![]() This makes sense since these areas correspond to primary areas of fat deposition for each sex. If you check out the first term, you can see that waist and waist/hip measurements are used to estimate body fat of men and women respectively. The second term probably corrects for height (so that tall people don't get punished for have proportionate girths), and the last term is probably an experimentally-justified constant that corrects the result of the equation to it's as close as possible to actual body fat levels. However, this estimate lacks precision and accuracy, so it needs to be corrected. The first term probably gives you a an estimate of body fat based on a couple circumference measurements. I couldn't find a site that actually explains these equations, but I can make some educated guess about the rationale behind them. Was this built into the Navy algorithm? Does this make it inaccurate?Īccording to WikiHow, the Navy's Body Fat calculation formulas are as follows (measurements in cm): I understand I'm being nit-picky here, as it is telling me that over the past two months I've lost about 4% (coming up on 5%) in BFP, but wouldn't my waist have more weight in the calculation of what my body fat is doing than my neck? The way it is now it seems kind ass backwards, pardon the french. On the other hand, if my waist measurement stays the same (which indicates no change), and my neck measurement decreases by 1/2 inch, my BFP is calculated as gaining a half a percentage point. If my waist measurement increases size 1/8th of an inch (which would indicate a gain of BFP), but my neck measurement increases by 3/8ths of an inch, then my BFP is calculated as losing. It's done it's job as far as telling me that I'm loosing body fat and gaining lean muscle in it's place, but I still wonder how accurate it is and can be.įrom everything I've read on the net, the general consensus is that it's accurate to within 3% of what Hydrostatic Weighing gives you, but I've noticed something about it's output, namely that my neck measurement has more of a (reverse) hold on what my BFP is than my waist measurement does. My second question is, why would there be such a huge discrepancy between the estimated and actual percentage? I know these methods are hugely fallible, but would that indicate that I'm more muscular than most at my height/weight?Īny thoughts would be appreciated! I'm just trying to get a rough feel for this, as I have no idea where to go in my area for a more accurate reading.I've been using the Navy Body Fat Calculation method for about two months in conjunction with an exercise regimen. It guessed 38% - apparently based on this study. body fat percentage the calculator guessed based on my height/weight. Second - when I tried to do input on my macros, before I'd put in my est. First question - anyone else done the Navy test? Thoughts on its accuracy? When I did the Navy tests, I got between 26-28% - which is based on height, weight, and measurements of waist, hips and neck. I know just about everyone has hated on those comparison pictures, but I guessed myself around 26% based on those. ![]() ![]() A question on body fat: I'm on keto and am trying to get my macros down to a precise science.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |