Guest guest Posted May 16, 2002 Report Share Posted May 16, 2002 I think that may not be a good formula for you. 15 mm around the waist is quite a bit for 8% fat. I can pinch 5 mm on mine with the calipers and the various methods measure me somewhere between 4-11%. Using Hussman's calculator http://www.hussman.org/fitness/caliper.htm which just takes the waist measurement into account, it puts me at 7.6%. If you are my age, it puts you at 17.9%. However, your chest and thigh sounded low. I don't feel your forumula worked very well for your measurements. Maybe you are somewhere between 8-18%? Also, one this page he mentions a logarithm formula which I think is pretty accurate for me. Men: Fat % = 10.32 x ln(Sum) + 0.0657 x ln(Sum) x Age - 27.03 The Sum is the sum of the sum of the 4 readings: tricep, bicep, back and waist. It is my conclusion that there isn't a 100% accurate method (at least for me) unless you dissect yourself. I have had underwater weighing which put me at 4% which I very much doubt. Bioelectrial Impedance was 11%, calipers with the 4 measurements is 9.5%, another method (not sure what it was) put me at 3%, and my Tanita scale on athlete puts me at about 7.5%. My numbers are all over the place. Some of the methods work better for certain people. Just use one or two methods to track a downward trend and go by how you look in the mirror. Andyman > > Hello All: > > I recently had my bodyfat tested, and I must say that I am pleased > with my results, but I have a question to put out. > > I had my fat tested using the and Pollock Formula. Three > areas were measured- on my chest, waist and thigh. > > Measurements came out to around 4mm for chest, 15mm for the waist, > and 7mm for the thigh. > > My calculations came out to around 8% (Error of +/- 3%). > > I'm confused because my I still have a noticeable amount of fat > around my midsection (36 inch waist). Is is possible to have a body > type that is too unique for this type of system? > > Except for the concentration on my stomach and hips, there is little > body fat elsewhere. > > How accurate is this system? Are there other, more accurate ways? > > Take care Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2002 Report Share Posted May 17, 2002 I think a sports medicine specialist could answer the question about body type. As a layman I personally believe you can burn the fat off over time. As far as the body fat composition - the BEST method according to my first trainer at NY Sports Clubs is to go to a university sports / fitness research center where they put you in a water tank to weigh you and do the thing they do to calculate the body fat. It costs bucks though. He explained it to me but I forgot what he said. (I'm hoping exercise will also help sharpen my mind, LOL.) > > Hello All: > > I recently had my bodyfat tested, and I must say that I am pleased > with my results, but I have a question to put out. > > I had my fat tested using the and Pollock Formula. Three > areas were measured- on my chest, waist and thigh. > > Measurements came out to around 4mm for chest, 15mm for the waist, > and 7mm for the thigh. > > My calculations came out to around 8% (Error of +/- 3%). > > I'm confused because my I still have a noticeable amount of fat > around my midsection (36 inch waist). Is is possible to have a body > type that is too unique for this type of system? > > Except for the concentration on my stomach and hips, there is little > body fat elsewhere. > > How accurate is this system? Are there other, more accurate ways? > > Take care Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2002 Report Share Posted May 17, 2002 My underwater weighing was free at our University since I agreed to be part of a research study for 8 weeks. They don't offer it to the general public though even if you want to pay. There is a place on campus where they will measure BF with calipers for free. I didn't feel that the underwater method was very accurate for myself and they say it tends to overestimate BF in lean people and it had me as low as 4%. Andyman > > > > Hello All: > > > > I recently had my bodyfat tested, and I must say that I am pleased > > with my results, but I have a question to put out. > > > > I had my fat tested using the and Pollock Formula. Three > > areas were measured- on my chest, waist and thigh. > > > > Measurements came out to around 4mm for chest, 15mm for the waist, > > and 7mm for the thigh. > > > > My calculations came out to around 8% (Error of +/- 3%). > > > > I'm confused because my I still have a noticeable amount of fat > > around my midsection (36 inch waist). Is is possible to have a body > > type that is too unique for this type of system? > > > > Except for the concentration on my stomach and hips, there is > little > > body fat elsewhere. > > > > How accurate is this system? Are there other, more accurate ways? > > > > Take care Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2002 Report Share Posted May 17, 2002 4%!!! Damn, what % do you think you are? 4%!! get out of our group! j.k ;0 > > > > > > Hello All: > > > > > > I recently had my bodyfat tested, and I must say that I