"Ideal" Vs. "Average" weight & bodyfat

rubadub

A recent post has a large guy has calculating a daily calorific needs as ~3800kcal using the calculator here.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50956807&postcount=4

On packs of food etc, you usually hear women 2000kcal and men as 2500kcal, these are usually quoted as "average". But these days the average person is well over the "ideal" weight. Therefore should the average recommended intake be increased in accordance with what the true basal rate is? I have heard the average Irish person takes in 3800kcal. This is a lot, and what is more I know I personally take in ~2000kcal ATM, so somebody else is taking up my shortfall, i.e. the remaining 1800kcal could be going ontop of somebodies already high 3800kcal, and getting little exercise.

There is probably no extreme danger in having the 2500kcal recommendation, but it does mean some people may be subjecting themselves to a large deficit. I often see this in "diet programs" on TV, where very obese people are on 1500kcal a day, which is a huge deficit. The dreadful lipotrim doesnt take current weight/metabolism into account at all!

So do you think the "recommended amounts" should be increased to reflect the overall increase in average basal metabolism?
Clothes sizes have gone up, I was shocked when I measured myself and discovered I am now a "small" size, on one brand anyway.

Also most of the calculators ignore muscle/fat ratio. So a 100kg fat man and a 100kg BBer will show up as having the same metabolic rate on a calculator, while the BBer will usually have a higher metabolism. I suppose they veer towards the fat person as they are more common, and a BBer is usually aware of inherent discrepancies in calculators.

Also for this reason, can there really be an ideal BF%? Say you have 10kg of fat on your body, for a skinny person this could be 5% BF, while for a bodybuilder it could be 10%. I remember seeing some webpage and it said the lower level of fat for men was 2-4%, then I saw BBer pages saying some were at this level, and only then copped on that they were very heavy so still had some fat. So any "ideal" BF% should really take into account your lean mass.

Hanley

rubadub wrote: »

So any "ideal" BF% should really take into account your lean mass.

I would have thought that since it was a percentage of overall body weight then bf% already accounts for lean mass?

10kg of fat on a 100kg guy - 10% bodyfat
10kg of fat on a 70kg guy - 15% bodyfat

As for calculating kcal needs, it probably makes more sense to do it off of lean muscle.

21stone

im the bloke with the 3800 kcal needs im 21.5 stone

i'll attach pic and u can see i dont look it at all

only pics i have to hand

but u get gist

rubadub

Hanley wrote: »

I would have thought that since it was a percentage of overall body weight then bf% already accounts for lean mass?

10kg of fat on a 100kg guy - 10% bodyfat
10kg of fat on a 70kg guy - 15% bodyfat

Yeah. That was the point I was getting at. If somebody said 15% BF was "ideal", it might be presuming you were at an "ideal" weight with "normal" lean mass.

i.e. using your figures I was wondering if what they really meant was that 10kg of fat was "ideal", rather than 15%BF.

Say it was recommended to have a certain thickness of fat on your body, then a 100kg bodybuilder will have a bit more skin on him to cover thicker arms etc, but the surface area increase will be less than the relative mass increase. e.g. the surface area of a 500ml coke bottle is more than 1/4 the size of a 2L coke bottle. So the 100kg man might have 10% more skin than the 70kg man, yet is ~40% heavier.


Just seems it is widely recognised that BMI is unsuitable for bodybuilders as it ignores muscle, but also any "ideal BF%" will similarly be skewed. A BBer might be worried that he is on the low side of BF% yet might have a good covering of fat, similar to a untrained man at 12%. Also seems that measuring with calipers might give different results as it ignores how much skin you actually have, a fat man has fat which takes up a larger volume than muscle, so should have more skin per kilo than a BBer. If they are both measured with calipers it might give the same thickness reading, yet overall the BBer has less skin at that thickness, so might be have less fat than the formula shows, if it was originally calculated empirically using fat people..

i'll attach pic and u can see i dont look it at all

Yes you do not look that big, what height are you?

