Body Fat Calculation

"GaryG" <sorrynoemail DeleteThis @NOSPAMX.com> wrote in news:3G%Jd.11054$M_3.2789
@fe03.lga:

>> I mean, look at what they're measuring: circumference of four body
>> parts, and height.
>>
>> When a guy like Bertil Fox (5'11, 230 lbs shredded) in
>> competiton shape would be considered by this method to
>> have a bodyfat percentage in the 30's or higher, you know
>> something illogical has happened.
>
> I find that hard to believe. Do you have his measurements?
>
> Regardless, that's someone who is clearly a statistical "outlier" (in this
> case, a far, far outlier). For the majority of folks, the body
> circumference measurements are clearly "close enough for government work",
> as well as easy to employ.
>

Trouble with that line of reasoning is that I'm here because I'm working to
make myself as much of an outlier as possible.

So I'd rather use a method that doesn't start out assuming everyone is
average, especially along the dimension (muscular weight::lean weight) that
I'm trying to change.

Hugh


--
Run like hell and let the clowns deal with the bull.
 >> Stay informed about: Body Fat Calculation 

"Hugh Beyer" <beyerxyzzy DeleteThis @acm.org> wrote in message
news:Xns95EB63B72B8Chughrbeyeracmorg@130.133.1.4...
> "GaryG" <sorrynoemail DeleteThis @NOSPAMX.com> wrote in news:3G%Jd.11054$M_3.2789
> @fe03.lga:
>
> >> I mean, look at what they're measuring: circumference of four body
> >> parts, and height.
> >>
> >> When a guy like Bertil Fox (5'11, 230 lbs shredded) in
> >> competiton shape would be considered by this method to
> >> have a bodyfat percentage in the 30's or higher, you know
> >> something illogical has happened.
> >
> > I find that hard to believe. Do you have his measurements?
> >
> > Regardless, that's someone who is clearly a statistical "outlier" (in
this
> > case, a far, far outlier). For the majority of folks, the body
> > circumference measurements are clearly "close enough for government
work",
> > as well as easy to employ.
> >
>
> Trouble with that line of reasoning is that I'm here because I'm working
to
> make myself as much of an outlier as possible.
>
> So I'd rather use a method that doesn't start out assuming everyone is
> average, especially along the dimension (muscular weight::lean weight)
that
> I'm trying to change.

Point taken. Though, for anyone who's "massive", there's probably no
current method of estimation that won't be subject to error. AFAIK, all of
the current methods are based on sets of assumptions that center around
average-sized people.

>
> Hugh
>
>
> --
> Run like hell and let the clowns deal with the bull.
 >> Stay informed about: Body Fat Calculation 

GaryG <sorrynoemail.TakeThisOut@NOSPAMX.com> wrote:
>"Blair P. Houghton" <b.TakeThisOut@p.h> wrote in message
>news:YX%Jd.153277$f47.27701@news.easynews.com...
>> The BFP number itself is nearly meaningless, even if you
>> can determine it to perfect accuracy. The monotonic change
>> in the number over time is meaningful, as is the monotonic
>> change in its converse, the lean-body-mass estimate.
>> Keep the BFP going down and the LBM flat or rising, and
>> you're making progress without causing harm.
>
>Are you intentionally obfuscatory, or are you a lawyer by profession?

I use words. They mean things when I do that.

>FWIW,
>your paragraph would have the same meaning if you simply referred to
>"change" rather than "monotonic change".

I'm telling you that keeping it headed down is good.

When it goes up (as a trend, not from day to day) then
that is bad. (Unless you're deliberately gaining, then
good/bad are reversed. Or for some reason tasked with
keeping it steady. The point is, you can figure out good
and bad from the goal and the trend.)

>As for BFP being "nearly meaningless" on its own...guess we'll have to agree
>to disagree on this one. Many people find it useful as a way of assessing
>their fitness and/or fatness, and as a way of evalutating the feasibility of
>their body weight goals.

