ExRx.net
http://exrx.net/forum/

body fat percentage
http://exrx.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=342
Page 1 of 2

Author:  alan [ Thu Apr 06, 2006 10:31 am ]
Post subject:  body fat percentage

are there any methods for calculating body fat without using calipers or body fat scales? because i don't have either. any help is apreciated, thanks

Author:  elemental [ Fri Apr 07, 2006 3:18 am ]
Post subject: 

there are other methods but they aren't reliable... From what I've learned talking to others and reading lots, the top three are a dunk test (most reliable, but expensive), caliper 7site, caliper 3site. Callipers are about 15$ at GNC or a similar store. Practice measuring per the instructions on exrx.net until you get consistant results. Pay more attention to the change than the actual number. Meaning if you measure yourself at 24% today and 22% 2 weeks from now, you can be farely sure you dropped 2%, but you still might not really be 22%.

I user callipers on myself and get 16%, my trainer uses callipers on me and gets 17.5%, my scale says I'm 32%...

Author:  alan [ Fri Apr 07, 2006 7:38 am ]
Post subject: 

ok thanks, i've ordered some calipers as that seems to be the only cheap acurate way of measuring.

Author:  Paul [ Thu Apr 13, 2006 3:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Body fat testing

If you are going to use calipers then make sure you get the professional ones. They cost around

Author:  elemental [ Thu Apr 13, 2006 5:51 pm ]
Post subject: 

I use Accumeasure Callipers, $15 at GNC. Work just fine for me.

Author:  PeterP [ Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:10 pm ]
Post subject: 

You can support exrx.net and purchase them right here.

That's what I did.

Author:  Trillian [ Thu Jul 13, 2006 8:36 pm ]
Post subject: 

If you want to spend a bit of cash and get a caliper that you never have to buy again, you can get Lange Calipers for about $100 on ebay pretty routinely

Author:  nicolecartersfunfitness [ Thu Dec 28, 2006 9:01 am ]
Post subject:  Re: body fat percentage

hi alan!! it's interesting this whole body fat % thing because if you look at world class and olympic athletes, michael johstone, kelly holmes, arnie ( me and him are great friends :0), venus and serena williams, nicole carter :0) ( i wish!), ronnie coleman, they have great muscle tone and definition because they have lots of money to eat lots of food, i find it even more insane than some people on this site would say i am :0) that in "the books" an athetic level of bodyfat is very low. this is very difficult to do without serious application and calculations of daily calorific requirements, these people are serious serious athletes and have all the help that is required, it's interesting how they train towards being the elite for the purpose of being the best for what? to maintain the natural selection process wallace->darwin theorised about. and yet it's in simulated situations. new training goal anyone? nah i don't recommend it!! couldn't catch any ducks today...my breadcrumbs didn't work... i reckon they are not used to wholemeal flour and beef dripping breadcrumbs, i saw a few people use ordinary bread and hey presto that worked!! they really liked that!! i might have to busk with my djembe to afford to buy some cheap shop bread.

nicole :0)



alan wrote:
are there any methods for calculating body fat without using calipers or body fat scales? because i don't have either. any help is apreciated, thanks

Author:  Kenny Croxdale [ Sun Jan 07, 2007 9:42 am ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
From what I've learned talking to others and reading lots, the top three are a dunk test (most reliable, but expensive),


There problem with hydrastatic is that the research was conduced on five cadavers, dead people. There are a number of problems with this.

1) Statistics are based on large numbers. The larger the numbers uss the more accurate the results. Cutting up five cadavers does not constitute a large number.

2) These cadavers were not normal health individuals. It would have been better to cut up five normal individuals or athletes. However, there are no volunteers...:)

3) Different formulas are necessary for different ethnic groups.

Thus, while hydrostatic is regarded as the gold standard, it has flaws.

Quote:
caliper 7site, caliper 3site.


Caliper readings are base on hydrostatic. Thus, they are mearly an estimate of body fat percentage.

The most accurate reading is obtained from a technician who has performed hundreds of body fat measurements.

Two other post mention using the Accumeasure Body Fat calipers. These are crap. Also, their instructions are crap. They give you a general area to take the measurements.

To obtain the most accurate measurement, you a tape measure and pen. You then measure and mark with a pen on the body a precise area to caliper.

Another post mentioned that you need to purchase the Lang calipers or another professional model. That is not necessary.

A good technician can get an accurate reading with a fairly good pair of calipers.

Quote:
Callipers are about 15$ at GNC or a similar store.


The GNC calipers are crap.

Quote:
I user callipers on myself and get 16%, my trainer uses callipers on me and gets 17.5%, my scale says I'm 32%...


You CANNOT get a good reading by taking the measurement on yourself. It just not possible.

Scales work off bioelectracal impedance. This method is crap.

The Slim Guide Caliper on exer.net are a great pair of calipers. However, I don't believe they provide you with the correct instruction on how to utilize them.

Kenny Croxdale

Author:  Dowls [ Wed Feb 14, 2007 8:34 pm ]
Post subject: 

In my humble opinion measuring body fat % often provides negative results mainly due to the huge TEM (technical error of measurements) involved with use calliper methods. Lets face it average joe cant afford the more accurate testing protocols.

I agree with Nicoles cater..... its unrealistic for people to comapre themselves to high level athletes who have access to support and equipment.

I no longer include measures of body fat percentages in my health assessments for clients. When someone invents a practical, accurate, cheap, and easy to use method then i'll reconsider it

Author:  zachsikidhart [ Sun Mar 25, 2007 11:15 pm ]
Post subject: 

our gym has a weighing scale where you step on it barefoot, and it calculates your body fat %, muscle weight, etc..etc..

I don't know how they work exactly, but they should be pretty accurate right? If not, then at least the change in % should be.

Author:  TimD [ Mon Mar 26, 2007 8:10 am ]
Post subject: 

I think you hit the nail on the head. As far as accuracy goes, I can't be sure, but it will give you a starting mark, from which you can gauge your progress.
Tim

Author:  Ey3 cOn [ Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:32 pm ]
Post subject: 

zachsikidhart wrote:
our gym has a weighing scale where you step on it barefoot, and it calculates your body fat %, muscle weight, etc..etc..

I don't know how they work exactly, but they should be pretty accurate right? If not, then at least the change in % should be.


i am not positive, but my gym teacher said that those scales send an electrical current through your body. The electricity cannot pass through the bone and the electricity passes through the fat much easier. so the easier the electricity passes through, the more fat in your body.

Author:  bob [ Tue Jul 03, 2007 9:40 pm ]
Post subject: 

According to my instructors in school, they say hydrostatic weighing is the most accurate, but who has easy access to that? Anyway, their testing rates are $20.00. Not too bad.

Author:  shaf_43 [ Mon Feb 18, 2008 11:36 pm ]
Post subject: 

In Bioelectrical impedance (scale) fat actually retards the electrical signal. Muscle conducts it. Think of the fat like insulation on an electrical wire.

Actually, the new gold standard according to the ACSM is something called a DEXA scan just google it... but chances are you won't be able to find one or afford it if you can.

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/