3 Fat Chicks on a Diet Weight Loss Community  

Go Back   3 Fat Chicks on a Diet Weight Loss Community > Support Forum > Weight Loss Support

Weight Loss Support Give and get support here!

Navy Circumference Body Fat Calculation?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-23-2007, 05:44 PM   #1
Boston Qualifier and MOM
 
ennay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Oregon
Posts: 5,795

S/C/G: 186/see ticker/?

Height: 5'3.75"

Default Navy Circumference Body Fat Calculation?

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.
__________________
A whole lot of setbacks. Starting over.

My before/after pics
ennay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2007, 06:13 PM   #2
Just Yr Everyday Chick
 
JayEll's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,139

S/C/G: Lost 50 lbs, regained some

Height: 5'3"

Default

Where do you find how to do that?

Jay
__________________
"My religion is kindness." --His Holiness the Dalai Lama

JayEll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2007, 06:59 PM   #3
Moderating Mama
 
mandalinn82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Woodland, CA
Posts: 11,938

S/C/G: 295/200/175

Height: 5' 8"

Default

Mine ended up the same as my body fat % scale...just about 29%.
__________________
Goal Met - 10/28/07 - My Progress Picture Collage - My Goal Story - Where Have I Been?

No matter how slow you go, you're still lapping everyone on the couch!

Maintained Oct 2007-Sept 2011, then got pregnant. Our baby boy was born in May, 2012...now to lose the baby weight!!
mandalinn82 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2007, 07:16 PM   #4
Boston Qualifier and MOM
 
ennay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Oregon
Posts: 5,795

S/C/G: 186/see ticker/?

Height: 5'3.75"

Default

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
__________________
A whole lot of setbacks. Starting over.

My before/after pics
ennay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2007, 07:38 PM   #5
cals. in v. cals. out
 
nomorefatpants's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 154

S/C/G: 157/151/130

Height: 5'6

Default

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
__________________


nomorefatpants is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2007, 07:44 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
alinnell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 9,928

S/C/G: 173/in progress/140ish

Height: 5'8"

Default

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.
__________________

(`'•.¸(`'•.¸ ¸.•'´) ¸.•'´)
``•Allison•``
(¸.•'´(¸.•'´ `'•.¸)`' •.¸)



“A Year from Now You May Wish You Had Started Today”~Karen Lamb
alinnell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2007, 08:02 PM   #7
cals. in v. cals. out
 
nomorefatpants's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 154

S/C/G: 157/151/130

Height: 5'6

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alinnell View Post
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
__________________


nomorefatpants is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2007, 08:14 PM   #8
ONEderland, I 0wn you!
 
Angihas2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 1,189

S/C/G: 289/195/169

Height: 5'10"

Default

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.
__________________


Goal 1: 214 lbs. Met!! Goal 2: 197 lbs. Met!! Goal 3: Keep getting healthy in 2013
Angihas2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2007, 09:12 PM   #9
Just Yr Everyday Chick
 
JayEll's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,139

S/C/G: Lost 50 lbs, regained some

Height: 5'3"

Default

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
__________________
"My religion is kindness." --His Holiness the Dalai Lama

JayEll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2007, 09:43 PM   #10
~~Maintainer!~~
 
jtammy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 2,496

S/C/G: 346/186/186

Height: 5' 9"

Default

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?
__________________
Tammy

160 lbs lost!


My progress pictures
jtammy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2007, 11:21 PM   #11
Boston Qualifier and MOM
 
ennay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Oregon
Posts: 5,795

S/C/G: 186/see ticker/?

Height: 5'3.75"

Default

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...
__________________
A whole lot of setbacks. Starting over.

My before/after pics
ennay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 11:13 AM   #12
cals. in v. cals. out
 
nomorefatpants's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 154

S/C/G: 157/151/130

Height: 5'6

Default

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.
__________________


nomorefatpants is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 12:32 PM   #13
I'M A YOGA WIDOWER!
 
EZMONEY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 21,844

S/C/G: 201/186/180

Height: 6'

Default

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.
__________________
As long as I live I will TESTIFY HIS LOVE!
EZMONEY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 12:36 PM   #14
I'M A YOGA WIDOWER!
 
EZMONEY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 21,844

S/C/G: 201/186/180

Height: 6'

Default

HAVE I GOT A SMART KID OR WHAT? OH YEA! PROUD DAD!! HERE
__________________
As long as I live I will TESTIFY HIS LOVE!
EZMONEY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 12:42 PM   #15
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 92

S/C/G: 126/114/115

Height: 5'3"

Default

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%.
__________________
Began fitness program: 1/6/2007
Age: 37
Circumference Body Fat%
Starting: 33%
Current: 24%
Goal: 20%

Measurements

Starting: Bust 36" Waist 31" Hips 38"
Current: Bust 36" Waist 27" Hips 37"

Dress/Jean Size:
Starting: 6 going on 8
Current: 4
MicheleKC is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Posts by members, moderators and admins are not considered medical advice
and no guarantee is made against accuracy.


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:46 AM.






Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.3.2