# Body Fat Percentage



## Devrim (Jan 26, 2013)

I don't know why but this one seems to be the most depressing one to measure progress by,
I consider myself lean,
Yet when I look at the Index it says that I am "normal" and just out that range(As my body fat is 17-18%).

I don't get it,
I looked at some of the pictures given for people in my range,
And My body definition is much better,
It does bring me down a little,
I guess I'm asking how accurate this is?

Because when people see me they consider my pretty lean,
And they think I have a V shaped upper body,
But this shouldn't be for someone that is in my range?

Confused I guess,
Anyone elses experience with this?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

It depends on how you measured the percentage. There are several ways, the most accurate is DXA but you have to find a place that has it and pay. Other ways like bioelectrical impedance analysis is very dependent on your water content and I've seen it be 10 kg off compared to DXA. Skinfolds is probably the easiest but it takes practice to do it right, may not take in consideration the fat distribution and only measures subcutaneous fat.


----------



## Will tankman (Jun 3, 2013)

Don't trust those bodyfat scales/machines. They are a load of bullshit, trust me.

Easiest way is to tell by abs, if you can see your abs then you know you're around 10 percent or less. (This is if you have decent ab mass/definition btw , if you never trained your abs then yeah thats a bit hard haha).


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Will tankman said:


> Don't trust those bodyfat scales/machines. They are a load of bullshit, trust me.
> 
> Easiest way is to tell by abs, if you can see your abs then you know you're around 10 percent or less. (This is if you have decent ab mass/definition btw , if you never trained your abs then yeah thats a bit hard haha).


Incorrect. Different people distribute weight in different parts of the body.


----------



## Will tankman (Jun 3, 2013)

I didn't mean It's always right, it's a better indication then those fat percentage scales though. My friend whos clearly 10 or less got 19 percent bodyfat on the weight scale, hes a stick.

Generally people use abs as a way to tell bodyfat.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Will tankman said:


> I didn't mean It's always right, it's a better indication then those fat percentage scales though. My friend whos clearly 10 or less got 19 percent bodyfat on the weight scale, hes a stick.
> 
> Generally people use abs as a way to tell bodyfat.


"I know a guy who looks absolutely chiseled in his abs at 11% body fat, but other guys don't look really cut in the abs until they get down to 6-8% body fat.

That's the trouble with trying to pin down one specific body fat number as THE body fat level for seeing 6-pack abs (or being contest or photo-shoot ready):

Everyone distributes their body fat differently and two people may look different at the same percentage."

What is the Necessary Body Fat Percentage to See Your Abs?

Furthermore, to OP - its nothing to obsess about. I have seen it become this OCDish thing for some, and really what matters is that you eat healthy, get enough exercise, and -feel good-. This is a life, not a diet. Unless you want to be a pro body-builder as a hobby, who cares about measuring these things.


----------



## Mr Canis (Mar 3, 2012)

My Aria scale tracks me at about 2% higher than I get from the dunk tank, but it is remarkably consistent.

My last results on the same day were:

Immersion: 6.5%
Calipers: 7%
Navy Method: 8%
Aria: 8.5%

I vary between 6% and 17%, depending upon where I am in my training cycle. As a rule, I am very happy between 8% and 12%. I have to get medieval on myself to get down to 6% and without any effort, I settle in naturally around 17%. Currently I am doing little cardio, am eating more and am bulking up some, so I am running up around 15% or so.


----------



## Will tankman (Jun 3, 2013)

Promethea said:


> "I know a guy who looks absolutely chiseled in his abs at 11% body fat, but other guys don't look really cut in the abs until they get down to 6-8% body fat.
> 
> That's the trouble with trying to pin down one specific body fat number as THE body fat level for seeing 6-pack abs (or being contest or photo-shoot ready):
> 
> ...


I agree with everything you've said, however like I said in my first post, different people have different ab definition/development. People use the 10-12 (And less) as a rough indication. It's really impossible for any body type to see abs at 15 percent or above (Speaking boys). It's possible, but you'd have pretty rare genetics and would look silly everywhere else besides your midsection. If the OP is lean but the weight scale says he is 17-18 percent, that's wrong. 17-18 is too fat to be lean, from what i know anyway. Especially around the mid area. That was what I was trying to get at. 
Girls obviously can get ripped at way higher bodyfat percentages because of well... boobs and such xD.
Also a lot of other guys I know on bodybuilding forums and the like have had problems with bodyfat scales. A lot of them are bonkers.

I agree though, genetics play a huge role. I should of been more clean in my post.


----------



## Devrim (Jan 26, 2013)

Thank you for all the good help 
It's meant a lot,
I am privvy to OCD type tendencies so I'm just closing my chapter thinking about this.

I found it wierd for myself as I have Ab definition,
And I have very prominent muscles according to most people,
I'll just be happy that people consider me lean and like my body definition xD

Thank you all again!


----------



## telepariah (Jun 20, 2011)

I have a fine marbling of fat. 

