I’m 215. On the caliper I’m 22% fat. A fat cell is approx 20% water. The math on that would equal 17.6 percent tissue.
Wouldn’t 17.6 % fat be my body fat % ?
I just thought to decrease the water from the fat but i don’t think that is common. For all i know that is apart of how body builders measure these 4% body fats. They knew to subtract the water.
So is this a legitimate claim?
[quote]ScreenWatcha wrote:
I’m 215. On the caliper I’m 22% fat. A fat cell is approx 20% water. The math on that would equal 17.6 percent tissue.
Wouldn’t 17.6 % fat be my body fat % ?
I just thought to decrease the water from the fat but i don’t think that is common. For all i know that is apart of how body builders measure these 4% body fats. They knew to subtract the water.
So is this a legitimate claim?[/quote]
Why not go ahead and subtract 70% of your body weight considering thats how much water we have?
So your actual weight is 64.5lbs!! Meaning your lbm is around 50lbs!! Do you even lift???
If you measured 22%, then you are 22%. To me the appearance is what matters. Why subtract the water? It is there making you look fatter.
Do you subtract the water weight from your LBM? If you’re body is mostly water, how much of you really exists according to your calculations?
You don’t subtract water weight from the fat calcs.
[quote]Bauber wrote:
If you measured 22%, then you are 22%. To me the appearance is what matters. Why subtract the water? It is there making you look fatter.[/quote]
I think this says it best. Measuring your bf% is should just be a tool for you to gauge progress. Anything else is no different than a dick measuring contest, especially since the bf% calculated by anything is hardly accurate. When I started my fat loss in January, it said I was 16% bf.
188.8 * .16 = 30lbs of fat, 158lbs
So as of this morning, I’m 163.5. Assuming I lost 4-5lbs of muscle, which I think is a bit aggressive considering it took me 5 months to lose the 24lbs, I should be 6.5% bodyfat. Well, I still can’t see my abs.
Conclusion, that calculation results mean sh!t except for ensuring I’m moving in the right direction.
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
[quote]Bauber wrote:
If you measured 22%, then you are 22%. To me the appearance is what matters. Why subtract the water? It is there making you look fatter.[/quote]
I think this says it best. Measuring your bf% is should just be a tool for you to gauge progress. Anything else is no different than a dick measuring contest, especially since the bf% calculated by anything is hardly accurate. When I started my fat loss in January, it said I was 16% bf.
188.8 * .16 = 30lbs of fat, 158lbs
So as of this morning, I’m 163.5. Assuming I lost 4-5lbs of muscle, which I think is a bit aggressive considering it took me 5 months to lose the 24lbs, I should be 6.5% bodyfat. Well, I still can’t see my abs.
Conclusion, that calculation results mean sh!t except for ensuring I’m moving in the right direction.[/quote]
You are quite wrong. A common mistake in these kind of calculations is forgetting how much water you lose, which is in fact part of LBM.
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
[quote]Bauber wrote:
If you measured 22%, then you are 22%. To me the appearance is what matters. Why subtract the water? It is there making you look fatter.[/quote]
I think this says it best. Measuring your bf% is should just be a tool for you to gauge progress. Anything else is no different than a dick measuring contest, especially since the bf% calculated by anything is hardly accurate. When I started my fat loss in January, it said I was 16% bf.
188.8 * .16 = 30lbs of fat, 158lbs
So as of this morning, I’m 163.5. Assuming I lost 4-5lbs of muscle, which I think is a bit aggressive considering it took me 5 months to lose the 24lbs, I should be 6.5% bodyfat. Well, I still can’t see my abs.
Conclusion, that calculation results mean sh!t except for ensuring I’m moving in the right direction.[/quote]
You are quite wrong. A common mistake in these kind of calculations is forgetting how much water you lose, which is in fact part of LBM.
[/quote]
I don’t see how I’m “wrong”. Your point just further proves the fact that the measurements are unpredictable b/c of many factors you can’t directly measure: Water in fat cells, water in muscle cells, bone density, how much food is in your digestive track, maybe you have a dump truck stuck in your colon, how much of your fat is subcutaneous vs visceral, etc.
The measurements can certainly tell me whether I’m losing fat, for example a 7 site measurement total goes from 100mm → 60mm, but how accurate the bf% calculation is varies on the person and in the end doesn’t really mean that much. If it calculates 8% bf but I still can’t see my abs, which is a situation I’ve been in multiple times, what good does that do me?
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
[quote]Bauber wrote:
If you measured 22%, then you are 22%. To me the appearance is what matters. Why subtract the water? It is there making you look fatter.[/quote]
I think this says it best. Measuring your bf% is should just be a tool for you to gauge progress. Anything else is no different than a dick measuring contest, especially since the bf% calculated by anything is hardly accurate. When I started my fat loss in January, it said I was 16% bf.
188.8 * .16 = 30lbs of fat, 158lbs
So as of this morning, I’m 163.5. Assuming I lost 4-5lbs of muscle, which I think is a bit aggressive considering it took me 5 months to lose the 24lbs, I should be 6.5% bodyfat. Well, I still can’t see my abs.
Conclusion, that calculation results mean sh!t except for ensuring I’m moving in the right direction.[/quote]
You are quite wrong. A common mistake in these kind of calculations is forgetting how much water you lose, which is in fact part of LBM.
[/quote]
I don’t see how I’m “wrong”. Your point just further proves the fact that the measurements are unpredictable b/c of many factors you can’t directly measure: Water in fat cells, water in muscle cells, bone density, how much food is in your digestive track, maybe you have a dump truck stuck in your colon, how much of your fat is subcutaneous vs visceral, etc.
The measurements can certainly tell me whether I’m losing fat, for example a 7 site measurement total goes from 100mm → 60mm, but how accurate the bf% calculation is varies on the person and in the end doesn’t really mean that much. If it calculates 8% bf but I still can’t see my abs, which is a situation I’ve been in multiple times, what good does that do me?
[/quote]
I understand the point you’re trying to make. You can’t make a conclusion that the calculation was shit though when you didn’t even account for water loss. You basically assumed the only factors are muscle and fat, which is false. You need to account for the fact that for every couple lbs of fat lost you also lose a comprable amount of water (which is part of LBM!) This requires a little bit of algebra =/
The reason I raised exception is because these kind of calculation are actually pretty good tools for getting a rough idea of where you need to be to hit a target composition.
Right on. I definitely agree and see where I didn’t make that distinction clear.
So, kind of along the same lines as using it as a progress marker. It allows you to make a long term plan with an end date +/- a few weeks, is that how I understand what you were saying?
If so, I totally agree, although it didn’t workout so well for me lol. I’ve reached what I thought I needed to reach a while ago, but I guess it wasn’t such a good predictor for me =/