I can't seem to find this issue addressed anywhere (in the forums or on the internet in general)...I was wondering if the skinfold test with callipers was an accurate way for women to measure bf. These are the 7 sites that are usually tested:
triceps
biceps
iliac crest
supraspinale
abdominal
front thigh
medial calf
Is it just me or would this give an unrealistic (too low) bf% for say an hourglass or pear shaped woman? I personally carry little fat in most of these areas; it's all on my bum and the backs of my upper thighs (which aren't accounted for with the test sites listed) Taking this into consideration, would you consider this test reliable? I've probably answered my own question here, but would like to hear what you think! I personally don't trust the electrical impedance devices so am looking into this as an alternative.

exrx.net has a caliper-measurement-to-BF% calculator here (http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/BodyComp.html) that is gender-specific. That site is quite reliable in general, so you can reasonably expect their estimates to be accurate for women.

Your body fat percentage tells you how much of your mass is made up of adipose tissue. Calipers can't give a perfectly accurate estimate of your body fat percentage, either for men or women, because everyone's body fat is distributed differently. Because of that, a person with the same percentage of body fat as another person might look less or more lean in particular areas.

The 7 site caliper measurement is not always the one that's used. there's a three point method, several four-point formulas, a five-point one, and an 8 point. http://www.linear-software.com/online.html. I think John used to calculate three of them and average the result.

Some sources (http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%20folder/underbodycomp.html) report that men should measure at thigh, chest, and abdomen and women should measure at thigh, triceps, and suprailium. (Like the 3 point option in the site that Bud recommended.)

A DEXA scan or hydrostatic weighing would yield more accurate body fat percentage values because it would take those extra sites into account, but it wouldn't necessarily relate any more accurately to your leanness appearance, and it wouldn't likely be any more accurate at tracking fat loss trends. I agree that calipers should be more accurate than bioelectrical impedence.

A DEXA scan or hydrostatic weighing would yield more accurate body fat percentage values because it would take those extra sites into account, but it wouldn't necessarily relate any more accurately to your leanness appearance, and it wouldn't likely be any more accurate at tracking fat loss trends. I agree that calipers should be more accurate than bioelectrical impedence.

The DEXA scan is definitely more accurate for tracking fat loss trends, and the hydrostatic is next most accurate.

Studies done with bioimpedance and calipers against hydrostatic and DEXA standards basically come out that bioimpedance is actually better than calipers unless the person operating the calipers has been trained - on a few hundred subjects. Then the calipers are better than the bioimpedance but not as good as hydrostatic. I was surprised to find that because I didn't think the calipers were that tricky.

DEXA is pretty much the best there is - it's supposed to be better than MRI, which has also been used but isn't as common. Some people are calling DEXA the "new gold standard".