determining my true body fat %

spikehead

New Member
Hi,
I would really like to know my true body fat %. I've used a Tanita body fat scale (athletic body type setting) and the value varies from 9% to 17%. I know you have to use it at a consistent time and hydration level but I don't know what is the best time to use it because each time I get a different value.
I then decided to get the caliper test done and use that value as a guide. I was told my body fat was 15%. However, when I look in the mirror I can somewhat make out my abs and when I flex them, I have a six-pack. It's hard for me to believe my bodyfat is 15%. I'm 6'1 185 lbs and have gained a lot of muscle since I started working out at 140 lbs. I do have some fat around my waist but otherwise I'm pretty lean, and vascular on my forearms and shoulders. I guess my question is what does someone at 15% body fat look like? Are there pictures posted somewhere of what someone would look like at each body fat level?
 
Everyone is different, if you went to a repuatable gym and got a test done it SHOULD be fairly accurate... what sites did they pinch and what were the readings i can help you with that. if you like.
 
The stars would have to be aligned for those body scales to get a correct measurement of your BF%. The calipers are also pretty worthless. I lost a ton of weight, my waistline went down 4 inches and the caliper kept giving me the same BF% results and believe me i had a lot of fat around my waistline.

Like Old and Grey said, either go to a reputable gym or go to your doctor and have the BF measured.
 
Not all gyms use the SAME calculations to figure out bodyfat!!

Alot of health clubs have been told NOT to tell a person their bodyfat, because if they go to ONE gym and get ONE reading and go to ANOTHER and get ANOTHER (due to the different methods of calcualtion) they might be very discouraged!!! Often all they'll tell you is how much weight you must lose to achieve your goals. In this sense they are very similiar.

For example the 2 popular methods of Bodyfat Caliper measurements are the Yuhasz and Durnin.

According to Durnin, Healthy bodyfat is about 19% or less.
According to Yuhasz, Healthy bodyfat is about 9% of less.

Durnin technique uses four sites; Subscapular, hip, tricep, bicep
(no lower body - has been critisized for this)

Yuhasz technique uses 6 sites; Chest (males), Rear Thigh (females), subscapular, hip, tricep, umbilacal, front thigh.

There are other techniques which use up to 12 sites. I'll stick with these two for now to give you a good example, and maybe help those understand caliper reading a little better.

Alright suppose a MALE has the following statistics and skin caliper readings.

Chest:4 mm
Triceps:7 mm
Subscapula: 10 mm
Iliac Crest: 12 mm
Umbilical: 16 mm
Front Thigh: 15 mm
Biceps: 4 mm

Ok lets assume the male is between 16 and 30 yrs old. Now, To calculate the bodyfat using Yuhasz, we use the following formula;

% Bodyfat = (sum of 6 skin folds x .097) + 3.64

Let's go ahead and sum the skin folds,

Chest:4 mm
Triceps:7 mm
Subscapula: 10 mm
Iliac Crest: 12 mm
Umbilical: 16 mm
Front Thigh: 15 mm

Total: 64 mm

% Bodyfat = (64 x .097) + 3.64
% Bodyfat = 9.848

Therefore according to yuhasz technique this male has a bodyfat % of 9.8 %.

Next, let's take a look at Durnin's Technique.

For this formula we are required to sum the skinfolds, and then refer to a table in which we can draw the % bodyfat.

For simplicity sakes i've only added the male column aged 17-29 in the range we need. (anyone who wants the rest of it let me know).

Anyways, Moving right along, the measurements used are as follows;

Triceps:7 mm
Subscapula: 10 mm
Iliac Crest: 12 mm
Biceps: 4 mm

Total: 33 mm

According to the Table; A sum of

25 mm = 10.5% bodyfat
30 mm = 12.9% bodyfat
35 mm = 14.7% bodyfat
40 mm = 16.4% bodyfat

So We'll say this male is approximately 14% bodyfat according to Durnin technique.

As you can see there is a 4 % difference! 4 % is a BIG difference, and one would definitely run into problems using these formulas interchangably.

Although, all of this is a big time pain in the but, when used to predict an optimal weight, they are both pretty valuable.
Let me explain.

Using the Formula;

Optimal Weight = Actual Weight-[(actual%fat- reccomended%fat) x actual weight]

The optimal reccomended % fat for a figure skater (don't ask it's just an example) is 13%, and 6 % using Durnin, and Yuhasz technique respectively.

Let's assume our Figure skator has an actual bodyweight of 175 lbs.

Durnin

Actual Weight: 175 lbs
Actual % Fat: 14% (14/100=.14)
Reccomended Fat: 13% (13/100=.13)
Optimal Weight = 175 lbs - [(.14-.13)x175]
Optimal Weight = 173.25 lbs

Yuhasz

Actual Weight: 175 lbs
Actual % Fat: 9.8% (9.8/100=.098)
Reccomended Fat: 13% (6/100=.06)
Optimal Weight = 175 lbs - [(.098-.06)x175]
Optimal Weight = 169.8 lbs

This may not have been the best example to use as the individual was already very lean to begin with, but the take home is that bodyfat calipers are very useful, and although there are many formulas that should not be use interchangably, they all serve the same purpose and when used for prediction of reccomended weight they both come up with similiar values...

Perhaps i will make a new, individual to give a better example at a later date, but for now i hope that makes some sense to all of you!

