|
|
05-12-2012, 03:41 PM
|
#1
|
Up and at 'em...again!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Smack dab in the middle, Newfoundland, Canada
Posts: 668
S/C/G: 203.4/170.4/140.0
Height: 5'0"
|
NSV...holy ****!
Last night at work, it was ridiculously slow (I work at the local Y) and so, at a particularly boring time of night, I decided to bite the bullet and get the head trainer to redo my body composition analysis (the last one I had done was in late February.)
I set my goal BF% at 28% (since the last time, it was at 34%) and we put in my gender (female), my age (32), my height (5') and my body type (athletic).
When the results came out, the trainer went, "Holy....****."
And I was standing there going, "What? WHAT?! Oh my god, it's horrendous, isn't it? I'm half fat, aren't I? WHAT?!"
And he says, "In order for you to get to 28% body fat....you'll have to gain eleven pounds."
.......Pardon me?
But he was right. As of last night, I am at 22.4% body fat. And yeah, yeah, I know....those body fat analyzers are not as accurate as being measured with calipers. I know that. But there's no way they're that far off-base. Like, I doubt that I'm really at 40% body fat or something.
I'm just amazed, because on my last analysis, I was at 34%. I guess that weight training is paying off! And I guess that explains, too, why no one ever believes that I weigh as much as I do....because I don't have that much fat. (According to the analysis, out of my 140 pounds of total weight, only 32 pounds is fat.)
Let me tell you, I have been on cloud ten ever since last night! *L*
Last edited by Snoofie; 05-12-2012 at 03:41 PM.
|
|
|
05-12-2012, 03:43 PM
|
#2
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,371
Height: 5'4
|
Congratulations!
|
|
|
05-12-2012, 04:02 PM
|
#3
|
Stephanie
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 3,221
S/C/G: 236/135-140/More Fit
Height: 5'6"
|
That's awesome! I have one of those hand held ones, it has me at 38%, I had my body fat done at the gym with calipers, 7 spots, and it was 33.6%! So yes it was off, but it was higher than the calipers.
So even if it's off by a little bit that's seriously so freaking great! Good going!
|
|
|
05-12-2012, 04:02 PM
|
#4
|
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 214
|
Thats awesome and you are inspiration
|
|
|
05-12-2012, 04:25 PM
|
#5
|
Every pound is a victory
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Midwest, US
Posts: 1,477
S/C/G: 263/147/?
Height: 5' 6"
|
That's great!
|
|
|
05-12-2012, 05:47 PM
|
#6
|
Embracing the suck
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: California - East Bay
Posts: 3,185
S/C/G: 300/234/abs
Height: 6'9"
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snoofie
As of last night, I am at 22.4% body fat. And yeah, yeah, I know....those body fat analyzers are not as accurate as being measured with calipers. I know that. But there's no way they're that far off-base.
|
For your edification BIA prediction has a margin of error of about 8% so the most you could be at is around 30%.
|
|
|
05-12-2012, 05:47 PM
|
#7
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Somewhere in Texas
Posts: 679
S/C/G: 331/164/164
Height: 5'8"
|
That's tremendous. Congratulations.
|
|
|
05-12-2012, 06:14 PM
|
#8
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pickerington, Ohio
Posts: 721
S/C/G: 265/211/130
Height: 5'6"
|
Yay!!!
|
|
|
05-12-2012, 07:24 PM
|
#9
|
Up and at 'em...again!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Smack dab in the middle, Newfoundland, Canada
Posts: 668
S/C/G: 203.4/170.4/140.0
Height: 5'0"
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnP
For your edification BIA prediction has a margin of error of about 8% so the most you could be at is around 30%.
|
Well, actually, I'd be pleased enough with 30%. I also realize that because my analysis was done pretty much at the end of the day (I hadn't eaten in about six hours, but I *had* consumed about 3 cups of water an hour beforehand) it may have been off by a bit. But if you don't mind, I think I'll go with the 22%. In addition, what I've read has BIA at a margin of error of +/-3%. Of course, my sources may be wrong, but that's the most prevalent number I'm finding.
