Styleforum › Forums › Lifestyle › Health & Body › 150 lbs and 16% body fat?!?!?!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

150 lbs and 16% body fat?!?!?! - Page 3

post #31 of 39
4/6/08 at 12:06pm
I know how they work. The question was whether calipers or electrical impedance was more accurate. While calipers have their limitations, I think they're much more trustworthy than the electrical method, which can vary depending on a whole lot of things that have nothing to do with bodyfat. BodPod would be the best, but that's not an option for some people.

But I also think that people with high enough percentages to worry about calipers gripping their visceral fat don't need a really accurate number anyway. They can just eyeball it as "too much fat," get in better shape, and then worry about it. If you really want a six-pack, you might want to know whether you're at 11% or 12%, but who cares about the difference between 24.6 and 25.4%?
Reply
Reply
post #32 of 39
4/6/08 at 3:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philosoph View Post
I know how they work. The question was whether calipers or electrical impedance was more accurate. While calipers have their limitations, I think they're much more trustworthy than the electrical method, which can vary depending on a whole lot of things that have nothing to do with bodyfat. BodPod would be the best, but that's not an option for some people.

But I also think that people with high enough percentages to worry about calipers gripping their visceral fat don't need a really accurate number anyway. They can just eyeball it as "too much fat," get in better shape, and then worry about it. If you really want a six-pack, you might want to know whether you're at 11% or 12%, but who cares about the difference between 24.6 and 25.4%?

From person to person, calipers are not "accurate." However, for tracking purposes, I would go with calipers because there is no variation from person to person to deal with. If you're trackiing yourself, then there is no variation in skin elasticity, etc. But for practical purposes, the electrical impedance system will give you the same results as long as you are consistent with the time you do it. You have to understand each system to get the best results from them. It is also hard to get some of the measurements of the back if you're doing a self test for calipers. The more measurements, the more accurate it is.
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 39
4/6/08 at 3:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philosoph View Post
I know how they work. The question was whether calipers or electrical impedance was more accurate. While calipers have their limitations, I think they're much more trustworthy than the electrical method, which can vary depending on a whole lot of things that have nothing to do with bodyfat. BodPod would be the best, but that's not an option for some people.

But I also think that people with high enough percentages to worry about calipers gripping their visceral fat don't need a really accurate number anyway. They can just eyeball it as "too much fat," get in better shape, and then worry about it. If you really want a six-pack, you might want to know whether you're at 11% or 12%, but who cares about the difference between 24.6 and 25.4%?

You're right, if you're a real fitness freak, go with calipers. However, your visceral fat can not be determined by the calipers. Visceral fat is the fat way deep in your body surrounding your organs. It provides protection for your organs. With very fit athletes, the majority of their "fat" is visceral fat, the fat they can't burn from running because this fat is not metabolic fat, it's structural.
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 39
4/6/08 at 3:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Action Jackson View Post
Is it possible for me to be 5'9, 150 lbs, and have 16% body fat? I'm a thin dude and that seems high. I have one of those floor scales that supposedly can measure your body fat % too.

Thanks in advance for your input.

-AJ

yes that is possible. Its a term some trainers call "skinny fat." When you lost weight, you probably went on an intense cardio program which burned fat as well as muscle. My suggestion is to build muscle and to eat clean, (lean meats, veggies, high fiber carbs, good fats).

You can gain weight while lowering your body fat. More muscle = greater metabolism = less fat.

Good luck.
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 39
4/6/08 at 9:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eason View Post
...I did the Bod Pod, supposed to be the most accurate, which said I was 17% (definitely very wrong, I have a 6 pack).

Not necessarily. It really depends on how your fat is deposited. For example, swimmers can have very good physiques, and still have a (relatively) high amount of subcutaneous fat.

In any case 17% is still well at the lower end of the "healthy" scale.
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 39
4/6/08 at 10:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Guy View Post
Not necessarily. It really depends on how your fat is deposited. For example, swimmers can have very good physiques, and still have a (relatively) high amount of subcutaneous fat.

In any case 17% is still well at the lower end of the "healthy" scale.

What does swimming have to do with subcutaenous fat?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sonlegoman
With very fit athletes, the majority of their "fat" is visceral fat, the fat they can't burn from running because this fat is not metabolic fat, it's structural.

Totally untrue.
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 39
4/6/08 at 10:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post
What does swimming have to do with subcutaenous fat?

Some competitive swimmers believe that a little extra fat is beneficial because it acts as a buoy for them to stay afloat... there is less energy lost on staying parallel, particularly keeping the legs parallel. Also because fat has a lower density than water more of the body stays above the water... which in turn creates less friction and thus a faster swimmer... Similar to why triathletes use wetsuits, although the benefits of neoprene in water faaar exceed fat. obviously.

Subcutaneous fat is also slightly higher in swimmers, as compared to equally in shape runners etc.., because the extra layer of fat aids in thermoregulation. It is the body's natural response.
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 39
4/7/08 at 10:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjmaiorano View Post
Some competitive swimmers believe that a little extra fat is beneficial because it acts as a buoy for them to stay afloat... there is less energy lost on staying parallel, particularly keeping the legs parallel. Also because fat has a lower density than water more of the body stays above the water... which in turn creates less friction and thus a faster swimmer... Similar to why triathletes use wetsuits, although the benefits of neoprene in water faaar exceed fat. obviously.

Subcutaneous fat is also slightly higher in swimmers, as compared to equally in shape runners etc.., because the extra layer of fat aids in thermoregulation. It is the body's natural response.
TRUTH. And the rest of you who are shocked by high body fat whilst still thinking you're skinny, you are all "skinny fat."
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 39
4/7/08 at 12:17pm
Here's a thread on estimating BF base do photos. You may need to sign up to view.

Here's another.

lefty
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Health & Body
Styleforum › Forums › Lifestyle › Health & Body › 150 lbs and 16% body fat?!?!?!