I went to a weight loss clinic in Sacramento recently and part of their initial visit was to have me stand on what looked like a fancy, high-tech scale with bicycle handles. It wasn't bike handles. The handles actually had metal on them, as well as metal where I placed my feet, to run a small current and discover what my body composition was. It's not the most accurate thing, but I didn't have to strip down or get under water.
So it said my lean body mass was 160 lbs. I figure it's pretty close. I'm almost 5'11" and I definitely have big bones. I've been working out with weights and doing Pilates for the past two years and I know that under all my fluffy layers there's muscle because I can feel it in there.
So let's just say it's totally accurate. Does that mean for an athletic woman's build, body fat around 25%, I should weigh 200 lbs? That's like 10-35 lbs more than what those weight charts tell me I should weigh.
I know that as I lose weight, if I don't keep exercising, I'll lose some of my lean mass. I'm going to keep working out because I don't really want to. I like the idea of being a strong-looking woman.
I knew it wasn't accurate, but it made me think about how much of the LBM I was going to still lose even though I'm pumping weights and doing Pilates. Even if it was 10% off (144 lbs) and I add to that 22% body fat, that puts me at about 176 lbs for goal weight.
I guess I'll worry about my actual body fat % percentage when I break below 200 lbs. That's when I'm going to track down that truck and get dunked!
A few years ago, I worked for a telecom company, we manufactured, telecom wire. Impedence, was a big deal. I ran a big cable line that manufactured, 100 pair wire. The machine was as long as a football field, let's load 100 reels of 2 pair wire, and let her rip, onto a take up, that quartered the wire into 4 groups of 25 pair.
I can't even imagine how impedence would have anything to do with weight/fat loss and fitness.
While it does have certain scientific applications, with weight loss and fitness, it would be the last thing I would concern myself with.
the best guess i could find online was a couple hundred dollars.
there's another method being touted that i've never heard of, called DEXA, that's cheaper.
Found hydrostatic locally for $60 (googled my city and body fat testing). I think I might try it. They also do RMR testing (resting metabolic rate) for $75
Honestly I found the naval circumference as good an estimate as bio impedance. Not for raw number per se, but for change in composition. Less prone to fluctuations due to water weight, humidity, how long since I pooped, etc.
For awhile I tracked hand held bio, foot bio, and found that I could predict when I was going to see a drop in water weight by the difference between them.
Anybody had a bioimpedence body fat test?
.