We did a second analysis, using the ridiculous goal BF of 15%, and according to that, I'd have to lose 10 pounds to reach that goal. But, I have no desire to bring myself down to that level....15% body fat just sounds way too low to me, and I've got enough hormonal problems without dropping that low.
Last edited by Snoofie; 05-12-2012 at 07:27 PM.
|
|
|
05-12-2012, 09:18 PM
|
#10
|
Embracing the suck
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: California - East Bay
Posts: 3,185
S/C/G: 300/234/abs
Height: 6'9"
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snoofie
In addition, what I've read has BIA at a margin of error of +/-3%. Of course, my sources may be wrong, but that's the most prevalent number I'm finding.
|
I've never heard BIA had a 3% margin of error. Perhaps that information comes from the manufacturer?
Here is my source.
Here is another study showing similar results.
And another.
By the way - I am in no way trying to invalidate your results. The point is that BIA is not accurate. I wish it were.
As for the 3% figure ... even a DEXA scan has a margin or error of 2% so I find it incredibly difficult to believe BIA could have a 3% margin.
|
|
|
05-12-2012, 09:27 PM
|
#11
|
Move over Kim Kardashian!
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 1,136
S/C/G: 220/ticker/135
Height: 5'5"
|
WOW That's amazing!!!! Good for you snoofie!! I'm gonna go into my local gym to see a buddy and have him do my Body Composition Analysis too!!
|
|
|
05-12-2012, 11:02 PM
|
#12
|
Overweight again...dang
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Arizona
Posts: 876
S/C/G: 213/160.3/135
Height: 5'5"
|
Now that's a great NSV!!
|
|
|
05-13-2012, 02:55 AM
|
#13
|
Up and at 'em...again!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Smack dab in the middle, Newfoundland, Canada
Posts: 668
S/C/G: 203.4/170.4/140.0
Height: 5'0"
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnP
I've never heard BIA had a 3% margin of error. Perhaps that information comes from the manufacturer?
Here is my source.
Here is another study showing similar results.
And another.
By the way - I am in no way trying to invalidate your results. The point is that BIA is not accurate. I wish it were.
As for the 3% figure ... even a DEXA scan has a margin or error of 2% so I find it incredibly difficult to believe BIA could have a 3% margin.
|
No, my numbers did not come from the manufacturer.
Dude, seriously? For someone who's "not trying to invalidate my results", you're doing a damn good job of it -- and getting on my damn nerves in the process. I AM HAPPY WITH MY RESULTS AND WOULD BE EVEN AT 8% HIGHER. There is really no need to go citing sources to try and prove that you're right, because I don't give a ****.
Last edited by Snoofie; 05-13-2012 at 03:00 AM.
|
|
|
05-13-2012, 08:19 AM
|
#14
|
WC
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 578
S/C/G: sz 14-16/sz 10/sz 10 now sz 8
Height: 5'7"
|
Congrats Snoofie that's an awesome accomplishment!!!!
|
|
|
05-13-2012, 08:25 AM
|
#15
|
Just Me
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Maryland
Posts: 14,707
S/C/G: 364/--/182
Height: 5'6"
|
In doing most any body fat analysis, the change is generally what matters, not the actual number and you've had a huge change. Congrats!
|
|
|
Related Topics
|
Thread |
Thread Starter |
Forum |
Replies |
Last Post |
September NSV'S
|
Sandi |
100 lb. Club |
164 |
10-01-2007 02:06 AM |
April NSV'S
|
rockinrobin |
100 lb. Club |
241 |
05-07-2007 08:35 PM |
March's NSV's
|
rockinrobin |
100 lb. Club |
275 |
04-01-2007 06:24 AM |
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:26 PM.
|