Body Fat Measurement

HelenAnne

I decided to start a new thread as I didn't want to hijack ThisFatGirlsRuns' Training Log!
Lots of people over on her log are mentioning different types of body fat measurement / food / calories etc.
I know these things are important for people trying to lose weight and for elites for whom every physical tweak can mean the difference between winning and losing, but I was just wondering how much other recreational runners on boards worry about these things.
Is it (keeping your weight / body fat down) something that people have noticed performance gains from?
(I am anxiously pinching bits of myself at my desk now and wondering how much of me is made of fat ).

kit3

I go my feel and my clothes. I threw the scales out a few years ago because I found myself hopping on twice a day - total obsession & ridiculous. Thought about getting one again recently but I've two girls aged 11 & 8 (& a boy of 13) and I don't want them even thinking about weight. I would be interested to know too if people have found that losing a few pounds makes a difference - reckon I always have a few that could go Having said that, it's not something I think about too often.

TRR_the_turd

Excellent topic for a thread. Regardless of how slow or fast you are, the less body fat you have the better. Obviously there is a minimum healthy level but if you can remove excess pounds it has to help.

To keep track of my body fat. I get measured by a health professional using a skinfold calipers. I also have a scales at home that reads bodyfat %. The calipers is more accurate than my scales so I track changes on my scales keeping in mind the initial discrepancy between the skinfold calipers and the scales. I weigh myself once a week and calculate my body fat at the same time too. Since January I've shifted a good bit of weight, the difference in weight loss equates to the change in my body fat composition (18% to just under 10%).

I've never had it done myself but a dexa scan is the best way to get your BF calculated. Tunguska has had a couple in the past. As well as showing up skin fat it also detects fat on internal organs, so gives a much more accurate reading.

ultraman1

TRR_the_turd wrote: »

body fat composition (18% to just under 10%).
.

Wat sort of actual weight loss equates to that sort of percentage weight loss?..

TRR_the_turd

ultraman1 wrote: »

Wat sort of actual weight loss equates to that sort of percentage weight loss?..

For me about 18lbs. I'm just over 6 foot and don't use the metric system outside work

RayCun

I don't pay much attention, because usually I get fitter and lose weight at the same time. (BF was 15% in February, expect it to be lower in June but don't know by how much)

kit3

TRR_the_turd wrote: »

For me about 18lbs. I'm just over 6 foot and don't use the metric system outside work

Any idea what that would translate to performance wise or is it all relevant to the person, their training etc

kit3

RayCun wrote: »

I don't pay much attention, because usually I get fitter and lose weight at the same time. (BF was 15% in February, expect it to be lower in June but don't know by how much)

How do you measure it ?

RayCun

kit3 wrote: »

How do you measure it ?

Calipers, when I was in doing the heart rate stuff

walshb

It has to be a given that being as light/strong as possible can only be of benefit when running. Probably more than any other activity. It's getting the balance of low weight and healthy/strong with it. Runners are inherently wiry creatures!

Heavy set people should not run until they have sorted their weight/frame first!

TRR_the_turd

RayCun wrote: »

I don't pay much attention, because usually I get fitter and lose weight at the same time. (BF was 15% in February, expect it to be lower in June but don't know by how much)

To be honest I don't pay huge heed to it but I do use it as a reminder to go easy on the treats and junkfood. You're right though. If you train and eat normally weight should drop with increased fitness

kit3 wrote: »

Any idea what that would translate to performance wise or is it all relevant to the person, their training etc

There are lots of calculators online for this sort of stuff. I've never put my stats in.

http://www.runningforfitness.org/calc/diet/weighteffect

HelenAnne

RayCun wrote: »

I don't pay much attention, because usually I get fitter and lose weight at the same time. (BF was 15% in February, expect it to be lower in June but don't know by how much)

Me too, I find if I'm not injured and I'm racing a lot I'm normally a bit lighter. But there wouldn't be much in it - a pound or two up or down would be the most, really. And I hadn't really thought much about body fat as opposed to weight, but I'd suspect I don't have a huge amount of muscle so a good bit of me might be fat.

I wish I hadn't just eaten a KitKat before reading all about callipers etc.

TRR_the_turd

RayCun wrote: »

Calipers, when I was in doing the heart rate stuff

you're lucky he proceeded. I heard he sent a client home and refused to do tests when he seen their BF reading

kit3

walshb wrote: »

Heavy set people should not run until they have sorted their weight/frame first!

I can see that one being controversial - whatever about sorting out weight, how does one go about sorting out their frame - would have thought you were stuck with that either way ?