The absolute number isn't significant to goalsetting. The
trend of the change is.

Unless maybe you think someone wants a *negative* BFP.

It's my contention that with a
caliper/dunk-tank/Navy-method reading of 25%, you don't
know if losing "all that fat" will leave you at 0%, +5%, or
-5% true bodyfat. The latter being impossible, of course,
but then, so is getting a truly accurate reading for a
random person given only a scale and one of a caliper,
a tape measure, or a graduated vat.

>> "Outlier" is a highly subjective word to apply to a
>> putatively objective metrological technique like BFP.
>
>"Highly subjective"? When applied to someone who is clearly "one in a
>million"? I don't think so.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Now you're just being ironic.

>> This "government work" will have fit people eating and
>> exercising like fat slobs, and vice versa.
>>
>> It's almost as dangerous as BMI.
>
>So, BMI is "dangerous", and BFP is "nearly meaningless". Are there any
>objective measures of fitness/fatness that you find useful?

Define "fitness/fatness" in objectively meaningful terms.

Nobody can.

I know I'm stronger and have more endurance than people
who have better-looking bodies than mine, but not as much
as people who have more competitive athleticism than I do.
And their records will probably be broken before they
stop competing.

What "fitness" means depends on what mold you're trying
to fit yourself into, and who's judging how well you fit.

Even at bodybuilding competitions, the numbers mean less
than subjective appearance does.

--Blair
"Regardless: 7.4% this morning.
If you feel anything about that,
you're not paying attention."
 >> Stay informed about: Body Fat Calculation 

"Blair P. Houghton" <b RemoveThis @p.h> wrote in message
news:6GjKd.276833$ju.45802@news.easynews.com...
> GaryG <sorrynoemail RemoveThis @NOSPAMX.com> wrote:
> >"Blair P. Houghton" <b RemoveThis @p.h> wrote in message
> >news:YX%Jd.153277$f47.27701@news.easynews.com...
> >> The BFP number itself is nearly meaningless, even if you
> >> can determine it to perfect accuracy. The monotonic change
> >> in the number over time is meaningful, as is the monotonic
> >> change in its converse, the lean-body-mass estimate.
> >> Keep the BFP going down and the LBM flat or rising, and
> >> you're making progress without causing harm.
> >
> >Are you intentionally obfuscatory, or are you a lawyer by profession?
>
> I use words. They mean things when I do that.
>
> >FWIW,
> >your paragraph would have the same meaning if you simply referred to
> >"change" rather than "monotonic change".
>
> I'm telling you that keeping it headed down is good.

Agreed...but, "monotonic" has a specific meaning, and changes in body
measurements are rarely, if ever, monotonic. For the interested reader,
here's the definition of "monotonic":

"Designating sequences, the successive members of which either consistently
increase or decrease but do not oscillate in relative value. Each member of
a monotone increasing sequence is greater than or equal to the preceding
member; each member of a monotone decreasing sequence is less than or equal
to the preceding member."

>
> When it goes up (as a trend, not from day to day) then
> that is bad. (Unless you're deliberately gaining, then
> good/bad are reversed. Or for some reason tasked with
> keeping it steady. The point is, you can figure out good
> and bad from the goal and the trend.)
>
> >As for BFP being "nearly meaningless" on its own...guess we'll have to
agree
> >to disagree on this one. Many people find it useful as a way of
assessing
> >their fitness and/or fatness, and as a way of evalutating the feasibility
of
> >their body weight goals.
>
> The absolute number isn't significant to goalsetting. The
> trend of the change is.

Well, if I know my current "absolute" BFP is around 15%, and I want to be
competitive at something like running or cycling, then I know I should try
to get it down to around 10% or below. But, if I'm already at 10%, it tells
me that I need to be careful, because getting it much lower can be risky to
my health (unless you believe that you can't be too thin). In both cases,
knowing my current BFP helps to set an appropriate goal.