am > pleased > > > with my results, but I have a question to put out. > > > > > > I had my fat tested using the and Pollock Formula. Three > > > areas were measured- on my chest, waist and thigh. > > > > > > Measurements came out to around 4mm for chest, 15mm for the > waist, > > > and 7mm for the thigh. > > > > > > My calculations came out to around 8% (Error of +/- 3%). > > > > > > I'm confused because my I still have a noticeable amount of fat > > > around my midsection (36 inch waist). Is is possible to have a > body > > > type that is too unique for this type of system? > > > > > > Except for the concentration on my stomach and hips, there is > > little > > > body fat elsewhere. > > > > > > How accurate is this system? Are there other, more accurate ways? > > > > > > Take care Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2002 Report Share Posted May 17, 2002 It is not likely I am 4%. Have you seen my pics? I used BFL initially to lose fat. No, I didn't have as much to lose as some and many some people questioned why I was doing anything at all, but I think my pics show definite improvement. Now that I am pretty happy with my BF%, I'm trying to gain muscle and if I lose more fat that's good too. I'll have more pics in a few weeks and I have a feeling that I will see great improvement over the past 12 weeks. At least that I am seeing that in the mirror and usually it takes a picture for me to see it. There are many pics of members in the files section for this list. My website with my pics is http://www.geocities.com/andyman68/andybfl.htm Andyman > > > > > > > > Hello All: > > > > > > > > I recently had my bodyfat tested, and I must say that I am > > pleased > > > > with my results, but I have a question to put out. > > > > > > > > I had my fat tested using the and Pollock Formula. > Three > > > > areas were measured- on my chest, waist and thigh. > > > > > > > > Measurements came out to around 4mm for chest, 15mm for the > > waist, > > > > and 7mm for the thigh. > > > > > > > > My calculations came out to around 8% (Error of +/- 3%). > > > > > > > > I'm confused because my I still have a noticeable amount of fat > > > > around my midsection (36 inch waist). Is is possible to have a > > body > > > > type that is too unique for this type of system? > > > > > > > > Except for the concentration on my stomach and hips, there is > > > little > > > > body fat elsewhere. > > > > > > > > How accurate is this system? Are there other, more accurate > ways? > > > > > > > > Take care Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2002 Report Share Posted May 17, 2002 Those are great pics! I cant wait till i see some results like that.. I used to be in such great shape.. *sigh* age, and lazyness set in... Here are some of my NOW pics http://communities.msn.com/djkmospicspage VIEWER BEWARE! LOL. Hopefully I can get back to this Chest Dancing pic: http://www.geocities.com/kevino9906/mypictures.html (Not completely viewable with AOL).. . > > > > > > > > > > Hello All: > > > > > > > > > > I recently had my bodyfat tested, and I must say that I am > > > pleased > > > > > with my results, but I have a question to put out. > > > > > > > > > > I had my fat tested using the and Pollock Formula. > > Three > > > > > areas were measured- on my chest, waist and thigh. > > > > > > > > > > Measurements came out to around 4mm for chest, 15mm for the > > > waist, > > > > > and 7mm for the thigh. > > > > > > > > > > My calculations came out to around 8% (Error of +/- 3%). > > > > > > > > > > I'm confused because my I still have a noticeable amount of > fat > > > > > around my midsection (36 inch waist). Is is possible to have > a > > > body > > > > > type that is too unique for this type of system? > > > > > > > > > > Except for the concentration on my stomach and hips, there is > > > > little > > > > > body fat elsewhere. > > > > > > > > > > How accurate is this system? Are there other, more accurate > > ways? > > > > > > > > > > Take care Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2002 Report Share Posted May 17, 2002 Those are great pics! I cant wait till i see some results like that.. I used to be in such great shape.. *sigh* age, and lazyness set in... Here are some of my NOW pics http://communities.msn.com/djkmospicspage VIEWER BEWARE! LOL. Hopefully I can get back to this Chest Dancing pic: http://www.geocities.com/kevino9906/mypictures.html (Not completely viewable with AOL).. . > > > > > > > > > > Hello All: > > > > > > > > > > I recently had my bodyfat tested, and I must say that I am > > > pleased > > > > > with my results, but I have a question to put out. > > > > > > > > > > I had my fat tested using the and Pollock Formula. > > Three > > > > > areas were measured- on my chest, waist and thigh. > > > > > > > > > > Measurements came out to around 4mm for chest, 15mm for the > > > waist, > > > > > and 7mm for the thigh. > > > > > > > > > > My calculations came out to around 8% (Error of +/- 3%). > > > > > > > > > > I'm confused because my I still have a noticeable amount of > fat > > > > > around my midsection (36 inch waist). Is is possible to have > a > > > body > > > > > type that is too unique for this type of system? > > > > > > > > > > Except for the concentration on my stomach and hips, there is > > > > little > > > > > body fat elsewhere. > > > > > > > > > > How accurate is this system? Are there other, more accurate > > ways? > > > > > > > > > > Take care Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2002 Report Share Posted May 17, 2002 It's all just numbers, bodyfat, scale weight, measurements. Try not to pay too much attention to them, except as a tool to measure CHANGES (i.e. a downward trend). If you still have fat around the midsection (I assume this means you can't see your abs) then I doubt you are 8%BF. Not that it is impossible, mind you, just unlikely. Most men can see their abs when they get below 10% BF (for some it's right at 10% and for others it's not until they get to 6-8%). Anyway, like everyone else said, just make certain you use the same person to measure, that you do it at the same time of day under the same circumstances (not right after a workout, not right after eating a meal, etc) and keep in mind that it's only a number (and not one that is outwardly apparent anyway). How you look and feel is the real prize. If you look awesome and feel good about your body, then BF% doesn't matter. Jen B. > > Hello All: > > I recently had my bodyfat tested, and I must say that I am pleased > with my results, but I have a question to put out. > > I had my fat tested using the and Pollock Formula. Three > areas were measured- on my chest, waist and thigh. > > Measurements came out to around 4mm for chest, 15mm for the waist, > and 7mm for the thigh. > > My calculations came out to around 8% (Error of +/- 3%). > > I'm confused because my I still have a noticeable amount of fat > around my midsection (36 inch waist). Is is possible to have a body > type that is too unique for this type of system? > > Except for the concentration on my stomach and hips, there is little > body fat elsewhere. > > How accurate is this system? Are there other, more accurate ways? > > Take care Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2002 Report Share Posted May 17, 2002 It's all just numbers, bodyfat, scale weight, measurements. Try not to pay too much attention to them, except as a tool to measure CHANGES (i.e. a downward trend). If you still have fat around the midsection (I assume this means you can't see your abs) then I doubt you are 8%BF. Not that it is impossible, mind you, just unlikely. Most men can see their abs when they get below 10% BF (for some it's right at 10% and for others it's not until they get to 6-8%). Anyway, like everyone else said, just make certain you use the same person to measure, that you do it at the same time of day under the same circumstances (not right after a workout, not right after eating a meal, etc) and keep in mind that it's only a number (and not one that is outwardly apparent anyway). How you look and feel is the real prize. If you look awesome and feel good about your body, then BF% doesn't matter. Jen B. > > Hello All: > > I recently had my bodyfat tested, and I must say that I am pleased > with my results, but I have a question to put out. > > I had my fat tested using the and Pollock Formula. Three > areas were measured- on my chest, waist and thigh. > > Measurements came out to around 4mm for chest, 15mm for the waist, > and 7mm for the thigh. > > My calculations came out to around 8% (Error of +/- 3%). > > I'm confused because my I still have a noticeable amount of fat > around my midsection (36 inch waist). Is is possible to have a body > type that is too unique for this type of system? > > Except for the concentration on my stomach and hips, there is little > body fat elsewhere. > > How accurate is this system? Are there other, more accurate ways? > > Take care Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2002 Report Share Posted May 17, 2002 Thanks! You can do it again. Looks like you have a good foundation to work with. Andyman > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello All: > > > > > > > > > > > > I recently had my bodyfat tested, and I must say that I am > > > > pleased > > > > > > with my results, but I have a question to put out. > > > > > > > > > > > > I had my fat tested using the and Pollock Formula. > > > Three > > > > > > areas were measured- on my chest, waist and thigh. > > > > > > > > > > > > Measurements came out to around 4mm for chest, 15mm for the > > > > waist, > > > > > > and 7mm for the thigh. > > > > > > > > > > > > My calculations came out to around 8% (Error of +/- 3%). > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm confused because my I still have a noticeable amount of > > fat > > > > > > around my midsection (36 inch waist). Is is possible to > have > > a > > > > body > > > > > > type that is too unique for this type of system? > > > > > > > > > > > > Except for the concentration on my stomach and hips, there > is > > > > > little > > > > > > body fat elsewhere. > > > > > > > > > > > > How accurate is this system? Are there other, more accurate > > > ways? > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.