RayCun

TRR_the_turd wrote: »

you're lucky he proceeded. I heard he sent a client home and refused to do tests when he seen their BF reading

I was on two strikes already :pac:

Dubgal72

I'm another that threw out the scales. Last time I weighed myself was aged 25 and I thought 8 stone 3 or thereabouts was a nice figure to leave it at (On a serious note, I was trying to conquer my demons too.) Interesting about a Dexa scan, I didn't know it measured body fat too. I'm having one this summer to check my bone density levels.
Since I have started running again, I reckon I've lost quite a bit, but again, I have to go by dress size (2 lost) and four inches around the waist. I have noticed that I am a lot leaner and I have no doubt that has helped with improvements in running.

HelenAnne

Dubgal72 wrote: »

I'm another that threw out the scales. Last time I weighed myself was aged 25 and I thought 8 stone 3 or thereabouts was a nice figure to leave it at (On a serious note, I was trying to conquer my demons too.) Interesting about a Dexa scan, I didn't know it measured body fat too. I'm having one this summer to check my bone density levels.
Since I have started running again, I reckon I've lost quite a bit, but again, I have to go by dress size (2 lost) and four inches around the waist. I have noticed that I am a lot leaner and I have no doubt that has helped with improvements in running.

Good idea re measurements! Maybe I will start to do that.

walshb

kit3 wrote: »

I can see that one being controversial - whatever about sorting out weight, how does one go about sorting out their frame - would have thought you were stuck with that either way ?

Sometimes the harsh truth can be too harsh to take! For some.

Frame as in weight distribution. Getting in as good shape as possible and making sure you are not carrying excess weight before embarking on running. It's just not the activity for it. One of the toughest and worst activities you can do if carrying excess lbs. Not saying everyone has to look like a Seb Coe or a Usain Bolt, but lugging around beer bellies and spare tyres is just ridiculous, and doing people more harm that good.

kit3

walshb wrote: »

Sometimes the harsh truth can be too harsh to take! For some.

Frame as in weight distribution. Getting in as good shape as possible and making sure you are not carrying excess weight before embarking on running. It's just not the activity for it. One of the toughest and worst activities you can do if carrying excess lbs. Not saying everyone has to look like a Seb Coe or a Usain Bolt, but lugging around beer bellies and spare tyres is just ridiculous, and doing people more harm that good.

ok - I always think of frame as in bone structure, hence my confusion :rolleyes:

barryoneill50

walshb wrote: »

It has to be a given that being as light/strong as possible can only be of benefit when running. Probably more than any other activity. It's getting the balance of low weight and healthy/strong with it. Runners are inherently wiry creatures!

Heavy set people should not run until they have sorted their weight/frame first!

What kept ya, this thread is made for you:D

walshb

barryoneill50 wrote: »

What kept ya, this thread is made for you:D

You callin' me fat?:)

walshb

TRR_the_turd wrote: »

To be honest I don't pay huge heed to it but I do use it as a reminder to go easy on the treats and junkfood. You're right though. If you train and eat normally weight should drop with increased fitness

Depends on how much food/eating is normal. If you are hungry and taking in more than you put out, and are "training" it's not a guarantee that the scales will get lower. I believe that the recommended 2500 calories for men is not all that much. It's important to shed weight during training. Some people sweat a whole lot more than others, and that is why they may find it easier to shed weight. It can be a little more complex than we think, as people are different.

TRR_the_turd

Dubgal72 wrote: »

Since I have started running again, I reckon I've lost quite a bit, but again, I have to go by dress size (2 lost) and four inches around the waist. I have noticed that I am a lot leaner and I have no doubt that has helped with improvements in running.

For sure and every bit as valid as measuring actual body fat and weight

average_runner

We just had health checks in the office today!!!

Weight 78.7 ( was 87 on Jan 1) Want to get down to 74 for Athlone half in Sept
Blood pressure good
Sugar levels for Diabetes 1 and 2, great
Cholesterol 5.3:eek: But its down on the last time 5.6.

HelenAnne

I meant this thread as one where people could tell each other whether or not they kept track of body fat / if it was important to them / if they personally saw running improvements correlating with loss of fat (rather than just loss of weight). How they lost fat without losing strength etc.

I didn't intend it as a forum for slagging off the weight / build of other runners. I can't control what people post here (obviously!) but just setting out my intentions.

Play nice .

walshb

average_runner wrote: »

We just had health checks in the office today!!!

Weight 78.7 ( was 87 on Jan 1) Want to get down to 74 for Athlone half in Sept
Blood pressure good
Sugar levels for Diabetes 1 and 2, great
Cholesterol 5.3:eek: But its down on the last time 5.6.

Are you tall?

walshb

HelenAnne wrote: »

I meant this thread as one where people could tell each other whether or not they kept track of body fat / if it was important to them / if they personally saw running improvements correlating with loss of fat (rather than just loss of weight). How they lost fat without losing strength etc.