21stone

6.2

i used to do loads of cycling years ago , since my old man is one of irelands biggest wholesalers it was sort of next step when i was a baby , up on a bike and did loads of cycling , so maybe some underlying muscle perhaps ???? or just fat

plus i did weights on and off for years too

nothing mad just a few months here and there

rubadub

21stone wrote: »

, up on a bike and did loads of cycling , so maybe some underlying muscle perhaps ???? or just fat

There should be muscle. Simply walking around with that much weight means you are sort of weightlifting all the time. So it would be a shame to lose it. It is hard to put on muscle when on a calorie deficit, but some studies show it is possible if you are overweight when starting. You can at least maintain the muscle you already have. I cannot recommend weights enough for fat loss.

www.exrx.net is a great site

Hanley

rubadub wrote: »

Yeah. That was the point I was getting at. If somebody said 15% BF was "ideal", it might be presuming you were at an "ideal" weight with "normal" lean mass.

i.e. using your figures I was wondering if what they really meant was that 10kg of fat was "ideal", rather than 15%BF.

I don't understand. Are you saying that a certain bodyfat percentage may or may not be ideal because of someone's muscle mass? Certainly 10% bf will look different on a 250lb monster than it would on a 160lb 17 year old.

It would seem that you're suggesting ideal bodyfat percentages might be different depending on the persons OVERALL bodyweight??

Say it was recommended to have a certain thickness of fat on your body, then a 100kg bodybuilder will have a bit more skin on him to cover thicker arms etc, but the surface area increase will be less than the relative mass increase. e.g. the surface area of a 500ml coke bottle is more than 1/4 the size of a 2L coke bottle. So the 100kg man might have 10% more skin than the 70kg man, yet is ~40% heavier.

I feel like my head's about to explode. I'm so confused. Surely when it comes to calclating bodyfat percentage the "extra skin" factor is taken into account. Since it's a calculations of an individuals adipose mass relative to his overall bodyweight. It's not like you're using somebody else (say person x) as a scale to calculate person y's bodyfat percentage.

Just seems it is widely recognised that BMI is unsuitable for bodybuilders as it ignores muscle, but also any "ideal BF%" will similarly be skewed. A BBer might be worried that he is on the low side of BF% yet might have a good covering of fat, similar to a untrained man at 12%. Also seems that measuring with calipers might give different results as it ignores how much skin you actually have, a fat man has fat which takes up a larger volume than muscle, so should have more skin per kilo than a BBer. If they are both measured with calipers it might give the same thickness reading, yet overall the BBer has less skin at that thickness, so might be have less fat than the formula shows, if it was originally calculated empirically using fat people..

BMI is junk cos it compares height to mass. And takes nothing else into account.

I don't see how this happens with bodyfat percentage tho?

Skinfold measurements measure the sub-cutaneous fat stores, that is to say the fat held between the muscle and the skin. So I don't think "extra skin" would skew this measurement or give a false/untrue reading as a basis for comparison, assuming similar levels of visceral fat.

Visceral fat stores are harder to measure and are what's know as the "hard attack fat". It's type that gives you a solid look even tho you're not muscular. It's stored under the muscles and around the organs (I think?).

So ehhh now I don't know what the argument is anymore.

celestial

rubadub wrote: »

Yeah. That was the point I was getting at. If somebody said 15% BF was "ideal", it might be presuming you were at an "ideal" weight with "normal" lean mass.

i.e. using your figures I was wondering if what they really meant was that 10kg of fat was "ideal", rather than 15%BF.

Say it was recommended to have a certain thickness of fat on your body, then a 100kg bodybuilder will have a bit more skin on him to cover thicker arms etc, but the surface area increase will be less than the relative mass increase. e.g. the surface area of a 500ml coke bottle is more than 1/4 the size of a 2L coke bottle. So the 100kg man might have 10% more skin than the 70kg man, yet is ~40% heavier.


Just seems it is widely recognised that BMI is unsuitable for bodybuilders as it ignores muscle, but also any "ideal BF%" will similarly be skewed. A BBer might be worried that he is on the low side of BF% yet might have a good covering of fat, similar to a untrained man at 12%. Also seems that measuring with calipers might give different results as it ignores how much skin you actually have, a fat man has fat which takes up a larger volume than muscle, so should have more skin per kilo than a BBer. If they are both measured with calipers it might give the same thickness reading, yet overall the BBer has less skin at that thickness, so might be have less fat than the formula shows, if it was originally calculated empirically using fat people..


