Just how fat am I?

dukepaulus

Since getting back into cycling 20 months ago I've shed 16kg of excess body weight. I'd like to trim down still further but didn't want to set a weight target because I expect the training will increase my lean muscle, especially around my legs, so I decided to aim for a body fat target.
In order to get a baseline I've tried various methods of estimating my body fat. I used a calculator which utilises algorithms developed by the US military and even the YMCA. The calculations are based on Height, Weight and key measurements around various parts of the body and claim to give results within a couple of percentage points. The results I got varied from 23% to 27% and averaged 25%.
I also got a measurement from one of those electronic gizmos that use resistance to estimate body fat. This gave me a result of 17%. So just how fat am I? I know that all these methods give only an estimate but it would be nice to know how accurate the estimate is so I can set a realistic target.
Does anybody know about the relative accuracies of these methods or maybe there's a better method out there that I don't know about?
I'm currently 5'9" and 156lb ( 11st 2 )by the way.

dw300

Hard to tell. The 23% number sounds most likely. That would put you at about 127lbs lean mass. So at 10% you'd be about 140lbs if you have a small frame (6.5" wrist circumference or less). There are ways to calculate using frame statue which make calculations more meaningful.

I'd go with calipers if done properly. Electronic is more prone to error. A further 8-10lbs would put you below 15% which is decent shape for a quick cyclist.

dw300

Try this .. http://www.davedraper.com/bodyfat-calculation.html

It puts me at 12% ..

Weight 70kg (153lbs)
Height 177 (5'10" ish)
Neck 37.5cm
Hips 81cm
Waist 78cm
Forearm 27.5cm
Wrist 16cm

Which is with 1% of what calipers say I am too. A couple of percent is about as close in BF accuracy as you can expect to get really, but it's all you need.

BF is a great measurement, especially for folks that reckon they haven't much left to loose. You might have as much as 29lbs of fat on you, of which you need about 6lbs, so 1.5st of useless ballast, so keep it up.

Now if I can just take my own advice!

kom14

A DXA scan is considered to be the gold standard method to determine body composition. Universities sometimes offer this service. Costs likely to vary but might be worth checking out.

Skinfold testing (as previously suggested is very good), but I would make sure that the individual carrying out the test is ISAK qualified to ensure reliability of any retests. All skinfold sites are accurately measured + girth measurements taken...useful to identify any muscle mass increase like you mentioned re legs.

http://www.isakonline.com/home

ianwilliams

Great job so far.

With a number like that, it is only really worth something in relation to another value. Every method you choose will have some margin of error. What really matters is to keep the tool the same - and so the margin of error - over a period of time.

diamonddog

dw300 wrote:

Try this .. http://www.davedraper.com/bodyfat-calculation.html

It puts me at 12% ..

Weight 70kg (153lbs)
Height 177 (5'10" ish)
Neck 37.5cm
Hips 81cm
Waist 78cm
Forearm 27.5cm
Wrist 16cm

Which is with 1% of what calipers say I am too. A couple of percent is about as close in BF accuracy as you can expect to get really, but it's all you need.

BF is a great measurement, especially for folks that reckon they haven't much left to loose. You might have as much as 29lbs of fat on you, of which you need about 6lbs, so 1.5st of useless ballast, so keep it up.

Now if I can just take my own advice!

Good link, I tried the online calculator as I already know my body fat figure for comparison, the online one was very near to my known figure perhaps a little lower.

charlie_potatoes

dw300 wrote:

Try this .. http://www.davedraper.com/bodyfat-calculation.html

I came in at 8%. Better than expected but a bit more to go yet
Thanks for posting the link.

matudavey

I wouldn't trust the electrical resistance method;
Skinfolds last summer put me around 13%
The above calculator put me at 16%
The Salter electronic analyser scales: 26.1% !!

dw300

diamonddog wrote:

Good link, I tried the online calculator as I already know my body fat figure for comparison, the online one was very near to my known figure perhaps a little lower.

Charlie Potatoes wrote:

I came in at 8%. Better than expected but a bit more to go yet
Thanks for posting the link.

You're welcome.

Obviously the goals and training are entirely different, but being lean professionally, bodybuilders tend to know how to monitor their BF well.

If any of you aren't aware of Scooby1961 watch these .. great Youtube channel for basic bodybuilding info, but also stuff to do with nutrition and fat loss. Like Durianrider, I get as much from their attitude and motivation, than from the info.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI8oMdj54ns - Video 2, watch it first.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYMNPP2ZR1U - Video 1.