At a time when I was at close to my leanest I had an experienced friend measure me using the skin flap method. He said I was 13%. I remember being a little outraged that I was at such a high number. But I later realized that 13% is not high. :blushed:


----------



## Just_Some_Guy (Oct 8, 2009)

Just to chime in about BMI. I'm usually more eloquent, but the BMI is_ fucking retarded_. 

If anyone thinks you can find the volume of a cube by measuring only two of it's sides, BMI may just be a meaningful calculation for you. 

So, what I'm saying is fuck the Index. It has nothing meaningful to offer an intelligent human being. If you like the way you look, you're probably doing fine. 

I have broad shoulders, broad hips and a deep chest. According to the BMI, I need to lose 60 lbs. (I could stand to lose 30) In order to do so, I would need to be anorexic and maybe saw off one of my arms. 

That is, according to the BMI, until I develop anorexia and lose an arm, I will never be "healthy"








Seriously - it's fucking retarded.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

EmotionallyTonedGeometry said:


> Just to chime in about BMI. I'm usually more eloquent, but the BMI is_ fucking retarded_.
> 
> If anyone thinks you can find the volume of a cube by measuring only two of it's sides, BMI may just be a meaningful calculation for you.
> 
> ...



Well, BMI isn't supposed to be used on people who train or are athletes, but average people. It's a disadvantage but it's useful when used correctly.
Oh and usually, professionals combine it with a % body fat which makes it even better.
Btw the OP didn't mention anything about BMI.


----------



## Just_Some_Guy (Oct 8, 2009)

Red Panda said:


> Well, BMI isn't supposed to be used on people who train or are athletes, but average people. It's a disadvantage but it's useful when used correctly.
> 
> Btw the OP didn't mention anything about BMI.


"Index" =/= BMI ??? Some other index? 

I find the idea of "average people" to be preposterous. The problem is that "average" translates to "normal", so anyone who isn't normal is judged by astonishingly stupid standards. This is the very heart of all sorts of body image problems.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

EmotionallyTonedGeometry said:


> "Index" =/= BMI ??? Some other index?
> 
> I find the idea of "average people" to be preposterous. The problem is that "average" translates to "normal", so anyone who isn't normal is judged by astonishingly stupid standards. This is the very heart of all sorts of body image problems.


Oh you are right, I didn't notice he said index, yea that's what he means probably.

Well, nowadays average is probably someone who sits on their butt most of the day, or does very little exercise. I do agree with your point though. For people like me who've been overweight half their lives or more and don't do much exercise, BMI can be a decent tool to assess the situation. But, like I said, a body composition is much better. It's just that, most of the times it's obvious whether or not the X person has a BMI of "obese" or upper "overweight" due to muscle or fat. The problem lies when it is used by people who don't know that disadvantage of the index so they might think they are overweight when they're not.

I have seen people who are overweight by BMI standards and obese when measured their body fat % via DEXA....


----------



## Just_Some_Guy (Oct 8, 2009)

Red Panda said:


> Oh you are right, I didn't notice he said index, yea that's what he means probably.
> 
> Well, nowadays average is probably someone who sits on their butt most of the day, or does very little exercise. I do agree with your point though. For people like me who've been overweight half their lives or more and don't do much exercise, BMI can be a decent tool to assess the situation. But, like I said, a body composition is much better. It's just that, most of the times it's obvious whether or not the X person has a BMI of "obese" or upper "overweight" due to muscle or fat. The problem lies when it is used by people who don't know that disadvantage of the index so they might think they are overweight when they're not.
> 
> I have seen people who are overweight by BMI standards and obese when measured their body fat % via DEXA....


I've got a lot of agendas when it comes to this issue, so I'm often not very receptive. I've been bigger than others my entire life. More importantly for me, a female friend of mine growing up was built like a dump truck with huuuuuge hips and broad shoulders - the veritable definition of "big boned." But she only saw herself as "fat." I don't want to talk about the things she did because of this...

Another issue I like to bring up is that the BMI is _almost 200 years old._ The definition of "normal" is radically different now, mostly due to exercise. Plus, the type of "normal" exercise that has predominated medicine and the medical community has been running. The biases that have followed in the last 100 years of exercise journals is simply astonishing. 

On the other hand, it can be a little motivating when you realize you're off the charts. As mentioned, I am clearly over-weight and sometimes "I'm big boned" really means, "I'm fat and don't want to knowledge it, let alone do anything about it". I know I would be healthier (and happier) at 200 lbs, but 175 is simply unreasonable, if not impossible... unless I embrace running and waste away to nothing.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

EmotionallyTonedGeometry said:


> I've got a lot of agendas when it comes to this issue, so I'm often not very receptive. I've been bigger than others my entire life. More importantly for me, a female friend of mine growing up was built like a dump truck with huuuuuge hips and broad shoulders - the veritable definition of "big boned." But she only saw herself as "fat." I don't want to talk about the things she did because of this...
> 
> Another issue I like to bring up is that the BMI is _almost 200 years old._ The definition of "normal" is radically different now, mostly due to exercise. Plus, the type of "normal" exercise that has predominated medicine and the medical community has been running. The biases that have followed in the last 100 years of exercise journals is simply astonishing.
> 
> On the other hand, it can be a little motivating when you realize you're off the charts. As mentioned, I am clearly over-weight and sometimes "I'm big boned" really means, "I'm fat and don't want to knowledge it, let alone do anything about it". I know I would be healthier (and happier) at 200 lbs, but 175 is simply unreasonable, if not impossible... unless I embrace running and waste away to nothing.