Yes you do not look that big, what height are you?

Dude, I'm with Hanley - you have completely lost me here

rubadub

Sorry for all the head-wrecking

Hanley wrote: »

Are you saying that a certain bodyfat percentage may or may not be ideal because of someone's muscle mass? Certainly 10% bf will look different on a 250lb monster than it would on a 160lb 17 year old.

That is what I am saying. BMI is flawed yet seems useful enough for the untrained average frame sized man on the street. And I am guessing any ideal BF% figures are based on the average man on the street too and are flawed in certain cases.

These figures/formulas are sort of dumbed down and measure one or 2 "figures" and arrive at another figure without explaining the real logic or "true ideal" behind them. Most of the time I hear the ideal is ~15% BF for men. I just wonder what this really means. Does it mean the ideal is an average of say 5mm subcutaneous fat? In which case the ideal of 15% may be true for the average untrained person but not a BBer. I was leaving out internal fat around organs since I would thought it would even further confuse things (if possible!).

I work as an engineer so this stuff bugs me, you might have a machine with a error message "battery low", when there might be nothing wrong with the battery, it could be a dirty connector not getting enough power or faulty power meter or something. One input can give a different output that might usually be linked but not necessarily.

Hanley wrote: »

Surely when it comes to calclating bodyfat percentage the "extra skin" factor is taken into account. Since it's a calculations of an individuals adipose mass relative to his overall bodyweight.

If you have a perfect device for measuring the amount of fat on a body, and the perfect device for measuring weight, then yes you can get a proper BF% reading. But say you use a formula that only uses one caliper reading on the bicep. 2 100kg men, one muscular & one overweight. Both give the same reading 5mm. You plug those figures in the forumla and both have the same BF%. Now the muscle is more dense than the fat so the muscular man has less skin overall to cover his smaller volume. So even though both could have the same thickness of fat, one will have more skin and hence more overall fat.

Now if a forumla requested the stomach fat mm measurement then the muscular man might have less, and the forumla might allow for this a little, but it still will be averaging.

Hanley wrote: »

It's not like you're using somebody else (say person x) as a scale to calculate person y's bodyfat percentage.

I think that is exactly what is happening. Many formulas are derived empirically- i.e. they test "real life" and come up with conclusions. This makes sense as some things would be extremely hard to calculate. If I was asked to derive a formula for calipers I would get a group of people, measure their weight and fat levels in the best possible manner- probably underwater weighing. Then I get measurements with a calipers and try and derive a forumla that best suits all the people and gives the closest result to the underwater wieghing.

Now if all my test group were fat then the forumla would only really suit other fat people. If you are a BBer you really want a forumla based on a test group of BBers. I noticed some forumlas are recommended if you are above or below a certain estimated BF%, so it seems this might be the case, yet not specifically spelled out as such.

There was some forumla posted recently where many here got very low BF% scores. Formulas I used were all over the place too. It is agreed that calipers are consistent and you should just check and track the mm readings, as forumlas can be skewed.

Another anaology would be taxation of cars based on the size of engine. In most cases a 2L engine will give more emissions per mile than a 1L engine. But they don't really want to tax on the engine size, it is the emissions they are concerned with, and it just so happens engine size is a good estimate. So there could possibly be a 2L engine that give less emissions than a 1L, in which case the taxation scheme uses faulty logic and should be based on what they really want it to be on, the emissions.

Hanley

rubadub wrote: »

If you have a perfect device for measuring the amount of fat on a body, and the perfect device for measuring weight, then yes you can get a proper BF% reading. But say you use a formula that only uses one caliper reading on the bicep. 2 100kg men, one muscular & one overweight. Both give the same reading 5mm. You plug those figures in the forumla and both have the same BF%. Now the muscle is more dense than the fat so the muscular man has less skin overall to cover his smaller volume. So even though both could have the same thickness of fat, one will have more skin and hence more overall fat.

Now if a forumla requested the stomach fat mm measurement then the muscular man might have less, and the forumla might allow for this a little, but it still will be averaging.

Average's, by their very nature are usually correct in most cases. They might not be 100% accurate, but you can be sure as hell they're close.

