The FastDay Forum

Hi guys,
Please let me know HOW you all estimate your % of fat...
Cheers
W.

[carieoates]

Most of us have those fancy scales which can be a bit hit and miss. Plus you shouldn't do first thing in the morning due to dehydration overnight. So even though we like to weigh first thing when "all jobs are done" it's not the best time for fat %.
It's defiantly a good indicator along with waist to height ratio.

I had a BodPod evaluation - then was so horrified by the report that I ended up getting a Dxa scan. It's pretty expensive to get these done in the UK and there's negligible access to hydrostatic (dunk tank) assessment for the public.

However - by and large, affordable methods for estimating body fat are less accurate and may only have value in giving yourself an approximate trend in its change. These affordable methods include bioimpedance (of the sort used in weighing scales) or having and assessment by someone skilled in the use of fat callipers.

ETA: all of the above said, there's a reasonable account of the advantages and disadvantages of the fat assessment methods on Weightology (multi-part series): http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=146

@carieoates & @SSure - thanks so much for this useful information.
W.

I have a Tanita scale, but it seems pretty worthless since my fat % can vary so much from day to day, even when measured first thing in the morning. And it has no clue about boobs. (Probably not a problem for you.)

Years ago I had someone at a gym do a body fat measurement with calipers that came in at a much better figure than the impedance scales do.

I'm trying to convince our health clinic to use calipers but they've bought the stupid scales instead.

Just did an ebay search and fat calipers can be really inexpensive

http://www.ebay.com.au/bhp/body-fat-caliper

and this seems a simple diagrammatic explanation of how to use them and calculate your body fat rating

http://www.wikihow.com/Use-Body-Fat-Calipers

just using my fingers on my tummy. im definitely too high in that department.

[carorees]

Surely the problem with calipers is that they measure the non-dangerous subcutaneous (under the skin) fat and not the dangerous abdominal fat (packed around your organs)? As most of us can't have the expensive scans that SSure mentions (at least on a regular basis), the best way of getting an indication of your abdominal fat is to measure your waist. Scientific studies have confirmed that waist measurement, particularly if taken at a point between the belly button and the lowest rib are a good correlate of abdominal fat mass.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20335625
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20820174

Much depends on why you want to know your body fat level, to some extent.

This probably won't apply to the OP (or that many other people, with luck) but I had a 26 inch waist at the time of my BodPod evaluation that reported a 42% body fat level at a BMI of <23, mass of 127lbs. It's one of the reasons that I didn't believe that I had a high level of visceral fat despite the assumption of the BodPod operator. My suspicion was confirmed by the later DXA scan that indicated that I had low skeletal muscle mass (and low 'appendicular skeletal muscle' - aka arms and legs). (I was 117lbs at the DXA and approx. 30% body fat: my then waist was 24.5 inches.)

I know that I have a notionally very high risk of developing metabolic diseases but I am playing the odds that my risk is lower than is normal with sarcopenia because I have a lower body fat level (currently estimated at approx. 22-24%) and I don't have high levels of visceral fat.

For all the Public Health alarmism on the matter, it should be easier and cheaper to obtain accurate & safe body composition assessments such as the Body Volume Scanner that was developed in the UK and elsewhere.

http://www.bodyvolume.com/home

Thanks again everyone!

W.

@SSure,

No way do you have a significantly higher risk of metabolic disease, because the percentage of fat is almost irrelevant when your total weight is so normal. It isn't stored fat, per se, that causes metabolic disease. It is excess liver fat, which increases insulin resistance dramatically, and which results mainly from over consumption of fructose and sugar. But if your waist is a normal size for your height, you are unlikely to have a lot of liver fat stored off. Hence the emphasis on waist size.

Heavy people with high fat percentages have high absolute amounts of fat and that fat becomes inflamed, which seems to be what causes their metabolic problems. But if you have a total amount of fat on you that is well within normal limits, which at your total weight you must have, obsessing about the percentage is likely a mistake.

There is only one thing I can think of that might contradict the above: If you have that high fat percentage because you are storing abnormal amounts of excess fat in your muscles, it is possible that your mitochondria don't burn glucose properly. This happens for genetic reasons and is common among people with a tendency to gain weight and explains why studies show a significant number of people with diabetes don't get any benefit for exercise (20% in the latest published study.)

If you have a mitochondrial genetic defect, the unburnt glucose gets stored in the muscles as fat. The best approach then is a) try a ketogenic diet (carbs well below 70 g a day) which over time will burn off much of that stored muscle fat. b) Supplement with CoEnzyme Q10 which can sometimes get the mitochondria burning that fat.

If you are storing too much fat in your muscles, you probably also have higher than normal blood sugars after eating, though they may not be high enough to show up on screening tests. Testing your blood sugar after a high carb meal should be informative. Look to see if you are going significantly above 7.7 mmol/L after 1 hour.

There is a specific, fairly rare genetic form of diabetes where a mitochondrial flaw kicks in. It responds dramatically to CoEnzyme Q10, so much so that the stingy UK NHS will pay for it for those with that diagnosis. Many others could benefit from that supplementation whose blood sugars aren't quite high enough to generate the diagnosis but who don't burn glucose properly at the mitochondria.

I have the sarcopenia part of the sarcopenia obesity. I lack the skeletal muscle mass that would aid in maintaining insulin sensitivity (even now, my appendicular skeletal muscle mass: body fat ratio would be unimpressive for someone in her 80s, and that's in the absence of overweight/obesity). There's been a substantial depreciation in my muscle quality.

If I regain weight, it would mostly be body fat (unfortunately) and that would worsen the ASMM;BF ratio.

At present, the metabolic risk lies in my reduced lean body mass/skeletal muscle. If I were to gain substantial amounts of body fat that would add to the risk particularly as my muscle mass declines (as most women's do, and despite my activity levels etc.).

I would, however, agree with the main point that sarcopenia, sarcopenia obesity, and metabolic syndrome are reported to overlap but the mechanisms and consequences are not well understood and the studies and definitions that currently exist are wholly inadequate.

It's unhelpful that there's a Public Health doom and gloom around 'skinny fat' when there's no provision for measuring this for most people, and HCPs don't understand it. I've been told, several times, that I need to lose weight because of my results, even when I'm sitting in front of someone and my weight is recorded. When I ask, "How much weight would you suggest that I lose? And how would I do it without jeopardising the lean body mass that I do have?" it takes HCPs aback. It seems implausibly difficult for some people to grasp that my results are the consequence of loss of skeletal muscle not obesity. (Seriously, I still get given leaflets about weight loss and am advised to 'try and walk for 20 minutes a day' - irrespective of the information about my weight and activity levels.)

However, that's OT.