GG

>
> Unless maybe you think someone wants a *negative* BFP.
>
> It's my contention that with a
> caliper/dunk-tank/Navy-method reading of 25%, you don't
> know if losing "all that fat" will leave you at 0%, +5%, or
> -5% true bodyfat. The latter being impossible, of course,
> but then, so is getting a truly accurate reading for a
> random person given only a scale and one of a caliper,
> a tape measure, or a graduated vat.
>
> >> "Outlier" is a highly subjective word to apply to a
> >> putatively objective metrological technique like BFP.
> >
> >"Highly subjective"? When applied to someone who is clearly "one in a
> >million"? I don't think so.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Now you're just being ironic.
>
> >> This "government work" will have fit people eating and
> >> exercising like fat slobs, and vice versa.
> >>
> >> It's almost as dangerous as BMI.
> >
> >So, BMI is "dangerous", and BFP is "nearly meaningless". Are there any
> >objective measures of fitness/fatness that you find useful?
>
> Define "fitness/fatness" in objectively meaningful terms.
>
> Nobody can.
>
> I know I'm stronger and have more endurance than people
> who have better-looking bodies than mine, but not as much
> as people who have more competitive athleticism than I do.
> And their records will probably be broken before they
> stop competing.
>
> What "fitness" means depends on what mold you're trying
> to fit yourself into, and who's judging how well you fit.
>
> Even at bodybuilding competitions, the numbers mean less
> than subjective appearance does.
>
> --Blair
> "Regardless: 7.4% this morning.
> If you feel anything about that,
> you're not paying attention."
 >> Stay informed about: Body Fat Calculation 

GaryG <sorrynoemail.DeleteThis@NOSPAMX.com> wrote:
>"Blair P. Houghton" <b.DeleteThis@p.h> wrote in message
>news:6GjKd.276833$ju.45802@news.easynews.com...
>> GaryG <sorrynoemail.DeleteThis@NOSPAMX.com> wrote:
>> >"Blair P. Houghton" <b.DeleteThis@p.h> wrote in message
>> >news:YX%Jd.153277$f47.27701@news.easynews.com...
>> >> The BFP number itself is nearly meaningless, even if you
>> >> can determine it to perfect accuracy. The monotonic change
>> >> in the number over time is meaningful, as is the monotonic
>> >> change in its converse, the lean-body-mass estimate.
>> >> Keep the BFP going down and the LBM flat or rising, and
>> >> you're making progress without causing harm.
>> >
>> >Are you intentionally obfuscatory, or are you a lawyer by profession?
>>
>> I use words. They mean things when I do that.
>>
>> >FWIW,
>> >your paragraph would have the same meaning if you simply referred to
>> >"change" rather than "monotonic change".
>>
>> I'm telling you that keeping it headed down is good.
>
>Agreed...but, "monotonic" has a specific meaning, and changes in body
>measurements are rarely, if ever, monotonic. For the interested reader,
>here's the definition of "monotonic":
>
>"Designating sequences, the successive members of which either consistently
>increase or decrease but do not oscillate in relative value. Each member of
>a monotone increasing sequence is greater than or equal to the preceding
>member; each member of a monotone decreasing sequence is less than or equal
>to the preceding member."

Right. I used "monotonic" because "change" can go both ways.

>> The absolute number isn't significant to goalsetting. The
>> trend of the change is.
>
>Well, if I know my current "absolute" BFP is around 15%, and I want to be
>competitive at something like running or cycling, then I know I should try
>to get it down to around 10% or below.

You should get your speed up at least to that of the worst competitor.
If you lose fat in the process, then you look good, too.

>But, if I'm already at 10%, it tells
>me that I need to be careful, because getting it much lower can be risky to
>my health (unless you believe that you can't be too thin). In both cases,
>knowing my current BFP helps to set an appropriate goal.

Your numbers are arbitrary. Many people live their lives
normally at 5% or less BFP. The only risk to your health
from being thin is if you get stuck on a desert island
for a month with nothing to eat.