The majority of reputable bodyfat% calculators ask for several readings. The better and more accurate ones would use 7+. Bicep, Tricep, Chest, Suprailiac, Subscapularious, Quad and Calf. If you try to tell me that a 100kg muscular man will have similar fat distribution and skinfold measurements to a 100kg couch potato across all of those areas then I'm really not going to believe it!!

I know with my accumeasure calipers there was some clinical study done that shows that the skinfold measurement on the supailiac is the one most indicative of overall bodyfat%. They compared the skinfold measurement and what it predicted bodyfat to be against hyrdostatic testing and the results were very similar.

There was some forumla posted recently where many here got very low BF% scores. Formulas I used were all over the place too. It is agreed that calipers are consistent and you should just check and track the mm readings, as forumlas can be skewed.

I believe that was the Navy test where you measure your neck and abdominal area to give an estimation of bodyfat %?

To use that as a proof that ideal bf% is flawed is crazy. It doesn't take into account any other than size. There's no measurement or even attempt to measure ACTUAL bodyfat. It's just a quick test that was derived as part of a military program.

rubadub

Hanley wrote: »

Average's, by their very nature are usually correct in most cases. They might not be 100% accurate, but you can be sure as hell they're close.

Agreed -but I still think they are more suited people who are similar to the study group who may have been empirically used to determine them. e.g. you should be trying to use a formula that was derived from using a group of people with similar body composition to yourself.

Hanley wrote: »

If you try to tell me that a 100kg muscular man will have similar fat distribution and skinfold measurements to a 100kg couch potato across all of those areas then I'm really not going to believe it!!

Agreed, my point is the more points the better like you say. But also using the same formulas a fat man might register 25% when he is reality he is 20%, while a BBer could register 10% when he is really 15%. i.e. the forumlas might not always over or underestimate.

Hanley wrote: »

I know with my accumeasure calipers there was some clinical study done that shows that the skinfold measurement on the supailiac is the one most indicative of overall bodyfat%. They compared the skinfold measurement and what it predicted bodyfat to be against hyrdostatic testing and the results were very similar..

I am sure you an others have your own preferred forumla. I had one that registered around 9% another around 18% and another at 15%. I knew from the mirror the 15% was fairly spot on so use it.

Hanley wrote: »

I believe that was the Navy test where you measure your neck and abdominal area to give an estimation of bodyfat %?

I think it was.

Hanley wrote: »

To use that as a proof that ideal bf% is flawed is crazy. It doesn't take into account any other than size. There's no measurement or even attempt to measure ACTUAL bodyfat. It's just a quick test that was derived as part of a military program.

Yep it is bad. The real point I am making is even if your measurement is 100% accurate that ideal bodyfat levels might not be best measured as a percentage, it might just be that on the average man 15%BF means they have the ideal covering/amount of fat which just happens to be ~15% for most men. So possible the ideal fat levels should be quoted as fat covering and internal fat amounts.

A BBer might have adequate fat while at 4% BF, while a thin man might not have enough fat at 4%. So ignorant doctors could pronounce them dangerously unhealthy/underweight, just like they call a BBer obese on a BMI chart.

Gumbyman

Just a quickie - how do you calculate your body fat weight?

g'em

Looooooooooads of options (all as unreliable as eachother tbh...)

You can do it mathematically...

Body Fat Formula For Women
Factor 1: (Total body weight x 0.732) + 8.987
Factor 2: Wrist measurement (at fullest point) / 3.140
Factor 3: Waist measurement (at naval) x 0.157
Factor 4 : Hip measurement (at fullest point) x 0.249
Factor 5: Forearm measurement (at fullest point) x 0.434
Lean Body Mass: Factor 1 + Factor 2 - Factor 3 - Factor 4 + Factor 5
Body Fat Weight: Total bodyweight - Lean Body Mass
Body Fat Percentage: (Body Fat Weight x 100) / total bodyweight

Body Fat Formula For Men
Factor 1: (Total body weight x 1.082) + 94.42
Factor 2: Waist measurement x 4.15
Lean Body Mass: Factor 1 - Factor 2
Body Fat Weight: Total bodyweight - Lean Body Mass
Body Fat Percentage: (Body Fat Weight x 100) / total bodyweight



You can do it using bioimpedence (nearly as reliable as asking some random stranger on the street...)




