Approx bodyfat % from photo?

Pen1987

Would it be worthwhile posting a picture to get a more accurate idea of my BF... I have used the tape test and got 6% (NOT A CHANCE) used the super-dooper-amazing-super-technology scales (the one you pay 2euro for) thingy that supposedly can tell by the amount of reflected beams in the muscle or something or other thats in the gym, and got 17% (MAYBE)... would any of yous be able to give me a decent account of my BF if I posted a well-lit photo... I cant get me hands on calipers in the next few weeks...

tribulus

Yeah but you need to hold up a shoe as a frame of reference.

cowzerp

Im usually a good guesstemater of body fat% give it a whizz, most people under estimate due to ego, that wont be a problem with strangers..

amazingemmet

Make sure its your size though as if you use the wrong size shoe it won't be a good comparison and will skew the results

Malteaser!

What's all this about shoes???

Smellyirishman

Don't forget to put the shoe on your head.

A picture should leave you with a fairly good guesstimate, once it's a decent picture.

tribulus

Smellyirishman wrote: »

Don't forget to put the shoe on your head.

A picture should leave you with a fairly good guesstimate, once it's a decent picture.

What? That's not how it's done, it must be held roughly at arms length pointing directly upwards. It's just pointless otherwise.

Hanley

Malteaser! wrote: »

What's all this about shoes???

I'll tell ya later!!

tribulus

Ahhhh

I was hoping for a repeat of that episode.

Hanley

Cunning edits ftw Trib

OP, stick em up. I can generally tell whether you're <12 <15 or >15 from a photo too.

Pen1987

yer all a shower of wind-up merchants... I presume its a waste of time to post a picture then?

Hanley

Once you're not holding a shoe you'll be grand!

BossArky

I'm going to get my foot in first :pac: and predict 11.5%

tribulus

Pen1987 wrote: »

yer all a shower of wind-up merchants... I presume its a waste of time to post a picture then?

It was worth a try!

Tbh why do you need to know an actual percentage?

Even different calipers can give different readings. Their application isn't in one off readings but measuring if you're making progress.

And if they can't accurately quantify percentage how could the human eye? The best we could say is "yeah you're lean/kinda lean/fat" etc.

Pen1987

tribulus wrote: »

It was worth a try!

Tbh why do you need to know an actual percentage?

Even different calipers can give different readings. Their application isn't in one off readings but measuring if you're making progress.

And if they can't accurately quantify percentage how could the human eye? The best we could say is "yeah you're lean/kinda lean/fat" etc.

...because I think my tape test thingy is skewed by the fact I havent been able to train my lower body of the last year, so I have tiny, I mean tiny legs and glutes so the comparison ratio between hip and waist is way off against chest and wrist... I think thats why I'm getting 6%! Which according to some websites is elite athlete level, but I couldnt run a KM without stopping!... I dont trust the weighing scales thingy that you pay for to give you a reading of basic bodily make-up... and I cant get me hands on calipers.

I have stats for a calipers reading from a year ago, when I was training cardio and lower body that I want to compare against today...

aye

Pen1987 wrote: »

.
I have stats for a calipers reading from a year ago, when I was training cardio and lower body that I want to compare against today...

you should get a calipers reading so to compare really.
coudl you not get one done in your gym?

bwardrop

As everyone is saying, all anyone can say from a photo is that you look lean / normal / fat. You will not get a result that is anymore reliable from someone looking at a photo than you will from the methods you have tried.

If you want to estimate your % body fat, you will at least need someone who knows what they are doing, working with a decent set of calipers (i.e. not the 'slim guide' white plastic calipers). Good calipers will be metal and give the reading on an analogue dial to the nearest 0.1 / 0.2 mm.

Ideally, the measurements should include a few upper body skinfolds and one or two lower body ones. This is important to get an idea of the dispersion of fat over your whole body. However, many places will rely on the old bicep / tricep / subscapular (below shoulder blade) & suprailliac (above hip) skinfolds. Nothing wrong with this, it would just be preferable to include a lower body one too.

What is the 'tape test' you tried out?