But it isn't easy. If your body naturally tends to
fatness, staying thin is like treading water. You have
to put energy into it just to stay where you are.

--Blair
"Ice ages are tough, too."
 >> Stay informed about: Body Fat Calculation 

"Blair P. Houghton" <b RemoveThis @p.h> wrote in message
news:6_hLd.575753$f47.100534@news.easynews.com...
> GaryG <sorrynoemail RemoveThis @NOSPAMX.com> wrote:
> >"Blair P. Houghton" <b RemoveThis @p.h> wrote in message
> >news:6GjKd.276833$ju.45802@news.easynews.com...
> >> GaryG <sorrynoemail RemoveThis @NOSPAMX.com> wrote:
> >> >"Blair P. Houghton" <b RemoveThis @p.h> wrote in message
> >> >news:YX%Jd.153277$f47.27701@news.easynews.com...
> >> >> The BFP number itself is nearly meaningless, even if you
> >> >> can determine it to perfect accuracy. The monotonic change
> >> >> in the number over time is meaningful, as is the monotonic
> >> >> change in its converse, the lean-body-mass estimate.
> >> >> Keep the BFP going down and the LBM flat or rising, and
> >> >> you're making progress without causing harm.
> >> >
> >> >Are you intentionally obfuscatory, or are you a lawyer by profession?
> >>
> >> I use words. They mean things when I do that.
> >>
> >> >FWIW,
> >> >your paragraph would have the same meaning if you simply referred to
> >> >"change" rather than "monotonic change".
> >>
> >> I'm telling you that keeping it headed down is good.
> >
> >Agreed...but, "monotonic" has a specific meaning, and changes in body
> >measurements are rarely, if ever, monotonic. For the interested reader,
> >here's the definition of "monotonic":
> >
> >"Designating sequences, the successive members of which either
consistently
> >increase or decrease but do not oscillate in relative value. Each member
of
> >a monotone increasing sequence is greater than or equal to the preceding
> >member; each member of a monotone decreasing sequence is less than or
equal
> >to the preceding member."
>
> Right. I used "monotonic" because "change" can go both ways.


Did you read the definition of the word? "Monotonic change" means that
every subsequent measurement in the series moves in the same direction.
But, that rarely happens with body measurements. Even if one were in the
midst of a successful weight loss program, some measurements would be higher
than the previous measurements...thus, the change would not be "monotonic"
even though the overall trend was favorable. With the inherent margin of
error in body fat measurements, it's highly unlikely that one would ever
find a series of measurements that were monotonic.


> >> The absolute number isn't significant to goalsetting. The
> >> trend of the change is.
> >
> >Well, if I know my current "absolute" BFP is around 15%, and I want to be
> >competitive at something like running or cycling, then I know I should
try
> >to get it down to around 10% or below.
>
> You should get your speed up at least to that of the worst competitor.
> If you lose fat in the process, then you look good, too.


Thanks for clearing that up...your statements clearly illustrate that you
don't know dick about cycling or running. In both sports, power to weight
ratio is of paramount importance. Reducing body fat is an important
component of any training program, as it improves one's power to weight
ratio, and thus one's speed.


>
> >But, if I'm already at 10%, it tells
> >me that I need to be careful, because getting it much lower can be risky
to
> >my health (unless you believe that you can't be too thin). In both
cases,
> >knowing my current BFP helps to set an appropriate goal.
>
> Your numbers are arbitrary. Many people live their lives
> normally at 5% or less BFP. The only risk to your health
> from being thin is if you get stuck on a desert island
> for a month with nothing to eat.


Wow...are you that clueless, or are you just trolling?

Assuming you're just clueless, you should be aware that there are
significant health problems associated with too low body fat percentages,
including osteoporosis, amenorrhea, etc. Most authorities recommend 5% as
the minimum safe level for males, and 12% as the minimum safe level for
females.