You can put your figures into a little interwebby box that uses two measurements of no distinction... see the Army bf calculator on-line




Or you do do it mildly accurately and get callipers to measure at these standard points:

rubadub

Thanks g'em. The bioimpedance it a prime example of using a fairly unrealated input to estimate a output. You are testing the electrical resistance of your body. Has to be empirical calulations. And also I expect a lot of these empirical studies/formulas are based on fat people, since doctors are probably more likely to be concerned with measuring obese people. Just like I have heard some of the "max daily protein" values are said to be based on inactive patients in hospitals, who just happen to be available for studies.

Also g'em, in other threads I saw you mentioning what is "easily maintainable", and you might have said something like 10-12% for men, but then added something like "if they have a decent amount of lean mass". I dont know if that was just a comment like "you may as well have more muscle", or "you would look better with it, why would you want to be 10% and skinny". Or was it an actual health concern? i.e. as I was mentioning, a thin man at 10%BF will have a lower covering of fat than a muscular man at 10%BF.

Gumbyman wrote: »

Just a quickie - how do you calculate your body fat weight?

Dunno if you mean % or actual weight. Once you have the % just plug it in a calculator. If you are 100kg and 10%BF you have 100x0.10=10kg of fat.

I reckon I am 170lb, 14% BF, so have 170x0.14=23.8lb of fat on me. Go to the supermarket and look at the lbs of butter to get an idea!
Great to see what you have lost too, and what you used to be carrying around.

I can also use these figures to see what I want to lose. e.g. if I am 14%, 170lb and my aim is 10%BF. Then at the moment I have 23.8lb of fat, and hence 146.2lb of "lean mass". So to be the same lean mass and 10%BF then 146.2lb will make up 90% of my mass, so divide 146.2lb by 0.9 = 162.4lb so I need to lose 7.6lb to get to 10%BF without losing any muscle.

g'em

As far as I'm concerned, the only way for me to really know what bodyfat % I'm carrying is to cut me open, take out the fat and measure it against my overall weight i.e. those measurement thingy's mean shag all. A mirror, my clothes and how far into my belly my finger disappears when I poke it will generally tell me everything I need to know at any given time. But for personal progress monitoring callipers are handy enough and I've used them very often in the past.

Fair play to you rubadub for all those % calculations and whatnot, but I started to get a bit of a headache after the first few posts, so I have to admit I didn't really read the whole thing in detail ; apologies if I miss something.

Very broadly speaking we carry two 'types' of fat: essential fat and storage fat. As the name suggests essential fat is vital for bodily health, it's generally the fat that cushions and protects the internal organs. For men it's in or around 2-5% i.e. very, very low. Men just don't need fat like women do (women's essential bf is about 10-14%; once you go below these levels hormonal and menstrual cycles begin to suffer badly) so man carrying 10-12% bf is fully maintainable with good diet and exercise, irrespective of lean mass. Anyone (medical conditions or genuine exceptions aside) who tries to argue otherwise is fooling themselves.

However - if you're 130lb wet and 6' tall, 10% bf will just make you look skinny. In this case, just because it's attainable, doesn't mean it's a good aesthetic ideal. Get thee to a gym, lift heavy stuff and eat more. Lots more.

rubadub wrote:

a thin man at 10%BF will have a lower covering of fat than a muscular man at 10%BF

As I said, the differences will be accounted for by non-essential fat so it doesn't really become a health issue at all.

rubadub

g'em wrote: »

Fair play to you rubadub for all those % calculations and whatnot, but I started to get a bit of a headache after the first few posts, so I have to admit I didn't really read the whole thing in detail ; apologies if I miss something.

No bother, lucky it didnt get moved to the mathematics forum! And I had deleted a lot from my posts to try and keep it simple!

For men it's in or around 2-5% i.e. very, very low. Men just don't need fat like women do (women's essential bf is about 10-14%; once you go below these levels hormonal and menstrual cycles begin to suffer badly) so man carrying 10-12% bf is fully maintainable with good diet and exercise, irrespective of lean mass.

Yes a female friend was asking me about losing weight before, and I said I was about 16% BF at the time. She asked me to estimate hers, I refused as I knew she would be offended! all I said was "women are naturally fatter than men, so you cannot compare yours to mine", which caused enough trouble alone! as though I meant all women are greedy pigs or something.