I didn't intend it as a forum for slagging off the weight / build of other runners. I can't control what people post here (obviously!) but just setting out my intentions.

Play nice .

I read it as loss of fat and/or loss of weight?

HelenAnne

walshb wrote: »

I read it as loss of fat and/or loss of weight?

I probably did say that, but then someone (you, I think?) mentioned that you need to lose weight without losing strength, so I thought maybe losing fat was more important as you'd need to keep your lean muscle? Normally, for myself, I'd just go by weight, but ThisFatGirlRuns' log made me begin to think that maybe the fat percentage was more important.

Anyway, what I mean is, most of the comments are really helpful and informative, but I didn't want to have started a thread where the lean and lithe slagged off the sloggers & plodders.

walshb

Helen,

Chivito (on another thread) mentioned something as regards fat or muscle. Lugging around too much of either is not for running. Heavy set or heavy built or plain obese people should consider what exactly they are embarking on as regards running. More so the obese category.

Best to run according to your shape and weight. Plan the run and distance and pace.

BTW, strength is quite subjective. What I meant was to get to a good weight for running whilst also maintaining a fairly healthy feel.

pistol_75

average_runner wrote: »

We just had health checks in the office today!!!

Weight 78.7 ( was 87 on Jan 1) Want to get down to 74 for Athlone half in Sept
Blood pressure good
Sugar levels for Diabetes 1 and 2, great
Cholesterol 5.3:eek: But its down on the last time 5.6.

Did they give you a breakdown of your cholesterol (LDL,HDL,Triglycerides)? The overall figure means very little in the overall scheme of things. Your level of HDL (good cholesterol) is a much better indicator than the overall figure. You want this to form around 20-25% of your total cholesterol.

menoscemo

From what I can gather, the scales you get at home can be very inaccurate. I have scales and they can report a huge variation on day to day depending on god knows what, also if I programme the scales to say I am an 'Athlete' the BF% drops by about 6 %

Callipers can be accurate but it depends hugely on the skill and experience of the person taking the measurements and the formaula they use.

Dexa scans (or similar) are probably the only accurate measurement but they are expensive so are tehy really worth it? not to me anyway.

I tend to just go off one of the image charts you can find on the internet as I'd say if you look in the mirror and do an honest appraisal it can't be far off!! For example:

Ososlo

menoscemo wrote: »

From what I can gather, the scales you get at home can be very inaccurate. I have scales and they can report a huge variation on day to day depending on god knows what, also if I programme the scales to say I am an 'Athlete' the BF% drops by about 6 %

Callipers can be accurate but it depends hugely on the skill and experience of the person taking the measurements and the formaula they use.

Dexa scans (or similar) are probably the only accurate measurement but they are expensive so are tehy really worth it? not to me anyway.

I tend to just go off one of the image charts you can find on the internet as I'd say if you look in the mirror and do an honest appraisal it can't be far off!! For example:

so which one are you?

pistol_75

As has been acknowledged the Dexa scan is the best way to get an accurate body composition and also to highlight the area's of fat in the body.

It has also highlighted a new breed of people called the Skinny Fat. Outwardly they do not appear to carry fat around the stomach for example as would be obvious with an overweight person. Inwardly though they might have fat stored around their organs which in a way is more dangerous for their overall health.

menoscemo

Ososlo wrote: »

so which one are you?

The one in the bottom right :P

Ososlo

menoscemo wrote: »

The one in the bottom right :P

Lovely! Good luck with lugging that around London!

walshb

menoscemo wrote: »

The one in the bottom right :P

Fine thing!

NetwerkErrer

menoscemo wrote: »

The one in the bottom right :P

Nice swimsuit meno!:p

Sunny Dayz

Sounds like a stupid question but where do you actually go to get your body fat measured? I would like to know what my body fat is but I don't fancy making an appointment at the doctors clinic and wasting half a morning in the waiting room.

menoscemo

Ososlo wrote: »

Lovely! Good luck with lugging that around London!

Ah no, in fairness probably somewhere just over 15%. I am currently down about 10 pounds since Christmas and at my lowest weight since secondary school, so the BF is probably ok at the moment. Watch it rise for the beermile

Maybe that last pic was a bit body-builder rather than endurance runner centric. So maybe this is better for us:

menoscemo

Sunny Dayz wrote: »

Sounds like a stupid question but where do you actually go to get your body fat measured? I would like to know what my body fat is but I don't fancy making an appointment at the doctors clinic and wasting half a morning in the waiting room.

If you are not shy, post a pic in the fitness forum and they are happy enough to give you a good guesstimate. There a lot of experienced trainers over there and I'd value their eye judgement as well as most other measures (barring a dexa scan).

