So having a body fat percentage higher than 10% but lower than 15% is bad? Admittedly, it's not the single digit I had when I was measured in my 30s, but I'd say it's still fairly decent for a 59-year-old.
Tough crowd.
High Muscle Strength Drops Cancer Chances by 30%
- Thread starter Baron
- Start date
Tough crowd.
Sorry, I misread your previous post. I read that it was below 15% and then doubled. My bad.
How was it measured?
An InBody composition scale at the gym:
https://www.inbodyusa.com/
In 1992-3, I clocked in at 7% when I was in my mid-30s, but it was via calipers, which I know can be inaccurate.
I know that hydrostatic weighing has long been considered the gold standard, but I used what was readily available to me.
https://www.inbodyusa.com/
In 1992-3, I clocked in at 7% when I was in my mid-30s, but it was via calipers, which I know can be inaccurate.
I know that hydrostatic weighing has long been considered the gold standard, but I used what was readily available to me.
Last edited:
This is the type where you stand on a scale (bare feet) and also hold a handle in each hand? And gives you a test result for each limb (arm, leg), plus your core?
Yes.
I know they're not the gold standard, but not all bioelectrical impedance scales are created equal. There is no way it underestimated my body fat by anywhere near 10%. A while back, I read a post in a forum on one of the bodybuilding websites, where the poster included a photo and said he clocked in at around 11% on a bioelectrical impedance scale. I couldn't even see his abs. I don't know what he used, but it was wrong. I can see my abs just fine and my latest reading in August was 13.6%. I actually thought it overestimated my body fat.
The things we say to ourselves, eh?Well then the scale I used is more accurate than the one he used. I came in at a couple points higher in body fat than he did, but I am noticeably leaner than he was in his photo.