Well, body types is a complicated issue, some people are naturally more muscular, or have more tendency to store fat, or don't have traditional curves if they're woman, which can lead to bad psychology given the stereotypes and ideals that both sexes are bombarded with. 
The BMI equation may be 200 years old, but the charts with the categories are much newer and are being updated whenever necessary (I think the last update was in 2000). Anyway, BMI is definitely not to be used alone, it's just an indication especially if you are way off. 
For example, I have a girl friend who's always been fat, but now she's very fat, at 130kg 1,77m so in her case using BMI isn't inaccurate because she's never exercised, and by using it I could help her understand that she must do something about it, because I had some numbers to compare and indicate how dangerous her situation is. And so far it's worked because she is trying.


----------



## Obscure (May 20, 2013)

Will tankman said:


> Don't trust those bodyfat scales/machines. They are a load of bullshit, trust me.
> 
> Easiest way is to tell by abs, if you can see your abs then you know you're around 10 percent or less. (This is if you have decent ab mass/definition btw , if you never trained your abs then yeah thats a bit hard haha).


Woohoo so I have no body fat. 
Tho boobs are in the way, maybe if I take them off I will be skinnier mwahahahahah!!


----------



## VioletIris (Jan 15, 2010)

So I just googled "healthy body fat percentage" and without exception, every site stated that, for my age range (50 - 60), my body fat percentage of 33% was "acceptable." I just had it measured using the machine you hold at arm's length in front of your chest.
I call BS on this (acceptable) because all the research I've done points to that much fat, especially visceral fat, as being unhealthy no matter _what_ age you are.
So now I will have to do what I have been planning to do for months: start lifting weights. Oh, my BMI (24) was Normal, so I am what is called "Normal weight obese" LOL. I don't care too much about losing pounds. I care about losing fat, and losing a couple of inches off my waist. 
I am very lazy when it comes to doing anything physical and outside of my comfort zone, so there will be my #1 obstacle.


----------



## this is my username (Apr 15, 2011)

What is "normal" anyway?


----------



## Mr Canis (Mar 3, 2012)

this is my username said:


> What is "normal" anyway?


There are ranges that vary from definition to definition, but this is a start:


DescriptionWomenMenEssential fat10–13%2–5%Athletes14–20%6–13%Fitness21–24%14–17%Average25–31%18–24%Obese32%+25%+

Body fat percentage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## this is my username (Apr 15, 2011)

Mr Canis said:


> There are ranges that vary from definition to definition, but this is a start:
> 
> 
> DescriptionWomenMenEssential fat10–13%2–5%Athletes14–20%6–13%Fitness21–24%14–17%Average25–31%18–24%Obese32%+25%+
> ...


I know, but who gets to decide which clump of bodies is "normal"?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

"There is no single ideal percentage of body fat for everyone. Levels of body fat are epidemiologically dependent on sex and age.[2] Different authorities have developed different recommendations for ideal body fat percentages. The table below from the American Council on Exercise (not an official government agency) shows how average percentages differ according to the specified groups and categories:[3]"


----------



## Mr Canis (Mar 3, 2012)

this is my username said:


> I know, but who gets to decide which clump of bodies is "normal"?


I see, I take it you are objecting to the term, rather than the ranges.

Like any machine, our bodies work best within certain parameters. Running around with excessive amounts of fat is simply not within optimal operating parameters, regardless of how feel good you want to be about body image.

I think the psych and physical issues are distinct. You can feel good about your appearance at 40% body fat, but that doesn't make it any more healthy for your body.


----------



## this is my username (Apr 15, 2011)

Mr Canis said:


> I see, I take it you are objecting to the term, rather than the ranges.
> 
> Like any machine, our bodies work best within certain parameters. Running around with excessive amounts of fat is simply not within optimal operating parameters, regardless of how feel good you want to be about body image.
> 
> I think the psych and physical issues are distinct. You can feel good about your appearance at 40% body fat, but that doesn't make it any less healthy for your body.


Human bodies are diverse.

I'm directing my statement more at the OP's situation than physiological theory.


----------



## Bago (Aug 30, 2011)

this is my username said:


> I know, but who gets to decide which clump of bodies is "normal"?


Nobody. It is just that the information is out there and it is continuously perpetuated, and hence it becomes a kind of "average" for humans, or an "average for this region" etc etc. 

I've recently started to rehaul my health and measured my entire body top to bottom, in order to understand my shape, my weight and my height in correlation towards one another. I begin to understand my body so much more this way. I did briefly looked at the body percentage thing too. Now that, I know it is also similar to an approximation and fat distribution, I may not take it too seriously either then and have hang ups about a specific number. 

For me, I have a "shape" in my mind as to how I should look, and I realised that shape has not been achieved, cos I can see small signs here and there on my body etc. Even though clothing hides a multiple of sins.


----------

