Hi all,

First, a progress report: things are going well. I'm down about 9lbs in just over 3 weeks, with no real cravings or desire to cheat.

Start: 210 lbs, 24% B.F., 160 lbs lean mass
Current: 201 lbs, 21% B.F., 159 lbs lean mass :claplow:

Good, but the loss rate is a bit on the high side. I'm concerned about maintaining muscle mass at this rate even though based on my estimates I'm not losing much if any lean mass - yet? :confused:

Here's my question: how important is method in measuring the circumferences for the military method of body fat estimation? I've read the official document, located here (http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/kurilla5.pdf) but it doesn't make any specific reference to measurement technique.

I find my B.F. numbers change by about 3% depending on whether or not I relax my abdomen, and on how tightly I pull the tape. Now, it seems pretty obvious to me that I should leave the tape fairly loose, rather than cinching it, but how about the relaxation issue?

Patrick

Whether you're using calipers, mybodycomp, or the military method, they are all only estimates. None of them are going to be absolutely correct. What you really want to pay attention to is the trend over time. Whatever method you use, you want to see the bf% decreasing.

The most important part of it all is consistancy. However you take the measurement this time, do it exactly the same next time. Having said that, I'd say to take measurements in a normal, relaxed state. It's much easier to duplicate the normal state time after time. Even then, it's a little hard to act "normal" when you know that you're measuring yourself. The tendancy is to cheat and suck it in a little.

As for pulling the tape tight or not, I found that I couldn't get consistant readings twice in a row. It seems that the more fat you have the easier it is to pull it a little tighter or a little looser each time you measure. I solved the problem by getting the myotape. It's retracted by a spring and tightens with the same force time after time.

The most important part of it all is consistancy. However you take the measurement this time, do it exactly the same next time. Having said that, I'd say to take measurements in a normal, relaxed state. It's much easier to duplicate the normal state time after time. Even then, it's a little hard to act "normal" when you know that you're measuring yourself. The tendancy is to cheat and suck it in a little.


Well, I'm not trying to cheat it - I mean, I've got nothing to prove to anyone except myself, so that'd be a bit like cheating at Solitaire, wouldn't it? ;)

However, my logic goes like this: at least part of my middle bulge is due to slack muscles. As I work those muscles and tighten them, I'm not necessarily reducing body fat - but the difference method will read it as such, right? I've been taking my measurements with my gut tight - not sucked in, just tight, as if I'm crunching. I figure that should give me the best consistency as both my fat levels and muscle tone improve, no?

Patrick

No, of course you have no reason to cheat on the measurements. Just do whatever makes it easier for you to to keep consistancy in your measurements. Like any flexed muscle, I'm not too sure that my abdomen doesn't get a little bigger when I flex the muscle as in crunches. I suppose there's a difference in flexing vs sucking in the gut.

My problem is that I'm soft as well as flabby, so the ole gut hangs out pretty well if I don't tighten it. I think realistically it makes the most sense for me to tighten (but not suck it in) when taking the measurements, since (hopefully? :whistle: ) I'll eventually get to the point where that tightness is normal. Am I making sense? Do guys with six-packs only have them when they flex, or is that a normal state for them? :)

Patrick

Forget the military way. It's total BS. I was in the military, and support them all the way, but to be honest, they are 20-30 years behind the rest of the world when it comes to fitness. they are slow to change and keep up with the latest scientific findings. If you want a quick, easy way to estimate BF%, get a Tanita BIA scale. They aren't 100% accurate (nothing is), but show very consistent measurments if you take the readings under the same conditions every time. The one thing that throws them off is hydration levels - if you are dehydrated, it will show an abnormally low number. These scales are cheap. I've seen them for as low as $35, and they will last forever.
---Trainiac!
www.clintphillips.com

Do guys with six-packs only have them when they flex, or is that a normal state for them? :)

You can always see the six-pack as long as the BF% is low enough. If you are seeing it in a picture, it's most likely flexed. If you are seeing it in life, the person is probably moving so it's flexing and tensing as the core is being used. Even when standing completely still you can see it.

Forget the military way. It's total BS. I was in the military, and support them all the way, but to be honest, they are 20-30 years behind the rest of the world when it comes to fitness.

I dunno - that paper that I referenced in my original post was dated 1998, so they're at least re-evaluating their stuff. It's not "scientifically" based, I guess, in the sense that there's no causal theory behind it. But it is statistically based. That is, there's no particular reason for the relationship between the difference between abdominal and neck girths to be a predictor of body fat, but the fact is there is a strong statistical correlation for most people.

I've heard a lot of bad things about the fat scales too, so it's hard to know which way to go. For that matter, the "gold standard" of water weighing is also highly variable since it's measuring your density not your fat. I suspect the only way you're going to get a "real" number is through something like a whole-body CAT scan!

Anyway, thanks for the thoughts, guys - I think I'm just going to have to accept that consistency is the key, and that I may not be getting a rigorously accurate number, but that the way it changes over time really is representative.

Patrick

One thing to remember about the military method is that they only have tested it against water weighing, which is their reference for an accurate measurement.

That said, what I hear from most people is that they get more consistent and realistic results using the military method than from Tanita- or any other sort of electronic scales.

Regarding how to meaure in the Military method, I have read somewhere (can't find the source again) that the neck should be measured right below the Adam's apple, with the tape angled slightly upwards and with an upright posture. The abdomen should be measured around the navel, on the thickest part of the love handles. The measurement is taken on a relaxed belly after a normal exhalation.

I do it like that, and tighten the tape just enough for it to stay in place, and I get very consistent measurements in the mornings. In the evenings, my cirumference is 0,5 - 1 inch longer, so it varies more depending on how much I have eaten.

I've heard a lot of bad things about the fat scales too, so it's hard to know which way to go. For that matter, the "gold standard" of water weighing is also highly variable since it's measuring your density not your fat. I suspect the only way you're going to get a "real" number is through something like a whole-body CAT scan!
PatrickYou're absolutely right. Even the gold standard of water weighing has it's drawbacks. Even it's an estimate. I read somewhere that the only way to get a "real" number is through an autopsy. Although I'd like to know the real answer, I don't think it's worth going to that much trouble!!

I read somewhere that the only way to get a "real" number is through an autopsy. Although I'd like to know the real answer, I don't think it's worth going to that much trouble!!

:claplow: Touche! :claphigh:

I'll stick with the estimates for as long as possible! ;)