab exercises for about 10-15 minutes, then did another mile, this is my fifth day this week in the gym.
I'm off the chart at 260 lbs at 6'0''. But I wear size 38'' pants (the same size as my brother when he weighed 205 I might add), usually XL or XXL shirts.
My resting heart rate hovers about 55-60 beats per minute, I think I'm in decent shape. I've got a pretty good cardio vascular system, I think I built that pretty strongly from swimming for years.
But, that's been my consistent experience. I've always been a bigger guy. I'll admit at the age of about 13-14, I put on weight. I had quit year round swimming which I had been doing competitively for about 5-6 years on a team with it's top instructor a 1992 Olympic Gold Medalist.
I got to about 232, I wasn't physically active, I went and played Football, honestly, one of the hardest training sports I'd ever done in my life, I also again, played for a team that won the state championship (based out of Atlanta) two years in a row. We had 3-4 hour practices in the Georgia Heat, I was in weight lifting all that Fall semester during the season. At 14 I maxed out bench press at about no joke, 285. But, I gained 20 lbs, I weighed 255. (ETA: At that point I think honestly I was in the best shape of my life, but the heaviest, without a doubt, 255 at 14.)
Same thing happened, October 2008, I work in technology, college student, etc, I was sitting at work, and was noticing I was sweating... I got disgusted I weighed 250-ish, and I've been in the gym ever since, about 3-5 days a week. I went in, did a lot of weight lifting/cardio and I hit 272-275.
So I've changed my diet, I still weight lift every time I go to the gym, I got down to about 258, but I'm at 262 since I've started weight lifting pretty regularly again.
I realize though it does take it's toll on your knees and ankles, and I'm trying to slim down, as much as possible, but, everyone I tell what I weigh looks at me with a blank stare like they don't believe it.
I was qualifying for insurance this last week, and honestly, I was worried I wouldn't get covered because of how much I weigh.
I might need to pickup a caliper, I think it'd be interesting.
As a bariatric surgeon, I often hear stories like this from people who have a BMI of 35 or greater and are trying to convince me that it's all muscle. Sometimes it's obvious self-delusion and sometimes it's hard to tell. The question can be quickly settled to MY satisfaction with a pair of calipers.
I might need to pickup a caliper, I think it'd be interesting.
People can carry a high % of BF and be athletic. Just look at some pro football players. Obviously that's not the norm, and highly athletic people who carry a high % of BF, are usually found in a few specific sports. Normal population follows a more predictive pattern with high BF% = low fitness and health.
As a bariatric surgeon, I often hear stories like this from people who have a BMI of 35 or greater and are trying to convince me that it's all muscle. Sometimes it's obvious self-delusion and sometimes it's hard to tell. The question can be quickly settled to MY satisfaction with a pair of calipers.
You know they're delusional when you have to reach for the salad tongs to take the measurement. :sarcastic:
Dos Cylindros
10-16-10, 11:08
The typical "fit" US soldier is a supplement-guzzling lard ass who whines and bitches about having to be taped every time.
I've seen these guys and listen to them when I'm on the FOB. The only reasons many of them aren't kicked out is because the rolls of fat on their necks saves them. Bunch of big, undefined body parts that look like Pillsbury dough boys'. And then I listen to their claims of having 10% body fat. Dude, shouldn't you have definition and vascularity? And what about that huge-assed gut you're carrying around?
Trust me, I used to say some of the same things, and then I got in shape, instead.
Way too many Joes bitch about the BMI. It's easier than admitting they are fatasses.
These were exactally they type I was refering to.
People can carry a high % of BF and be athletic. Just look at some pro football players. Obviously that's not the norm, and highly athletic people who carry a high % of BF, are usually found in a few specific sports. Normal population follows a more predictive pattern with high BF% = low fitness and health.
Honestly I don't think I'm the epitome of fitness.
I do think I'm at about 10-15% body fat. Which, is about 40 lbs of fat at 15% or 26 lbs of fat at 10%.
Ideally I think for males you want to be about from what I recollect was 8-10%.
But I don't think I'm obese, I dunno, I guess only one way to figure it out.
Dos Cylindros
10-16-10, 12:17
Honestly I don't think I'm the epitome of fitness.
Ideally I think for males you want to be about from what I recollect was 8-10%.
Actually 8-10% is very lean. You would easily start to see veins and muscle mass at that BF%. The average male is usually between 16 to 18%. Many people really downplay how much body fat they are carrying around. Based on your height weight numbers you listed prior, I would hazard a guess (just SWAG) that you are in the 20 percent range. I don't mean that as an insult, just speaking from my own personal experience. Granted, I don't know your body type but unless you fall into that rare category of an NFL lineman you are probably carrying around more than you think. If you do have vascular and muscular mass visible on your body (including around your waist) and your height weight numbers are what you posted earlier, than very good for you.
The typical "fit" US soldier is a supplement-guzzling lard ass who whines and bitches about having to be taped every time.
I've seen these guys and listen to them when I'm on the FOB. The only reasons many of them aren't kicked out is because the rolls of fat on their necks saves them. Bunch of big, undefined body parts that look like Pillsbury dough boys'. And then I listen to their claims of having 10% body fat. Dude, shouldn't you have definition and vascularity? And what about that huge-assed gut you're carrying around?
I'm not the epitome of fitness, but I'm NOT one of these guys. I'll admit I'm not in the best shape I've ever been in and could stand to lose a few pounds, but my skinny ass neck hurts me every time I'm weighed and taped. I don't even try to flex it to help as it doesn't even come close to helping change the outcome.
Granted, I don't know your body type but unless you fall into that rare category of an NFL lineman you are probably carrying around more than you think. If you do have vascular and muscular mass visible on your body (including around your waist) and your height weight numbers are what you posted earlier, than very good for you.
Not insulted at all.
I honestly need to get a set of calipers and measure accordingly.
I usually exercise primarily with 50 lb dumbells, across the board, that's bicept and tricept exercises, I used to use 60 but since I took some time off from weight lifting primarily, I'm regaining momentum.
Also before I took some time off from that I would do sets of 4 of 10 of bench press of 135, 185, 225, 275.
I'm working on building my way back up, it's the same now but my final set of 10 I do with 250.
I'm not going to list all the exercises and what I do approximately. But I will say this, when I started in October of 2008, I could barely get out 3 sets of 10 of 135, as of like last June/July, I was finishing with the above sets of ten.
Anyway, it doesn't matter how much I bench press, etc, I think I might be around 15, honestly you might be right, it might be near/at 20%.
I also learned that 8-10% in High School P.E. Class.
Anyway I didn't mean to hijack this thread, just kind of hit home with me, as a bigger guy, that's been around my weight for years, but commonly most people are considered obese at my weight.
But I'm active, daily, so, I don't know what to think at this point.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.