Weight Loss Support - Navy Circumference Body Fat Calculation?




ennay
02-23-2007, 05:44 PM
Has anyone tried it and compared it to other methods? (skin fold, etc)

According to my BF scale I am ~36-37% fat. I tend to think the scale is a bit high.

According to the Navy calculation I am ~ 29% fat.

Boy I like that one better. It also seems to make slightly more sense. I mean I am technically only a few pounds overweight by BMI, and I am fairly athletic and 37% body fat would still be considered pretty heavily overweight.

I dont really know where I started as I couldnt find a tape measure so I dont have measurements until yesterday. It would be interesting to see if there is any correlation at all.


JayEll
02-23-2007, 06:13 PM
Where do you find how to do that?

Jay

mandalinn82
02-23-2007, 06:59 PM
Mine ended up the same as my body fat % scale...just about 29%.


ennay
02-23-2007, 07:16 PM
Jay - http://www.he.net/~zone/prothd2.html

I read a study that said it was as accurate as skinfold.

I was planning on getting skinfold done when I got closer to goal, just to help define goal.

One of the things that makes me suspect my scale is off is the navy one says my ideal weight is ~ 125 which is pretty close to what I think is reality. My scale would make it be more like 115 which seems really really low

nomorefatpants
02-23-2007, 07:38 PM
mine came out to 28%, i don't have a body fat scale but I got tested by a trainer back in October and i was at 31% and I've lost ten pounds since then.
If it turns out that this is accurate, it's good news for me :)

alinnell
02-23-2007, 07:44 PM
Mine came out to 26% and said I should be 22% and that my optimum weight is 126. No way will I be able to get down to 126.

nomorefatpants
02-23-2007, 08:02 PM
Mine came out to 26% and said I should be 22% and that my optimum weight is 126. No way will I be able to get down to 126.

weird it said my optimum weight is 129 and you're a lot taller than me
It also said my body fat % should be 22 but I think that's women generally

Angihas2
02-23-2007, 08:14 PM
It says my BF is 55% and my ideal weight is 121, no freaking way. When I weighed 127, 6 years ago, I was disgustingly underweight, you could literally see every bone in my body.

JayEll
02-23-2007, 09:12 PM
Yeah, I got my ideal weight as 111. Gosh... that would put my BMI almost below the normal range. Dunno what to think. I notice they don't ask age.

Jay

jtammy
02-23-2007, 09:43 PM
It is Weird, I was told my ideal weight is 160, and I'm an inch shorter than Angie. :?: Don't get me wrong, I think 160 would be a good weight for me. I just don't understand how taller people would have a lower goal weight.

What significance does our neck size have upon a goal weight?

ennay
02-23-2007, 11:21 PM
its a measure of bone structure I think- large neck-large bones - higher weight.

The goal weight seems really skewed the heavier you are. It assumes the weight if you gained no muscle at all...

nomorefatpants
02-24-2007, 11:13 AM
It may be what activity level we put. If the taller people with the lower "goal" weights put the highest activity level that may account for the difference?
No idea.
I put myself as "Active"

Are you guys reading the number above which is lean body mass?
I actually have weighed 129 and it was a healthy weight for me.

EZMONEY
02-24-2007, 12:32 PM
HELLO, this is AMANDA, Gary's daughter ~

My dad wanted me to look at this thread because I work at the Naval Health Research Center in San Diego and my boss (Jim Hodgdon) is the person who created the Navy Circumference Equation. It is a fairly reliable method but as with all methods, it is just an estimate. The most accurate (the golden standard) is the hydrostatic- underwater weighing- method. Skinfolds are also very accurate--but the skinfold administrator is only considered reliable if they have done skinfolds on over 100 people with a very high inter-rater reliability.

I really don't like the next page of that website- the one that gives you your "ideal body weight." This estimate is NOT connected with the navy's estimation equation. I think what it is giving you is your weight minus the amount of weight of pure fat that you would need to lose in order to be at your ideal body fat percentage. However, I don't think it accounts for the weight of muscle that you need to be building in place of that fat. Let me give you an example of what I mean: I am 5'10, 150 pounds. The website told me that my ideal weight is 138 pounds. Instead of interpreting this as "I need to weigh 138 pounds", I think you should think, this means I need to lose 12 pounds of fat and, in my case, replace that with muscle.

I think the most important thing is to remember that every estimation varies for each individual to some extent.

EZMONEY
02-24-2007, 12:36 PM
HAVE I GOT A SMART KID OR WHAT? OH YEA! PROUD DAD!! HERE :carrot:

MicheleKC
02-24-2007, 12:42 PM
Hi there: That's the online calculator that I use and compare to my Tanita scale. They usually match. I think that if the body fat% on the Tanita scale is off, it has more to do with hydration level. When hydration level is up, the body fat% is more accurate. The actual weight on the scale doesn't go up or down based on those other two measures.

My neck is a little over 12 inches and my wrist is around 6 inches. I have a "small" body frame. Extra fat really makes me feel sluggish and not very healthy.

