Does anyone know which method of %BF measuremt is the better; the measurement method (like in hip to waist ratio, circumference of neck and forearm, etc) or the electronic method, like what you'd find in a digital scale.
Which is the better method for %BF measurement?
- Thread starter nickorette
- Start date
Bzzz wrong.
I've seen scales that were off by 3-10%
The only proper way (imho) is to have someone that's done it before measure you.
well that must have been sh** scales
Basically all methods are predictions, And there are loads of factors that can negatively influence the results.
Those scales suck for doing bodyfat. At least the ones I have bought in the $120+ range. Maybe if you got the $399+ one's, they are actually worth a **** for figuring out bodyfat, but the $120's that I have tried are great at being accurate for weight, horible for bodyfat.
And how is it a prediction? Is getting on a scale and seeing your weight a prediction as well?
I use this bodyfat caliper . It's really easy to use and fairly accurate once you know what you are actually measuring.
yeah I got a BF and weight scale. It says I'm between 12 and 9% BF. There is no way in hell I'm that low. I just use it as a reference to make sure I'm not like constanly going up on a week by week basis.
I would recommend the body fat caliper which perform skinfold test would be a better choice, BUT that has to come with an experienced physical trainer or specialist. Like what matt said, "there are loads of factors that can negatively influence the results." Like not pinching properly to parallex error, those little errors that could add up.
If you have the chance, you could try Hydrostatic Water Test where you are lowered into a water tank and the displacement is measured. Quite interesting..
Regards,
Sam Chng
LiveWithFitness.com
If you have the chance, you could try Hydrostatic Water Test where you are lowered into a water tank and the displacement is measured. Quite interesting..
Regards,
Sam Chng
LiveWithFitness.com
Last edited:
an electronic scale (taht you stand on, or a handheld one) are just estimates that rely heavily on how hydrated you are.
skinfold tests are more accurate, IF the person performing the test is experienced. But there is still a +/- 2% margin of error.
a hydrostatic test (underwater body fat test) is very accurate, but hard to find.
most accurate is a DEXA scan, which is like an MRI, and is quite hard to find, and rather expensive.
skinfold tests are more accurate, IF the person performing the test is experienced. But there is still a +/- 2% margin of error.
a hydrostatic test (underwater body fat test) is very accurate, but hard to find.
most accurate is a DEXA scan, which is like an MRI, and is quite hard to find, and rather expensive.
I've had measurements done over the past week by caliper, electronic hand device, and body measurements. Amazingly all of these estimates have been within 1-2% of one another. I was particularly surprised with the body measurements approach (MSExcel formula for male calculation below):
BF% = 86.01 * Log (Waist size in inches - Nech size in inches),10) - 70.041 * Log (Height in inches, 10) + 36.76
I'm sure there are flaws in all of these estimates in calculating an absolute BF%, so I keep track of them only to measure change.
BF% = 86.01 * Log (Waist size in inches - Nech size in inches),10) - 70.041 * Log (Height in inches, 10) + 36.76
I'm sure there are flaws in all of these estimates in calculating an absolute BF%, so I keep track of them only to measure change.
the less hydrated you are, the less conductive you are, so the more erratic the readings, and they usually were higher the less hydrated you were.
for example my old Tanita scale, upon waking at 6am, I would come in at 18% bodyfat.
By 6pm with a days worth of fluid drinking, 14% bodyfat.
quite a leap.