Holy Cow 33%BF now I wonder what I was!
 

So I got a new scale this morning because I'm tired of trying to decide on a goal weight and want to just base it on how I feel, look, fitness level and general health. So I wanted a scale that had all the bells and whistles and calculated body fat and whatnot. Thank God it was the same as my old scale, I was terrified I was going to be posting "I got a new scale and it's 10lbs heavier than my old scale".

Anywho. My BF is 33% which is considered high. I'm not suprised, I can certainly see some areas particularly my mid section that are flubby. But I'm just wondering how high it must have been at 268lbs, I must have been over 40% maybe even 50%...I mean I was almost half fat...so sad...

So what is a realistic goal for BF? It looks like the lean to normal range is 17-25%. So I think something under 25% would be good, but how does BF relate to weight loss? I know that it's probably hard to say because you never know if the lb you lost is muscle, water or fat. But in theory if I lost 1 lbs of pure fat how many % would that be? I guess I'm asking because I have 10-20lbs to go and I am weight lifting so I'm hoping I'm losing more fat now, but is a 7-10% loss in 10-20lbs possible?

I wonder if there's a sticky in the weight lifting threads about this. I'm going to go look.

You probably don't want to hear this, but I have found the body fat % portions of scales to be highly inaccurate - they measure LOW. At least mine does as does several other ones that I've used. Mine is a Tanita, one of the best. The weight is HIGHLY accurate, but the body fat - ummm, not so much.

I remember a long time ago, when I measured mine with one of those hand held devices, gosh I don't remember the exact number, but boy was it HIGH.

I'm not sure if what you're looking for is in this thread

http://www.3fatchicks.com/forum/weig...h-reading.html

but is there ever a bunch of good stuff! And enough links to keep you reading for days ;)

Interestingly enough this one is in the middle if the two calculators I used. One said 37% the other 27%. I'll get a real reading done at some point but figured this would be a good gauge and at least I'd be able to see if I was making any progress.

Gotcha. :smug:

Well, setting aside the accuracy of the numbers you're starting with, it's just math.

You weigh 159.0 pounds and have 33.0% body fat. That's 52.47 pounds fat and 106.53 pounds LBW.

If you lost 1 pound of pure fat, your new numbers would be 158 total pounds, 51.47 pounds fat and the same 106.53 pounds of LBW. Your new bodyfat percentage would be 51.47/158 = 32.58%

So you'd lose about 0.42% body fat with that pound.

The next pound of pure fat lost: 50.47/157 = 32.14%. That pound would be about 0.44%.

So you can see that if you continue losing pure fat, the percent goes up a wee bit each time, since your LBW is not going down.

But of course you will lose some LBW too (LBW isn't all muscle).

If you lost pure fat with a 10 pound loss, you'd go from 159 to 149 total pounds, and 51.47 pounds fat to 41.47 pounds fat.

New bodyfat would be 41.47/149 = 27.83%
33% - 27.83% = 5.17% decrease in bodyfat percentage.

If you lost pure fat with a 20 pound loss, you'd go from 159 to 139 total pounds, and 51.47 pounds fat to 31.47 pounds fat.

New bodyfat would be 31.47/139 = 22.64%
33% - 22.64% = 10.36% decrease in bodyfat percentage.

Wow thanks! Math was never my strength. My DH makes fun of me because I still have to carry the one when I do basic math:o

Having seen your pics (those that you posted last week), I doubt that your BF is 33%. That seems to be awfully HIGH for what you look like.
Although looks can be deceiving. I don't know if you did any muscle-boosting exercise during your weight loss or not. But the 33% really surprised me.

When I started, (at 208 lbs), my BF was measured as 34.4%. That was at the gym, using a similar gizmo (not calipers). When I was at my best last summer, my BF% hovered between 21 and 22%. Again, the measurement was obtained at the gym but also at a naturopathic clinic using some other device, and the two measurements were less than 1% within each other, so I assumed them to be fairly accurate. Of course, it is possible that they were BOTH wrong but that was what I had access to. I am a bit taller than you but than I did a fair amount of weight lifting so I know I was adding lean body mass as well.

I saw a chart somewhere online that listed my BF% (around 21%) as excellent for my age (I turned 50 last August). In general, between 21-24% is considered FIT and anything below 20% is considered ATHLETIC.
It's quite hard to get below 20%, unless you get really lean and do a lot of intensive training.

I found this calculator which measures neck, waist and hips for women. I like it! I also have a chart in the back of my personal trainer book you may find helpful:

Female:

Age:.......Risky:.......Excellent:.......Good:.... ...Fair:.......Poor:.......Very poor:
19-24.....<11............18.9..............22.1...... ..25.0........29.6..........<29.6
25-29......................18.9..............22.0.... ....25.4........29.8
30-34......................19.7..............22.7.... ....26.4........30.5
35-39......................21.0..............24.0.... ....27.7........31.5
40-44......................22.6..............25.8.... .....29.3.......32.8
45-49......................24.3..............27.3.... ....30.9........34.1
50-54......................26.6..............29.7.... .....33.1.......36.2
55-59......................27.4..............30.7.... .....34.0.......37.3
60+........................27.6..............31.0. ........34.4.......38.0

This is why I'm afraid to have my body fat measured. I'm sure it's up there--and the implication for what it HAD been.......too scary to contemplate.

Mine was 41% back in March. Now it's 36%. I'm happy with that. I'm still excited to get to poor on my chart! :D LOL! A little like I'll be excited to finally be overweight! :rofl:

Scales that measure body fat are very unreliable. They are hugely impacted by your hydration level, among other things.

Calculation by measurements doesn't work too well, either, though I imagine it is more accurate for those without a lot of muscle definition. Still, water immersion is best, followed by calipers. These two methods are leaps and bounds above the others. Certainly, however, using measurements or a scale you already own is more cost effective. Just don't get too invested in the numbers you get, since they can be off by quite a bit.