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!

BMI - scale vs. chart vs. covert bailey method

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-08-2009, 07:17 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
jendiet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: SC
Posts: 3,467

S/C/G: 211/see ticker/140

Height: 5'5"

Question BMI - scale vs. chart vs. covert bailey method--figured out the problem!

I think my scale is way off on my body fat % Reading 37%. *** Edited to say it read this bF% when I was 196 lbs.***

I am a very muscular person. Most of my fat is in my tummy, butt, and thighs--the rest of me looks like a skinny person.

Then there is the covert bailey method--which takes into consideration your body frame and all and that method gives me a 24% body fat result

Now I am like super confused. What is wrong with my scale?

and anyone hear about covert bailey?
__________________
My Weight Chart:
>

Last edited by jendiet : 07-09-2009 at 10:10 PM. Reason: know what I was doing wrong.
jendiet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2009, 09:04 AM   #2
One step at a time...
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NC
Posts: 467

S/C/G: 255/211/160

Height: 5'6"

Default

BMI is not a percentage. Are you saying that your scale is giving you a % BODY FAT number that you think is high?

__________________
[center]Long-Term Goal

Last edited by Rebound : 07-08-2009 at 09:05 AM.
Rebound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2009, 09:11 AM   #3
calorie counting works!
 
reji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 187

S/C/G: 164/ticker/135

Height: 5'6"

Default

It wasn't clear from your message, so you may know this already. Your scale is measuring body fat, which is not directly related to BMI. So the problem is the scale says 37% and the Covert Bailey method says 24%. Unfortunately, neither one of them is necessarily accurate. My scale read 36%, yet when I had it tested by a health professional, I was told it was actually 28%. The scale is useful for telling when the body fat percentage moves; for example, if I exercise a lot, the number should go down. But the actual number it gives is probably not accurate. The Covert Bailey method is better, but it still could be wrong. This is what his site says:

For some people, however, the results of the tape measure test may not come so close to their true percent body fat. People who are very, very fit can get numbers 3 to 5 percent higher than their true percent body fat. Because they don't have a lot of fat inside their muscles, very fit people may be lower in body fat than this tape measure test indicates.

Conversely, if a person is skinny but not fit, this body fat test may yield a number 3 to 5 percent lower than his or her true percent body fat. Though they look thin, unfit skinny people really have more than the usual amount of fat inside their muscles, which you can't see from the outside.
__________________

reji is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2009, 09:45 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
jendiet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: SC
Posts: 3,467

S/C/G: 211/see ticker/140

Height: 5'5"

Default

I got ya! So I can use the Covert Bailey method to see how I am doing...But use my scale to see if my numbers are changing! I am glad I am not the only one with a wayward scale. I use a Taylor it is a few years old though. It's pretty accurate on weight so I was floored when it seemed so inaccurate on body fat %. This is what I rely on the most!
__________________
My Weight Chart:
>
jendiet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2009, 09:53 AM   #5
There Is No Wagon
 
forestroad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Vermont, USA
Posts: 1,048

S/C/G: 33.3%/21.8%/19%

Height: 5'5"

Default

I tried a google search but it mostly came up with his book...how do you do the covert bailey method?
__________________
Mini-Goals:
155 by July 4th: Achieved 6/29
148 ("normal" bmi) by Labor Day: Achieved 7/15
140 by my birthday, November 26: Achieved 9/03
New goal: 135 by Halloween--Achieved 10/31!




Find grace in your strength, and strength in your grace.
forestroad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2009, 10:21 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
jendiet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: SC
Posts: 3,467

S/C/G: 211/see ticker/140

Height: 5'5"

Default

ok.

here's a link directly to the calculator.

http://www.healthcentral.com/cholest...-2774-143.html

if that doesn't work, I'll explain it for you in detail.

I think the major difference is that my wrists--one of the thinnest places (they're pretty bony) on my body are still 6 inches in circumference.
__________________
My Weight Chart:
>
jendiet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2009, 10:27 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
sacha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,640

S/C/G: 163/128/125

Height: 5'5

Default

BMI and bodyfat are very different scales. BMI is simply a number on a chart that puts you in an approximate underweight/healthy/overweight/obese etc... range. It does not take muscle into account.

However, unless you are a bodybuilder and have an unusual amount of muscle, it really doesn't make too much of a difference.

Bodyfat simply measures the % of fat on your body, regardless of weight. A very weak but skinny woman could easily have 30% bodyfat, whereas a very muscular 160lb female could have a bodyfat of 15%.

A "true" bodyfat % rating is done through a test where they submerge you in water, and I hear it is very expensive. It is the most accurate, whereas scales can easily be off by 5%.

A 37% bodyfat reading (with a 5% difference) seems accurate for your height and weight. A bodyfat reading of 24% is at the top of the athletic range.

