# Body fat Calculator



## rzieba (Apr 8, 2006)

I found this online body fat calculator. Obviously I don't expect it to be really accurate, but if anybody here knows what their bodyfat really is could you do this quick test so we can see how close the results are? Thanks.

http://www.healthcentral.com/cooltools/nutrition/homebodyfattest.aspx


----------



## Pirate! (Apr 8, 2006)

It's got me at 15.5, but I just got thoroughly tested ten days ago, and I was ~13%. I'd say it is off by 1% for me. Pretty damn good estimate, IMO.


----------



## Emma-Leigh (Apr 9, 2006)

Usually these things are pretty inaccurate - and I would not rely on it at all for an accurate result... 

But I did it and it put me at ~12.5% which is about right...


----------



## rzieba (Apr 9, 2006)

So we got two positve results so far. Not right on the mark, but sounds like it comes pretty close if you measure correctly.


----------



## DiGiTaL (Apr 10, 2006)

i dont know my hips inches .


----------



## Emma-Leigh (Apr 10, 2006)

Well there are these things called tape measures... They are really helpful for these sorts of situations! 

Either that or get a peice of string, measure around your hip, and then measure the string...


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Apr 11, 2006)

honestly, getting a rough estimate from these things is fine but (1) most people DRASTICALLY underestimate their bf% and (2) they all pretty much suck.

everytime i hear a chick say _"i've got 10% bf because 'X' test said so"_ i want to stick something in my eye (or guy for that matter). this is one of my coach's clients at 14% bf (just as a reference). she was measured with DEXA which is light years ahead of any caliper, tanita or measurement fill in scale on the market.


----------



## b_reed23 (Apr 11, 2006)

she looks LOADS smaller that 14%!! Dayum!


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Apr 11, 2006)

b_reed23 said:
			
		

> she looks LOADS smaller that 14%!! Dayum!


exactly my point


----------



## Tom_B (Apr 11, 2006)

Isn't her upper body lower than 10% BF? And her lower body was 20+% which is why she averaged out to be 14?


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Apr 11, 2006)

Tom_B said:
			
		

> Isn't her upper body lower than 10% BF? And her lower body was 20+% which is why she averaged out to be 14?


how would someone know that? it's not how the machines work. you can't stick your arm in it to figure out what your upper body bf% is v. your butt cheek to get your lower body bf%. you're missing the purpose of my post.


----------



## Tom_B (Apr 11, 2006)

Actually the DEXA will tell you that ...
This link here was her results wasn't it??
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...f cut/DEXAOctober2005withskinfoldcomparis.jpg

I got it from this thread ..
http://www.wannabebigforums.com/showpost.php?p=1226313&postcount=1

Yes I know what your getting at in your point. I was just saying though you also gotta take into account that parts lean out differently than others .. yes her OVERALL BF % was 14 .. but to say that also her upper body is around 14% just isn't accurate at all.  Espically since all you did was post a pic of her upper body.


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Apr 11, 2006)

Tom_B said:
			
		

> Yes I know what your getting at in your point. I was just saying though you also gotta take into account that parts lean out differently than others .. yes her OVERALL BF % was 14 .. but to say that also her upper body is around 14% just isn't accurate at all.  Espically since all you did was post a pic of her upper body.


whatever blows your hair back. still missing my point entirely. as i said in my first post, the vast majority of people drastically underestimate their bf%. calipers and tanitas are find for following progress on a very general scale but as a whole, they're not accurate. 

the picture was to prove a point. nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Tom_B (Apr 11, 2006)

The13ig13adWolf said:
			
		

> whatever blows your hair back. still missing my point entirely. as i said in my first post, the vast majority of people drastically underestimate their bf%. calipers and tanitas are find for following progress on a very general scale but as a whole, they're not accurate.
> 
> the picture was to prove a point. nothing more, nothing less.


 Ok ... I understood your point and I completely agree that people underestimate this bf% and that calipers / tanitas are not accurate. etc.
All I was trying to say is that the picture you posted saying was 14% showed a region of her that was half of that. Her trunk was 7.2% BF. I thought it was a bit misleading to others to say that was 14% ..

But we'll just agree to disagree.


----------



## aggies1ut (Apr 11, 2006)

Tom_B said:
			
		

> Ok ... I understood your point and I completely agree that people underestimate this bf% and that calipers / tanitas are not accurate. etc.
> All I was trying to say is that the picture you posted saying was 14% showed a region of her that was half of that. Her trunk was 7.2% BF. I thought it was a bit misleading to others to say that was 14% ..
> 
> But we'll just agree to disagree.


Personally, I agree with you Tom. Of course lots of people underestimate their bf % because "x" test told them that it was such and such. That pic is a good example how overall bf % is a composition of both upper and lower regions of the body. Everyone holds most of their fat in different locations ie: hips, butt, legs, abs, etc. Since you do not see her lower half in that pic, it is a bit misleading to say that she's at 14% bf without further explaination.


----------



## Emma-Leigh (Apr 11, 2006)

You are right Tom - if you remember the post I posted about this woman previously - although she is an example of how people can underestimate BF% - in this case her upper body was much leaner than her lower half, so she looks a lot less than she is! 

But I agree that the online measurements are VERY inaccurate... And I also agree that many people (especially females) say they are a lot leaner than they are in reality...


----------



## Tom_B (Apr 11, 2006)

hahah yup I remembered. That's how I reconized the picture and who she was, as well as I got the links from you journal


----------



## aggies1ut (Apr 11, 2006)

Ya, I've seen that pic on numerous sites, as well as Emma's journal.


----------



## Caesar (Apr 11, 2006)

for the online one, it said i was 7%, but im closer to 9.5% or 10%.....


----------



## pakkya (Apr 13, 2006)

I ve no clue wat this statement meant: 

Measure in the dip between the bony part of your wrist and the start of your hand 

is it measuring the ciircumference of ur wrist or the start of ur hand?


----------



## Emma-Leigh (Apr 13, 2006)

pakkya said:
			
		

> I ve no clue wat this statement meant:
> 
> Measure in the dip between the bony part of your wrist and the start of your hand
> 
> is it measuring the ciircumference of ur wrist or the start of ur hand?


You need to measure between the widest bony bit of your wrist bones (where that bone sticks out on the outside) and the start of your palm... So right in the crease area.






This is a piccy that shows you where to measure...


----------



## Tier (Apr 13, 2006)

said i was at 10%... lies


----------



## Skate67 (Apr 14, 2006)

According to that, i have 4.5% body fat  I think my tiny ass and wrists are throwing it off


----------