Here's a sports medicine reference that addresses the issue:
http://www.physsportsmed.com/issues/1998/10Oct/roberts.htm

GG

> But it isn't easy. If your body naturally tends to
> fatness, staying thin is like treading water. You have
> to put energy into it just to stay where you are.
>
> --Blair
> "Ice ages are tough, too."
 >> Stay informed about: Body Fat Calculation 

GaryG <sorrynoemail.DeleteThis@NOSPAMX.com> wrote:
>Did you read the definition of the word? "Monotonic change" means that
>every subsequent measurement in the series moves in the same direction.

The problem is that you didn't read what I wrote.

You're interested in monotonic change.

If you measure fluctuations due to noise instead of change,
you're not going to see the monotonic change.

--Blair
"I don't expect exercise heads to get
math, but chee-rist."
 >> Stay informed about: Body Fat Calculation 

"Blair P. Houghton" <b.TakeThisOut@p.h> wrote in message
news:HpYLd.809267$f47.132674@news.easynews.com...
> GaryG <sorrynoemail.TakeThisOut@NOSPAMX.com> wrote:
> >Did you read the definition of the word? "Monotonic change" means that
> >every subsequent measurement in the series moves in the same direction.
>
> The problem is that you didn't read what I wrote.

Here's what you wrote:

>> The BFP number itself is nearly meaningless, even if you
>> can determine it to perfect accuracy. The monotonic change
>> in the number over time is meaningful, as is the monotonic
>> change in its converse, the lean-body-mass estimate.

I pointed out that your use of the word "monotonic" was unnecessary and
inapproriate in this context, because changes in bodily measurements, even
when they are favorable in terms of averages, rarely (if ever) are
"monotonic".

>
> You're interested in monotonic change.

No, you are...you used the word in your reply to me...I'm just trying to
point out the error in your usage.

>
> If you measure fluctuations due to noise instead of change,
> you're not going to see the monotonic change.

Of course you can...one filters out those fluctuations using statistical
techniques (e.g., linear regression). But, just because there's a trend
shown by linear regression does not make the series of measurements
"monotonic". By definition, "monotonic" does not refer to overall direction
or trend. It specifically relates to the differences between each
individual measurement in a series.

So, can we agree that your original sentence would have been more correct if
you had simply left out the word "monotonic"?

FWIW - the root of the word monotonic is also the root for the word
"monotonous", which seems appropriate given where this thread has gone. Of
course, if you could just admit you used a word incorrectly, all this back
and forth could have been avoided.

GG

>
> --Blair
> "I don't expect exercise heads to get
> math, but chee-rist."
 >> Stay informed about: Body Fat Calculation 

GaryG <sorrynoemail.TakeThisOut@NOSPAMX.com> wrote:
>"Blair P. Houghton" <b.TakeThisOut@p.h> wrote in message
>news:HpYLd.809267$f47.132674@news.easynews.com...
>> GaryG <sorrynoemail.TakeThisOut@NOSPAMX.com> wrote:
>> >Did you read the definition of the word? "Monotonic change" means that
>> >every subsequent measurement in the series moves in the same direction.
>>
>> The problem is that you didn't read what I wrote.
>
>Here's what you wrote:
>
>>> The BFP number itself is nearly meaningless, even if you
>>> can determine it to perfect accuracy. The monotonic change
>>> in the number over time is meaningful, as is the monotonic
>>> change in its converse, the lean-body-mass estimate.
>
>I pointed out that your use of the word "monotonic" was unnecessary and
>inapproriate in this context, because changes in bodily measurements, even
>when they are favorable in terms of averages, rarely (if ever) are
>"monotonic".

A reversing change over time is called NOISE.

A monotonic change over time is called PROGRESS.

NOISE is MEANINGLESS.

PROGRESS is MEANINGFUL.

I'm just going to stop trying to explain it to you.

Other people get it, and now they get that trying
to explain it to you is getting pointless.

--Blair
"Lose weight; don't fluctuate."
 >> Stay informed about: Body Fat Calculation