TFBubendorfer

menoscemo wrote: »

From what I can gather, the scales you get at home can be very inaccurate. I have scales and they can report a huge variation on day to day depending on god knows what, also if I programme the scales to say I am an 'Athlete' the BF% drops by about 6 % [/IMG]

I have one of those BF scales as well, but I find them very consistent. I don't know how accurate the measurements are (generally those kind of scales can be out by about 3%) but as long as they are consistent, absolute accuracy isn't all that important.

Mine has that weird difference when I set it to "athlete" as well, so I don't.

I am running my best when the scales give my a BF percentage of under 10. Having said that, I don't need the scales to tell me that I am running well, my watch does that job better anyway.

belcarra

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

I have one of those BF scales as well, but I find them very consistent. I don't know how accurate the measurements are (generally those kind of scales can be out by about 3%) but as long as they are consistent, absolute accuracy isn't all that important.

Mine has that weird difference when I set it to "athlete" as well, so I don't.

I am running my best when the scales give my a BF percentage of under 10. Having said that, I don't need the scales to tell me that I am running well, my watch does that job better anyway.

Did you take any readings immediately after Turin??

Chivito550

Have no idea what my BF% is. Would love to know, but no real value in spending all that money just to satisfy a curiosity. I know it is low anyway. I'd guess somewhere between 9-12%.

I'm in one of the best events for it anyway, according to this:

http://speedendurance.com/2015/04/18/why-400m-sprinters-have-lower-body-fat-than-100m-sprinters-marathoners/

eldiva

I'd 100% agree with Meno. Home scales or bioimpendance scales are not reliable at all. As he said you %bf can change by 6% depending on how it's programmed.
Skinfold thickness are very reliable depending on the experience of the measurer. Generally for athletes 8 sites should be recorded and the results given as a sum of 8. The reason behind this it is easier to see how much fat can be lost without the worry of % fat. That's what I have done with athletes I've measured and recorded. If they want a % then I work it out

eldiva

Chivito550 wrote: »

Have no idea what my BF% is. Would love to know, but no real value in spending all that money just to satisfy a curiosity. I know it is low anyway. I'd guess somewhere between 9-12%.

I'm in one of the best events for it anyway, according to this:

http://speedendurance.com/2015/04/18/why-400m-sprinters-have-lower-body-fat-than-100m-sprinters-marathoners/

Had planned to do %bf in an evening with your club late last year but never materialised

Chivito550

With regards the discussion on the log, of course a low BF% is very important for a runner, but this is not a substitute for the requirement of having a lower weight. Both are required to be a distance runner, or any runner for that matter. This notion that it's ok to be heavy as long as it is lean muscle is all well and good for those wanting to do shot putt, play rugby or whatever else similar. This clearly doesn't apply to running and anybody remotely serious about it simply can not be weighing in the overweight or obese category.

Valerie Adams would be an example of a very heavy woman with what I'd imagine is very low body fat. Still wouldn't put my money on her over the 26.2.

Light AND Lean folks.

TRR_the_turd

eldiva wrote: »

I'd 100% agree with Meno. Home scales or bioimpendance scales are not reliable at all. As he said you %bf can change by 6% depending on how it's programmed.
Skinfold thickness are very reliable depending on the experience of the measurer. Generally for athletes 8 sites should be recorded and the results given as a sum of 8. The reason behind this it is easier to see how much fat can be lost without the worry of % fat. That's what I have done with athletes I've measured and recorded. If they want a % then I work it out

Totally agree that scales can be off and not accurate. However I have one at home at use it as a relative guide. I know the figure it gives is not a true value but as my weight decreases the ratio of BF does too! I never get variance of 6%. Leave it on the same setting and take all readings relative to that.

average_runner

walshb wrote: »

Are you tall?

6ft.

average_runner

pistol_75 wrote: »

Did they give you a breakdown of your cholesterol (LDL,HDL,Triglycerides)? The overall figure means very little in the overall scheme of things. Your level of HDL (good cholesterol) is a much better indicator than the overall figure. You want this to form around 20-25% of your total cholesterol.

No it was just a basic one, will go for a full examination in September, takes 2 hours

PVincent

Can I add in another issue... I had a brief test in the office the other day on Diabetes, blood pressure and BMI... No issues with blood pressure or diabetes. However they proceed to inform that my BMI is about 2 pts above the average and I am overweight , and I need to do something about it. Now anyone who knows me , will testify that I am not even close to overweight, in fact I had lost a good few pounds recently after an illness.
I seem to remember a few years back a thread on the subject of BMI... Are they a load of Bull , or is there a useful side to them. I am not in the least bit concerned by the report but just interested in knowing the validity of BMI

eldiva

I work in the field of sport science and BMI is the last tool I'd be using to determine a person's weight or body mass. The waist/hip ratio is a far better tool. But BMI is cat