Check this out:
http://www.bodyspex.com/Community.aspx?ArticleID=3
__________________

Maintainer 2004-2009/3 Pregnancies/Maintainer 2013 - Present

sacha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2009, 10:51 AM   #8
There Is No Wagon
 
forestroad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Vermont, USA
Posts: 1,048

S/C/G: 33.3%/21.8%/19%

Height: 5'5"

Default

Thanks! I have access to ebooks through my college's library and am reading Ultimate Fit or Fat right now Yay for work procrastination!

P.S. My Omicron tells me 29%, but Covert Bailey tells me 24%...I like this Covert Bailey thing
__________________
Mini-Goals:
155 by July 4th: Achieved 6/29
148 ("normal" bmi) by Labor Day: Achieved 7/15
140 by my birthday, November 26: Achieved 9/03
New goal: 135 by Halloween--Achieved 10/31!




Find grace in your strength, and strength in your grace.

Last edited by forestroad : 07-08-2009 at 10:52 AM.
forestroad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2009, 10:56 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
sacha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,640

S/C/G: 163/128/125

Height: 5'5

Default

From: http://www.dakotabody.com/images/body-fat-women.gif

__________________

Maintainer 2004-2009/3 Pregnancies/Maintainer 2013 - Present


Last edited by Heather : 07-09-2009 at 12:13 AM.
sacha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2009, 10:58 AM   #10
One step at a time...
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NC
Posts: 467

S/C/G: 255/211/160

Height: 5'6"

Default

You may want to edit your post title to make it clear that you are talking about % body fat, not BMI. Could clear up some confusion

But I'm glad that you seem to have had your question answered!

__________________
[center]Long-Term Goal
Rebound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2009, 12:49 PM   #11
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

I just wanted to say that at your weight and height, it would not be unusual for 37% body fat to be correct. At my high weight (198) I was 44% body fat. I got down to 33% by the time I reached 153. It was measured the same way both times, and on the same machine, so even though the absolute values may not be accurate, the difference probably is.

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


Last edited by JayEll : 07-08-2009 at 01:56 PM.
JayEll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2009, 12:58 PM   #12
Cancun Bound
 
Shannon in ATL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Wherever I go, there I am...
Posts: 7,057

S/C/G: 190/149/130

Height: 5'5.5"

Default

My scale shows total weight, BMI (had to program in age & height), percent hydration, pounds of water, a body fat %, and pounds of body fat. I don't know how accurate they all are - it shows me a 19.1 BMI & 18ish% body fat, but that body fat number can change drastically if the percent water number goes low.
__________________
-Shannon
"Nothing is impossible. The word itself says I'm possible." --Audrey Hepburn
My Long Goal Story Post|My Daily Plate Journal

Shannon in ATL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2009, 01:07 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
sacha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,640

S/C/G: 163/128/125

Height: 5'5

Default

Yeah, the bodyfat scales are usually inaccurate but usually no more than 5% so I think they are a very good home indicator. After all, a 5% difference is really not too much, it indicates your range at least and that is what is most important. Who can afford a $300 hydro test each month? LOL.

I'm at 19-20% after a few years of weight training. I'm not too strict with diet, I could go lower, but I don't feel the need. I am working on building muscle right now. This is totally unflexed (relaxed).
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 2009-07-05 Puppy 008.JPG (15.9 KB, 13 views)
File Type: jpg 2009-07-05 Puppy 007.JPG (17.2 KB, 13 views)
__________________

Maintainer 2004-2009/3 Pregnancies/Maintainer 2013 - Present

sacha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2009, 03:23 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
jendiet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: SC
Posts: 3,467

S/C/G: 211/see ticker/140

Height: 5'5"

Default

well since there is like little to none fat on my lower legs (my calves are 15 inches in circumference). 5 lbs each on my hips, 10 lbs across my abdomen, 5 lbs across my back. 5 lbs across my butt, and another 10 lbs elsewhere--I would say 43 lbs of fat is right compared to 66--that is actually ridiculous. Now that I think of it.

I have very lean and muscular legs as well as very lean and muscular arms--so I am going with the covert bailey. I also am not a small frame. I am extremely pudgy in the middle.

however, I will use the scale to monitor my downward trend.

Thanks everyone for your input!

Something else about the scale that troubles me is that it read the same body fat% at 196 as it does at 180.6--that is why I wanted some advice on it.
__________________
My Weight Chart:
>
jendiet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2009, 03:41 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
sacha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,640

S/C/G: 163/128/125

Height: 5'5

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jendiet View Post
however, I will use the scale to monitor my downward trend.

Thanks everyone for your input!

Something else about the scale that troubles me is that it read the same body fat% at 196 as it does at 180.6--that is why I wanted some advice on it.
You might want to try hydrostatic water testing, since it is accurate within 1%. You can do it at some gyms and most universities for around $50. It's a bit $ but well worth it to truly get an accurate reading.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but at 180lbs and 5'4, being 24% - can't be accurate. I hope that doesn't upset you, but that is why I recommend hydrostatic testing so you get a realistic picture of what you are working with.
__________________

Maintainer 2004-2009/3 Pregnancies/Maintainer 2013 - Present

sacha 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 11:10 PM.






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