Hanley

I imagine it's the US military one. It measures height, weight, neck and abdomen measurements and give's a bf% based off that.

bwardrop

Hanley wrote: »

I imagine it's the US military one. It measures height, weight, neck and abdomen measurements and give's a bf% based off that.

Never heard of that one.... do you have a link to any info about it? Sounds a bit dodge - probably good for estimating %bf within a very large population (i.e the army!), but not so great for individual results. Like BMI... Thoughts?

Malteaser!

bwardrop wrote: »

Never heard of that one.... do you have a link to any info about it? Sounds a bit dodge - probably good for estimating %bf within a very large population (i.e the army!), but not so great for individual results. Like BMI... Thoughts?

I'll try dig up a link now.

The last time I used to it gave me the exact same result as my calipers did which I thought was pretty cool. I've never found two methods to give the same results before!!

Tiriel

This any use?
http://www.linear-software.com/online.html

bwardrop

Cork_girl wrote: »

This any use?
http://www.linear-software.com/online.html

That is quiet a nice resource - thanks Cork_girl

(I've never come across, or used a chest skinfold site on a female though!!)

JD77

This is the link to the US military method of calculating body fat %, perhaps someone who knows their own could put it to the test

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/theorderlyroom/a/bodyfat.htm

bwardrop

Did a quick literature search on this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16532876?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

In the above study, the researchers compared the circumference based estimate of %BF to %BF estimated with the calipers (skinfolds). They report:

"A moderate correlation coefficient existed between SBE (skinfold) and CBEs (cirumference) (r = 0.76-0.79). A greater body fat percentage was estimated in personnel with circumference methods. CBEs predict higher estimates, resulting in a greater number of personnel classified as noncompliant (%BF too high)".

Interpret the r value as you will - the closer the value is to 1.0, the better the results from the two sets of data match up. It is ok, but I wouldn't be over the moon with it.

I would say this method is great if you are working with large samples of people - you measure 500 people and you estimate that 20% are overweight (according to circumference method), If you went back and used a more accurate method to verify this (say DEXA or underwater weighing), you would probably find that about 20% are overweight, but it won't necessarily be the same people identified by the circumference method. It is the same problem that is inherent with BMI - you are trying to estimate something without actually measuring it. Does that make sense?

A second study looked at the ability of the circumference method to detect changes in body composition:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1620379?ordinalpos=8&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

"This study's primary purpose was to examine the ability of this method to detect changes in subcutaneous fat over a 9-week period with men (N = 55) and women (N = 51) enrolled in a weight management program. Changes in percent body fat, based on the circumference method, were correlated with the corresponding ones from the Jackson/Pollock skinfold method. Results indicated that the male circumference method (r = 0.548) could more satisfactorily detect changes in subcutaneous fat than the female circumference(r = 0.135)".

So.. not really able to detect change in men & not at all able to detect changes in women (in this study)!

It is interesting though - it would make a nice little thesis for one of our students next year...

Hanley

When you bring sub visceral fat into play could the tape measure be MORE accurate? (I'm not sure if there's a correlation between sub visceral and sub cutaneous fat stores, but I would guess not because I know alot of big strong guys with a "lean" stomach that sticks out a fair bit).

bwardrop

I am not sure of the exact relationship between visceral and sub cutaneous fat deposits during weight loss. I think that following weight loss protocols, men will lose more visceral fat than women, whereas women will loose more subcutaneous fat. This would indicate that visceral fat is more easily mobilized and oxidized in males.

If you are down to the level where sub cutaneous fat is negligible, then it is highly likely that intra-abdominal fat will also be very low. So when taking measurements, I'm not sure that this method would be more accurate. There are plenty of things, other than the amount of fat present that could affect the circumference of the abdomen when a person is really lean - gastrointenstinal gas (:o), contents of the bowel, hydration level, posture, etc, etc.

With all methods of body composition analysis, there are rules that should be adhered to when preparing for the test. Being really strict on these is very important, particularly if you are using one of the less accurate tests on an extreme sample within a population.

My gut would say stick to calipers with someone really lean, in the absence of something more accurate (underwater weighing, DEXA, MRI, CT).