Lots of people huff and blow about accuracy of measurement. But Maths > Technology, plot a treand and get far more accuracy than all but top end tech.

keefsloan

This is an interesting topic. I'm 89kg's, 194cm and weight train in order to be able to focus on my main activities (boxing / traditional martial arts and MMA for 25 years). I love cycling and can carry distance / climb pretty well (both on road and MTB) but don't have what you would call a "cyclists physique"! I've just worked out that, in order for me to have a pro level w/kg figure (which, for Froome last year was about 5.8w/kg) I'd have to have an FTP of 520, about 25% higher than Chris Froome!!! Obviously, that's never going to happen. Using the calculator above I'm 15% body fat. I can live with that. So am I fat? Obviously I am for a cyclist, but I'm pretty much on the button for my "main" physical activities, and am actually looking to "bulk up" by a couple of kilos which'll make me even less cycle-y. The real problem I have is balancing my love of riding (2 x turbo sessions a week with Trainer Road, plus a Sunday morning ride) with weight training and the explosive power combat activities. If I cycle too much then I start to lose mass due to the high aerobic (and therefore calorie burning) nature of riding, which affects my explosive power in the ring / when I'm training. But if I don't cycle enough then I suffer because I can't ride as well when I am out (and I do a 550km European ride once a year, plus a few 100 mile sportives). I think I've found the happy medium, but last year I did overdo the riding and dropped to about 84kg. Man, did I feel that weight loss (and not in a good way either!!). So riding isn't always about being skinny - I ride for pleasure and to help keep my cardio in shape (not necessarily a great indicator, but I have a resting heart rate of about 49bpm of which I've no doubt that my cycle training plays a part in keeping me fit for the other activities).

Oh, and like most cyclists, I ride because it then enables me to look at and buy nice shiny new things for my bike in the misguided belief that it'll make me faster / better. Because I really, REALLY need those new ceramic bearing jockey wheels...

:-)

shockedsoshocked

kom14 wrote:

A DXA scan is considered to be the gold standard method to determine body composition. Universities sometimes offer this service. Costs likely to vary but might be worth checking out.

Skinfold testing (as previously suggested is very good), but I would make sure that the individual carrying out the test is ISAK qualified to ensure reliability of any retests. All skinfold sites are accurately measured + girth measurements taken...useful to identify any muscle mass increase like you mentioned re legs.

http://www.isakonline.com/home

A GP Surgery or a Hospital, or a Sports Science department with an InBody might also do the trick.

http://www.e-inbody.com/

Or someone who's excellent with calipers.

I know Leeds Carnegie have a DXA, however it's probably a bit excessive for your needs considering they are normally reserved for analyzing people at a risk of Osteoporosis and other low bone mineral density issues.

bernithebiker

dw300 wrote:

Try this .. http://www.davedraper.com/bodyfat-calculation.html

It puts me at 12% ..

Weight 70kg (153lbs)
Height 177 (5'10" ish)
Neck 37.5cm
Hips 81cm
Waist 78cm
Forearm 27.5cm
Wrist 16cm

Weight 64kg (put on a couple over Xmas, ahem....)
Height 175
Neck 38cm
Hips 82cm
Waist 77cm
Forearm 28cm
Wrist 16.5cm

So VERY close to your figures, and it put's me at 11%. Interestingly, even if I up my weight to 80kg, (or even 120kg) the 11% doesn't change, so it's mostly looking at your measurements.

Do you take a Small in Castelli?!

dw300

bernithebiker wrote:

dw300 wrote:

Try this .. http://www.davedraper.com/bodyfat-calculation.html

It puts me at 12% ..

Weight 70kg (153lbs)
Height 177 (5'10" ish)
Neck 37.5cm
Hips 81cm
Waist 78cm
Forearm 27.5cm
Wrist 16cm

Weight 64kg (put on a couple over Xmas, ahem....)
Height 175
Neck 38cm
Hips 82cm
Waist 77cm
Forearm 28cm
Wrist 16.5cm

So VERY close to your figures, and it put's me at 11%. Interestingly, even if I up my weight to 80kg, (or even 120kg) the 11% doesn't change, so it's mostly looking at your measurements.

Do you take a Small in Castelli?!

Wow, very close in measurements. You must also be a great looking guy!

Yeh, it'll be mostly measurements, because those sites are generally close to your bones or sites that carry the fat. So if it knows your sex, height, then it knows your frame size roughly (usually the wrist measurement, and probably forearm), then it can predict roughly what body fat you carry.

If you were significantly heavier but the measurements remained similar then it assumes the weight is carried as muscle. However add an inch or two to your waist or hips and im sure the percentage probably changes a fair bit.

Ha, don't know Castelli size .. usually small top, medium/large shorts in other stuff though.

liter

For males the calculation seems to use only height, neck and waist.