Shocked by body fat percentage

[carabos]

I went for a fitness assessment this week with a personal trainer. The idea was to get a benchmark and set some new fitness goals.

The process was informative but soooo disappointing! I have been exercising hard and eating healthily since New Year, have lost half a stone and dropped a dress size.

Results from this assessment - BMI 20 (good) visceral fat 5 (also good), blood pressure 120/62 (good to low) but body fat % 32 and aerobic fitness "average"! Gutted! I do an hour of cardio or an hour of strength training every day .

Trainer is working out a programme to address the body fat as that is something I "must" get sorted.

I'm 162cm and a size 8.

How did the fitness instructor measure your body fat?

Am thinking the trainer had to find something that needed fixing by him/her -I'd get a second opinion, it seems a bit suspect.

Maybe it wasn't very accurate measuring? Did he use calipers or an electronic device?

I had bathroom scales which claimed to measure body fat - and mine always came out at over 30%. Despite my running daily and also other aerobic and muscle building activities.

Regardless - you are working out daily - and are slim - so I wouldn't let it get to you too much. But I would ask for someone else to give you a 2nd opinion?

Hmmm sounds a bit suspect to me given your BMI and size. how much do you weigh, I am but shorter than you, size 8 and weigh about 7 10lbs I had a fit test at a biokenitist (sp) and my body fat was about 19%, when my trainer measures me she usually gets about 22% but she doesn't do as many measures, e.g. She didn't do my back which has no fat at all vs my underarms which have lots. those calipers are also notoriously hard to use.

Sounds a bit suspect to me.

I am 5 4, 8 10, (BMI 20.5) size 8 and body fat is 20-22% per tanita scales even less in gym with callipers - around 18%. Don't see that size 8 can equate to 30% fat - due to fact that size 8 is a 26-27 inch waist.

What method was used?

I suggest the following:

1. Estimate fat per US navy method
2. If callipers used insist on another measurement using 5 - 8 different site - for me I get totally different readings based on the various sites, eg upper back, biceps and stomach very low readings but triceps and lower back higher reading.
3. Scales are v hit and miss vary on time of day. Mine give 20-22% am and 18-20% pm.

Thanks everyone. I weighed in at 55kg and he used an electronic measure.

He's a really genuine guy so I'd be surprised if he's trying to get me to spend more money with him. I do his weights class 3 times a week and he has a good reputation in our small town.

I do have a small frame- no one believes me when I say I'm over 8 stone.

Electronic scales or electronic upper body?

Its such an unlikely result that I wouldn't read much into it unless corroborated by callipers and us navy method.

forever I stood on a scale and held a handle out in front of me which was attached to the scale iyswim.

What's the US Navy method?

Have a look at this carabos fitness.bizcalcs.com/Calculator.asp?Calc=Body-Fat-Navy

I think your bodyfat as the bloke at the gym said is a bit off. it sounds very high.

I personally use this site - it also shows caliper measurements www.linear-software.com/online.html

I've done the US Navy method using an online calculator and that came put at 29%, which isn't far off what the trainer said .

Need a new programme I reckon. And a radical change of diet. .

if the US navy method came out as 29% then maybe the measurement the gym guy did was about right. Surprised your are a size 8 though - as I am the same height and weight but with 18%-20% body fat and also a size 8.

But if that's the case your muscle mass must be low - look up "skinny fat" online - its when you look slim but have low muscle mass and high body fat %.

Really recommend the JM DVDs (30 day shred and ripped in 30) - increasing core muscles will help loads.

A couple of really useful books are:
Tim Feriss 4 hour body and Tom Venuto burn the fat.

What is your diet?

I'm quite sceptical about this. A friend of mine who also has a BMI of 20 and is very athletic had this done and was really upset at the result. We tried to reassure her but she ended up losing weight and is now worried she looks haggard, she was actually happy with the way she looked and felt before the assessment.

God knows.

If you met me you would probably think I just look normal howeber according to these things I am 19% ish bodyfat and am classed as athlete. And I certainly don't look like an athlete.

I wouldn;t rely solely on these numeric classificatuions tbh.

forever I think you're right, I'm "skinny fat". I suspect my diet is carb and sugar heavy, although I've knocked off bread, pasta, rice and potatoes since Xmas.

I guess I'm a size 8 because I have a tiny frame, that's my default size and the reason I started with my fitness programme was because I had found myself creeping into a 10.

I'm expecting to get a new programme from the trainer a result of the assessment, but he's having to have a think about it as I can't fit in any more than I'm doing time-wise. He mentioned high intensity training might be appropriate. He was a bit surprised by the body fat result too.

Does it matter? I'm not being facetious, I genuinely am not sure what the problem is. As I understand it, it is visceral fat that is unhealthy and dangerous and fat in other places is protective and not really so much of a problem.

As your visceral fat percentage is low, you look slim, you are exercising regularly and feel good then what's the danger with the high overall fat percentage (if, indeed, it is accurate)?

Very sensible attitude lifeissweet. I guess it was just a shock because over 30% is "obese" . It's all so confusing innit? Need to educate myself about all this stuff I think.

I don't think you need to devote more time. Cut out the carbs and sugar. Increase protein and switch some of the workout time to strength training.

Everything - I played around with it too and can't see how you get to that analysis - mine comes out to about 22% and I had to increase my hips to 42 inches for it to say I was obese. At 33 inch hips it said "athletic" with BMI under 20%

I just worked out my body fat measurement using the US Army method and I got 22%. When I used the machine at Boots my body fat was calculated to be 33% and described my body fat as above average. I don't think it's worth taking these measurements very seriously when they can be so ridiculously variable.

Pshaw! I came out at 25% and I am 9 stone 9 - a size 10 (with substantial norkage tho) and fairly unfit (half an hour's swimming once a fortnight versus your hour of cardio a day?!!!). There is no way that you would be larger/less healthy than me. I think it is highly suspect.

I think the gym guy may seem nice but I would take his comments with a pinch of salt.

I'm becoming increasingly sceptical about all these measures and calculators tbh. This weekend I've been using the MapMyWalk app to track activity. I walked my friend's ancient, arthritic dog 2.5miles the other day and took 90 min to do it - so basically strolled very slowly with him. The calorific value of that was claimed to be 230 cals.

Later the same day I ran 2.5 miles across country in 35 mins and the calculator said I'd used 97 cals.

Either I have no understanding of how things work (quite possible, but I kind of thought that the run would burn many more cals than the walk) or the calculator is wrong. Even accepting that the walk was longer than the run, the figures would suggest that the calories burned by running and walking are almost the same .

I think that they basically are for any given distance. Not completely, but not a lot of difference in it.

Also, different calculators will give different results, especially ones where you tell it your weight vs ones where you dont.

And the ones that use GPS give inaccurate results with poor sat reception. In general I burn 40-50kcal per km when walking - depending on pace and 70 when running.