Talk:Body fat percentage

message: There is a lot of redundancy between the two articles, and this is a subset of the other.Knoitalno (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge into [[Body composition]] article?

message: The table suggests that 25% (32%) body fat for men (women) is considered obesity. The graph by the national nutrition survey of body fat percentage for different genders and age groups suggests that on the average, Americans are obese at all age groups. Does this make sense? Seems a bit drastric.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matanbz (talk • contribs) 05:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Are Americans really obese on average?

message: Would anyone oppose me adding the most popular formulas for calculating body density from skin folds, such as Jackson & Pollock, Parillo, and Durnin & Wormersly? --BBUCommander (talk) 03:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding Skin Fold Body Density Formulas

message: The language in the beginning of the article regarding the accuracy of BMI seems misleading. It says:
The widely used body mass index (BMI) provides a measure that allows for the comparison of individuals of different heights in terms of their weight. Due to differences in body composition, the BMI is not necessarily an accurate indicator of body fat; for example, individuals with greater muscle mass will have higher BMIs. The thresholds between "normal" and "overweight" and between "overweight" and "obese" are sometimes disputed for this reason.
This implies that BMI is inaccurate due to the number of false positives for obesity. However, it seems that the opposite is true -- most of the inaccuracy of BMI comes from the number of false *negatives* for obesity, i.e. the proportion individuals with normal weight BMIs but obese bodyfat percentages. Here are a bunch of studies which substantiate this:
Accuracy of Body Mass Index to Diagnose Obesity In the US Adult Population
Diagnostic performance of body mass index to identify obesity as defined by body adiposity: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Measuring Adiposity in Patients: The Utility of Body Mass Index (BMI), Percent Body Fat, and Leptin
The role of fat mass index in determining obesity.
Body mass index misclassification of obesity among community police officers
Comparison of the classification of obesity by BMI vs. dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in the Newfoundland population.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.164.93.100 (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You've misread at least the first two of your links--I've only looked at two so far--, and zero-for-two is not a good batting average. The first one says only that BAI is not an accurate measurement. The second one says only that BMI is better at determining how obese someone is than whether they're obese. In any case, the obvious essential problem with BMI is that it assumes the amount of non-fat tissue per height is fixed for all individuals at all times, and of course it isn't. Whether BMI tends to underestimate or overestimate fat depends on the fixed amount it assumes (its scale) and the individual. If the population on average has gotten less muscular (as may be a corollary of the very rapid spurt in average height of the past few decades, probably as a result of artificial chemicals in the environment or chemicals added to commercially-packaged food, affecting still-developing individuals), and the scale hasn't been accordingly adjusted, then BMI may tend to underestimate obesity, but only on average. The normal effect for older (unaffected by chemicals and additives because already fully grown) muscular individuals will still necessarily be to overestimate obesity. TheScotch (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy of BMI

message: recommend bf % for women according to first uncited source: article says acceptable range is 20-21% i.e. a 1% bf window. This has to be an error or typo and it should either be corrected or removed.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.118.119 (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The size of breasts varies dramatically, however, which should throw an adjustable spanner into the works. TheScotch (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Women Body fat

message: I've done a Google Search, a Google scholar search, scoured the Duke University Libraries, and cannot find any reference to this "New York Body Building Journal" let alone the article. If this journal does exist, then the citation should be updated to link to this article. If it doesn't, the claim that a body builder's joints are at risk from a low body fat needs a verifiable source or it will be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.217.82 (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York Body Building Journal??

message: That reference for ACE refers to an unreferenced chart from another web site.  The reference is an undocumented loop.  This chart is not adequately referenced.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.96.13.12 (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Essential means exactly that. You will die if it falls below that. Actually you would die much before that. nirax (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Body fat percentage categories 

message: How can you go from acceptable body fat directly to obese?  Isn't there an overweight category?
Don't even get me started on this ha ha. It's very confusing because most people are used to using a BMI scale which has a normal, overweight and obese range. By going straight from acceptable to obese, it gives the impression that perhaps the acceptable figures are overweight when they are not (or at least not the lower end of the acceptable range). I think perhaps obese really means overweight or there needs to be an overweight range somewhere between the acceptable figures and obese figures...maybe the obese range should be higher to make more room for an overweight range. The problem is there is a lack of information and studies on body fat percentage, for example scientists still cannot agree on an obese body fat percentage for females. It was often stated as 30%, but scientists have now found the average woman has a body at percentage of 30% at only a BMI of 25 which is just into the overweight range and would be too low to call obese. So now scientists are saying 35% which correlates well with an obese BMI in the average female, other sources state 32% or 33% is obese for a female. It's just ridiculous that they can't set specific guidelines, I guess there just are not enough studies to back up the figures.
This is something like what you are looking for: http://www.weightwatchers.com/util/art/index_art.aspx?tabnum=4&art_id=20841&sc=803 70.238.146.159 (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you define obese as dangerously overweight, that is, as overweight to the extent that health may or, perhaps, will be impaired, then the problem may be that the medical profession is necessarily unconcerned with the middle category. This is in contradistinction to the layman, who will tend to care very much about his appearance, especially about how attractive he is to the opposite sex. TheScotch (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acceptable to Obesity 

message: Not sure why the skinfold calculators have been removed as spam? Should the others be removed as well?
I don't know about removing things because of spam. What kind of external links are allowed? I removed some links November 24th that were not related to true body fat percentage measures. Is that okay to do?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.14.193 (talk • contribs) 
:See Wikipedia's External links policy.  Also, please sign your posts by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end. -- Mwanner | Talk 18:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to skinfold calculation is removed 

message: Added this link as I find this quite useful. Another alternative way to estimate your body fat percentage. Cheers! --Romansemko 14:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the discussion on the site shows (as does common sense) it is just not an accurate method.  I have removed it. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BMI to Body Fat Estimator 

message: Changed Title by adding " : Remove or not remove?"; I think it should be removed due to lack of references. RollandWaters (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way, it seems to be inaccurate. I tried both metric and US units, and I got a negative body fat % for both. In reality, my body fat is actually 7%. So I don't know what's going on here. Savvy10 (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

text: The given formula already underestimates way too much. If you further divide by 100, it would become even more inaccurate. May be you mean multiply numerator by 100. Anyway, does anybody know of any reference to it. Else we should remove this formula from the article. I have put a tag of lack of reference. nirax (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  YMCA Method : Remove or not remove? 

message: Someone needs to post a table comparing or ranking the relative accuracies of these methods. It's alright as it is, but would be nice to have some SE's for these measurements ex.(+-2%).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.217.82 (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be assuming that a bodybuilder would never do anything that might impair his health. This is a false assumption. In fact, at least several professional bodybuilders have died during competitions from too little body fat. The entire life-style (steroids, diet, etc.) is extremely unhealthy. In any case, you might bear in mind that professional bodybuilders attempt to lose body fat only directly before a contest. Between contests they're more concerned with bulking. TheScotch (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommendations section 

message: This section does not identify the units in which volume and weight have to measured. Any ratio of physical units will give different values depending on the unit system used.Ludico (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Body average density measurement 

message: The section on bioelectrical impedance measurement concludes with a statement that when looking at two brands of scale, one in particular overestimated the body fat.
Um, overestimated compared to the other one? Which one is right, then? Or, were both compared to something else? This could read like an advert for Omron. The source given is offline, so I don't have immediate access to it, nor do I have the inclination to find the original work.
As it stands, the statement is ambiguous and, possibly, misleading. — gogobera (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omron vs. Tanita for BIA 

message: The percentages in the table look descriptive, not 'recommended'.  Unless someone recommended obesity!
Also, article does not explain why any "recommended" percent should be higher than the essential amount.  It just says "The minimum recommended total body fat percentage exceeds the essential fat percentage."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.14.106 (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, the article as it currently reads still says that, for example, it is recommended that obese persons have body fat percentages of twenty-five percent or above, which, of course, is nonsensical. TheScotch (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommendation issues 

message: The content of this article was discussed on Reddit. 183.82.66.193 (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on reddit 

message: That formula is highly inaccurate. It gave a number for me that is half of what I get with both the navy method AND using calipers. As well, I plugged Ronnie Coleman's stats into it and it gave an estimated body fat of "49.81". That is not a "prediction error is comparable to the prediction error obtained with other methods of estimating BF%, such as skinfold thickness measurements or bioelectrical impedance", not even close.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.164.79.119 (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In the first place, BMI is supposed to be valid only for entire populations, not for individuals. In the second place, the "number" obtained from "calipers" is a body fat percentage, and the number obtained from BMI is another animal entirely. You're comparing apples and oranges. TheScotch (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  From BMI 

message: This link has useful information on the various estimates (not measurements) of Body Fat %. http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=218 (Coachtripfan (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy _ study 

message: From this article:
"body density can be determined with great accuracy by completely submerging a person in water and calculating the volume of the displaced water from the weight of the displaced water. A correction is made for the buoyancy of air in the lungs and other gases in the body spaces."
I believe that this is not accurate.  The Underwater weighing procedure weighs the subject while immersed, so the weight of any displaced water is not relevant.  
Determining the subject's volume from the weight of the displaced water could give a result comparable to the typical underwater weighing procedure - since the objective is to determine the subject's density - but then the volume of any residual gasses would need to be accounted for rather than their buoyancy.
The quoted text should be corrected to more accurately reflect the procedure described in the Hydrostatic weighing article.
Softboyled (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Underwater Weighing error