Cian R

If its impossible to get a minus score in body fat, how did I get a score of -3.4% ?

Malteaser!

Cian R wrote: »

If its impossible to get a minus score in body fat, how did I get a score of -3.4% ?

You must have done your calculations wrong.

Cian R

Malteaser! wrote: »

You must have done your calculations wrong.

I did it first and I got a minus score and I didnt believe it so I took out the measuring tape and I did it again with the correct everything and I still got a minus score!

Al_Fernz

Cian R wrote: »

I did it first and I got a minus score and I didnt believe it so I took out the measuring tape and I did it again with the correct everything and I still got a minus score!

Perhaps your body is a mini hadron collidern and the minus bodyfat reading is due to the fact that you have been sucked into a black hole?

Then again, you may just have done the calculations wrong and/or your measuring instruments and technique is flawed. Asking your gym instructor to perform this measurement with a bodyfat callipers would be a good idea IMO.

Jumpy

Cian R wrote: »

I did it first and I got a minus score and I didnt believe it so I took out the measuring tape and I did it again with the correct everything and I still got a minus score!

You are Victoria Beckham and I claim my €5

rubadub

Cian R wrote: »

I did it first and I got a minus score and I didnt believe it so I took out the measuring tape and I did it again with the correct everything and I still got a minus score!

What are the measurements, and what formula are you using?

Cian R

its alright I tried another website and I got a % of 3.12. Thanks

brianthebard

You'll probably die soon so. I think you are still doing it wrong.

Cian R

brianthebard wrote: »

You'll probably die soon so. I think you are still doing it wrong.

Wat do you mean? lol

brianthebard

You are saying you have a body fat percentage of 3.12? that's close to zero (obviously) and unlikely to be sustainable (or even achieveable for most people) for any length of time.

rubadub

Cian R wrote: »

Wat do you mean? lol

Yes way too low, post the measurements here, something is obviously wrong.

Some bodybuilders could be 3%, but remember this is a percentage, a 20stone bodybuilder at 3% has twice the overall fat as a 10stone man at 3%

Cian R

Yes but I am very skinny and definetly too skinny. I should definetly put on about a stone.

brianthebard

Still doubt you are even less than say...8% tbh unless it was a medical thing.

Cian R

Dude I am not anorexic or anything.

brianthebard

I didn't say you were.

Hanley

Cian R wrote: »

Dude I am not anorexic or anything.

Are you going to tell us the measurements or not?

starn

What UNITS should be used Gem when subbing the values into your fomula. lbs, Kgs, cm, etc, etc.

g'em

Hmmm, good question - it's lbs and inches I think but I'll look it up and check (it's a year since that post was made )

rubadub

g'em wrote: »

Hmmm, good question - it's lbs and inches I think

I would be pretty certain it is. The formula is probably in the US where they just presume everybody is working in imperial, and they rarely use stones in the US. In countries that do use SI & metric units they usually make sure to specify them. If I see measurements online with no units I presume it is US.

If you plug the figures in it should be blatantly obvious if it is right or not. Probably what was wrong with the other guys calculations.

starn

Cheers I used Kgs and got negitive values.

Didnt look at the date sorry

Reyman

Rubadub: Interesting point you made there in your earlier post about the volume/weight of a person not being proportional to the surface area. I.E. A 20 stone person versus a 10 stone person, probably has only 50% more surface area but 100% more volume.
So if you apply a 10% fat level to both - the heavy guy is going to end up with a much thicker fat covering - in fact twice as thick as the lighter guy. I'm assuming most of the fat is on the surface of the body and not visceral.

Have I got the basis of your argument correct? It's certainly an interesting slant on a simple formula

rubadub

Reyman wrote: »

Have I got the basis of your argument correct? It's certainly an interesting slant on a simple formula

Spot on!

So ideal or critical body fat % ranges should depend on body composition, just like "ideal" BMI gets skewed. A 4%BF 10stone man could need serious medical attention, while a 4% bodybuilder could be fine. I think I heard of some anorexics being 7%.

Really you need to know the internal/visceral ideal levels too to develop a forumla, and frame size too.

The mirror is still probably best