OneMoreRep
 
those bioimpedance scales are worthless, you should never rely on them.
if you have decent quality calipers, you can learn how to take the measurements and do the calculations yourself. i prefer the jackson-pollock formula, as it's more accurate for athletic people with very low % bodyfat. the durnin charts put me at such a high bodyfat that one might think i'm obese, whereas the jackson-pollock has me at 13%, which is much closer to reality, judging by the mirror.
 
i'd like to know what formula alot of those pro bodybuilders use, who claim 2-4% bodyfat....

Even using yuhasz, the lowers one's bodyfat would be is 3.64 and that's assuming you have no skin...
 
You cannot get your true BF, unless you are willing to undergo autopsy... even then it has difficulties with human error. All other methods are gross estimates and could be within a range of 1-4% plus or minus to your true BF level.
 
Claimed bf number are ridiculous. A person probably would die at some of those figures. Even 'real' bf numbers are meaningless. If you like what you see in the mirror, you are at the right bf%.    
thumbs-up.gif
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Old and Grey @ July 16 2005,8:30)]Claimed bf number are ridiculous. A person probably would die at some of those figures. Even 'real' bf numbers are meaningless. If you like what you see in the mirror, you are at the right bf%.    
thumbs-up.gif
agreed
thumbs-up.gif
 
all bodyfat measurement methods (besides dissecation) are based on assumptions. from water weighing (the 'golden' standard) to bioimpedance, and everything inbetween.

going by the mirror works, though you have to it's as inconsistent as anything else. your appearance may change a lot depending a variety of factors. i like to use the mirror, the scale AND calipers.

so, spikehead, to sum it up, imho, if your calipers read from 10 to 15mm in your abs, you're in good shape. don't let it go much over that when bulking or it will be harder to get back.
 
Recent research has discovered udnerwater weighing to be based on false assumptions. (it assumes all bones are the same density). it's no longer the gold standard.

Mirror, calipers and waist circumferance are the best tools, IMO.
 
Thanks guys for all your responses. :)
I like the idea of using the mirror, scale as well as calipers to measure my abs. I have two more questions:
Where exactly should I be measuring my abs for that 10-15mm width mentioned by addy?
How do I find good quality calipers?
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (OneMoreRep @ July 18 2005,12:42)]Recent research has discovered udnerwater weighing to be based on false assumptions. (it assumes all bones are the same density). it's no longer the gold standard.
Mirror, calipers and waist circumferance are the best tools, IMO.
Underwater weighing is still classified as the gold standard at this stage, well apart from autopsy.

But underwater weighing does not measure bodyfat, only density. Skin folds do not measure bodyfat either, as they measure adipose and skin thickness, and extrapolate those into density via equations.

The general equation to estimate bodyfat based upon density (such as the Siri equation) is where the problem is, based upon small numbers of corpses.

DEXA avoids this by not relying on density assumptions, however like all methods of body fat estimation, all are worthless on individuals, they are useful on groups.
 
spikehead, get yourself the slimguide calipers. they're good, cheap (about $20-30, i think), and come with a little booklet explaining how to take your measurements, and do the calculations.
 
so those 5 dollar plastic calipers I bought that *click* when it has the measurement are worthless with the lack of a better word?

they're better than nothing, I average out my calculated BF% using it's measurements over a span of a week

just wondering if it's worth it to upgrade to better calipers

-colby
 
i was strongly advised against those. upgrading to a much better one like the slimguide is cheap enough, i think.
 
I use the accumeasure calipers. As silly as it may sound, i put a dot with a marker on my side, so i would test the same spot each time. I still get different results though.
I als ohave some of those so called "bf" scales. I don't take much in there reading. However, if i keep the same amount of water in me(about 56% water), they read about the same as the calipers.


And i have read that the underwater weighing will not be as accurate if you can't exhale most of the air out of your lungs........I don't know if there is any truth to that or not though.

My favorite scale is the mirror. It never lies.
 
the mirror does not lie indeed, but there are a variety of other factors influencing the way you look. lighting, water retention or dehydration, stuff like that. but we have to work with whatever means we have, so i believe a variety of methods is better than trusting only the mirror or only the scale or only calipers. heck, you can even keep track of your bodyfat by pinching yourself in the gut occasionally. home made calipers.
crazy.gif
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (b0xm0ns73r @ July 19 2005,4:16)]I use the accumeasure calipers.  As silly as it may sound, i put a dot with a marker on my side, so i would test the same spot each time. I still get different results though.
Sounds obsessive, but aren't all of us a bit obsessive on this forum.. I know I am now. :D Anywho, I like that idea of using a sharpie, maybe I'll do it when I'm at school so I can blame random marker dots on being drunk.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Aaron_F @ July 18 2005,9:59)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] (OneMoreRep @ July 18 2005,12:42)]Recent research has discovered udnerwater weighing to be based on false assumptions. (it assumes all bones are the same density). it's no longer the gold standard.
Mirror, calipers and waist circumferance are the best tools, IMO.
Underwater weighing is still classified as the gold standard at this stage, well apart from autopsy.
But underwater weighing does not measure bodyfat, only density.  Skin folds do not measure bodyfat either, as they measure adipose and skin thickness, and extrapolate those into density via equations.
The general equation to estimate bodyfat based upon density (such as the Siri equation) is where the problem is, based upon small numbers of corpses.
DEXA avoids this by not relying on density assumptions, however like all methods of body fat estimation, all are worthless on individuals, they are useful on groups.
According to my uni prof. underwater weighing is not very effective at allm and no longer considered gold standard. (maybe in his eyes alone? - i'd have to look over my notes)

(he tests olympians and professional athletes all the time - far as i know they are big on calipers)
 
Back
Top