The Navy online calculator has my ideal weight at 106. I remember weighing that and I looked and felt very good at around 110. I have 115 as my goal, but I might work on getting to 110, but only if I can also build muscle and I'm losing the body fat as I lose the weight. If I start to look too thin, I'll stick at 115. I'm not really concerned about the weight as much as I am the body fat%.

MicheleKC
02-24-2007, 12:51 PM
HAVE I GOT A SMART KID OR WHAT? OH YEA! PROUD DAD!! HERE :carrot:

Hi Amanda and Dad: Thanks for your response!! I was posting mine and the same time I read yours.

Not to hijack the thread, but I am curious if the average civilian woman would benefit from following any military standards, like with the Army. They acknowledge that women have higher body fat % than men. To them, they have to pass the tape test and meet standards or get flagged, but they also don't want to sacrifice performance (being able to physically do the job) for weight. However, I sometimes think that certain military uniforms, like the Army, are more "forgiving" than tighter civilian clothes, and friends of mine in the Army, are sometimes surprised that they appear overweight instead of fit when they're in tighter civilian clothes (according to them, most are women.)

My question really is, is it ever possible for someone who is overweight, but is larger than someone who is normal weight, to still be able to out-perform them at certain tasks (like lifting more) simply because of their weight, not necessarily because they have a lot of muscle?

I hope that sounded right and not like I was denegrating any service or service members.:?:

lilybelle
02-24-2007, 01:05 PM
I only wish mine was as low as it shows. It calculated me to be 19% body fat. I'm 5'7 and 142 lbs. Shows my ideal wt. to be 140 lbs. I personally feel like I'm about 25% body fat.

MicheleKC
02-24-2007, 01:16 PM
I only wish mine was as low as it shows. It calculated me to be 19% body fat. I'm 5'7 and 142 lbs. Shows my ideal wt. to be 140 lbs. I personally feel like I'm about 25% body fat.

Do you work out with weights? Maybe it's accurate and you're mostly lean body mass instead of fat.

lilybelle
02-24-2007, 01:25 PM
Michelle, I don't work out with weights. That is why I think I have a higher body fat than it shows. I do a lot of cardio, am slender , but not necessarily very muscular. I do have fairly large bones (as I can feel them very easily such as ribs, hip bones, prominent clavicles and shoulder blades and such). Other than my thighs and calves (which are muscular) everything else just feels extremely bony. (except my tummy, it still feels pretty fat). I just recalculated mine as moderate activity instead of active and it came out the same.

Michelle, I just saw your measurements goal. Man, that would be awesome. Right now mine is 36-30-33. I sure wish I could get my waist to even 28-29 and I'd be a happy camper. LOL. I definitely have a thicker waist and No-butt.

improbable
02-24-2007, 03:26 PM
Wow lilybelle,we're really similar- I'm also 5'7 and 142, but my measurements are 36 27 36 w/ a 14 neck. I got 19% too... interesting. I'm still a little chubby on my lower belly, but it doesn't show in measurements.

lilybelle
02-24-2007, 04:33 PM
Bekka, my neck is also 14", that is probably why it shows us both at 19%. I sure envy that 27" waist.

JayEll
02-24-2007, 05:05 PM
MicheleKC, any kind of endurance test. Higher fat provides energy longer. So, some kinds of long distance running. Also, swimming. Many of the top long-distance swimmers are women, and they aren't thin little things, either.

At least, that's my belief... don't know whether it's really true...

Jay

cajungal328
02-24-2007, 06:31 PM
Are you kidding me??? This website tells me that my body fat is 62%, and my ideal weight is 88 lbs!!!! If I were 88 lbs I would look anorexic!!! OMG!! I am 5'3" and I have a medium / large build. I am like 190 now, 200 on the new scale I bought. 88 lbs, that's just crazy!! I was aiming for 130 lbs, 120 - 125 at the very least....

canadian mom
02-24-2007, 06:38 PM
It says for me to be 122 I am 5'3 and currently 139 (unless the scale blesses me tomorrow). So I think it really only estimates your weight well if you are only a bit overweight.

ennay
02-24-2007, 08:22 PM
Are you kidding me??? This website tells me that my body fat is 62%, and my ideal weight is 88 lbs!!!! If I were 88 lbs I would look anorexic!!! OMG!! I am 5'3" and I have a medium / large build. I am like 190 now, 200 on the new scale I bought. 88 lbs, that's just crazy!! I was aiming for 130 lbs, 120 - 125 at the very least....

It gives crazy numbers if your neck measurement is inaccurate.

lilybelle
02-24-2007, 10:26 PM
I just calculated my starting measurements and weight to see what happened. It came out that I was 50% body fat when I first started to lose weight. I calculated my DH's and it came out to 9% body fat, which seems very believable to me.

ennay
02-24-2007, 11:10 PM
wow...ok I'm impressed...I found some old weight/measurements and put it in and all 3 have my "ideal weight at 125.

One was from when I weighed 178 and another was from 158