| meemoo
|
|
|
I had my fitness assessment done at the University today and was surprised at some of the results.
+ Resting Heart Rate = 71
+ Height/Weight = 5'4"/134 lbs.
+ Body Composition (% bodyfat) = 15.7 (Anyone know how accurate this is? She used a thing that looked like a big black suction cup about 4 inches in diameter and placed it on the inside of my elbow. She said this was low, but I'm not about to go and put on weight, right?)
+ Cardiorespiratory Endurance (aerobic fitness) = 33.0 out of 55.0 (whatever those numbers mean), but it was in the "Fit" category on their scale. (However, the rpm readout on their stationary bike wasn't working so she couldn't get an accurate read on my heart rate, she thought my score should be a little bit higher)
+ Upper Body Strength = Biceps=48 out of 72, Push-ups=25 out of 36 (again in the "Fit" category
+ Abdominal Strength = 20 out of 75 (In the "Fair" category)
+ Trunk Flexibility = 38 out of 66 ("Needs Work") :oops: :oops: (In my defense, sitting straight legged with arms outstretched in about the least flexible position for a person. I am much more flexible in different positions. I do the wheel in yoga, for crying out loud!)
Total Fitness Score = 70/100 (So what I got a "C-"??) |
|
Wed Apr 11, 2007 6:59 pm |
|
| pookiebear
|
|
|
meemoo wrote: + Body Composition (% bodyfat) = 15.7 (Anyone know how accurate this is? She used a thing that looked like a big black suction cup about 4 inches in diameter and placed it on the inside of my elbow. She said this was low, but I'm not about to go and put on weight, right?)
I personally don't think that's very accurate. A fit woman's BF% should fall in the range of 21-24%. If you're a woman and at 15% BF? You're a serious body builder. I got mine taken the other day and it was 24.7%. Is there a way you could get it done somewhere else just to double check?
Good job on your aerobic fitness! :) Everything else looks good as well :D |
|
Thu Apr 12, 2007 1:30 pm |
|
| meemoo
|
|
|
pookiebear wrote: meemoo wrote: + Body Composition (% bodyfat) = 15.7 (Anyone know how accurate this is? She used a thing that looked like a big black suction cup about 4 inches in diameter and placed it on the inside of my elbow. She said this was low, but I'm not about to go and put on weight, right?)
I personally don't think that's very accurate. A fit woman's BF% should fall in the range of 21-24%. If you're a woman and at 15% BF? You're a serious body builder. I got mine taken the other day and it was 24.7%. Is there a way you could get it done somewhere else just to double check?
I'll have to call one of the gyms around here and see how much they charge for body fat testing. Any idea what I should expect? |
|
Thu Apr 12, 2007 1:43 pm |
|
| pookiebear
|
|
|
| What to expect as far as your BF% is concerned? I'm not sure... I just think 15% seems inaccurate. Maybe you could go to the YMCA and get a skinfold caliper test? Those are the most accurate. Or even the handheld kind. I've honestly never heard of the kind they used on you... |
|
Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:13 pm |
|
| maltby_gardner
|
|
|
| Actually, if you can get the kind where they dunk you in water, those are the most accurate. But skin caliper is next best. |
|
Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:23 pm |
|
| pookiebear
|
|
|
maltby_gardner wrote: Actually, if you can get the kind where they dunk you in water, those are the most accurate. But skin caliper is next best.
Right. I have NO idea where to find those though... :lol: |
|
Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:24 pm |
|
| meemoo
|
|
|
pookiebear wrote: What to expect as far as your BF% is concerned?
I actually meant as far as $$ is concerned. |
|
Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:33 pm |
|
| pookiebear
|
|
|
| I called a gym in the area and spoke to the owner and he told me to just come on in and did it for free. :) At the YMCA, I think it's about $10? |
|
Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:34 pm |
|
| meemoo
|
|
|
| Thanks Pook! |
|
Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:41 pm |
|
| pookiebear
|
|
|
| No problem! Let us know any updates! :) |
|
Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:51 pm |
|
| oldpjams
|
|
|
| Seems low, but I'm not looking at you. At ~13% a woman's abs should be plainly visible. A woman's body will resist getting below that level for a whole laundry list of reasons. 15% puts you pretty close to that, which would seem unusual unless you are either gifted or working really hard toward that specific goal. Again, I'm not looking at you, though. |
|
Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:06 pm |
|
| RedRox
|
|
|
| FWIW, I recently had a bioimpedence test done with a machine that uses electrodes at the wrist and ankle. Curious about it's accuracy, I looked the model number up on the web and their literature states a 1.5% accuracy band and a 97% correlation with hydrostatic testing. Caliper tests I think run in a 3% accuracy band and are somewhat dependent on the skill of the tester. I'll see what the caliper says in another few weeks though. ;) |
|
Thu Apr 12, 2007 5:34 pm |
|
| oldpjams
|
|
|
This was posted somewhere I frequent just the other day. Nothing new but worth repeating.
Measuring Body Fatness
What are the primary tools we can use to track our body weight or fatness? They range from the simple to the expensive and exotic. The key for me, as discussed previously, is consistency and reliability.
• Weighing The simplest way to track weight, of course, is with a scale. This can range from your inexpensive bathroom scale to the one in my lab that costs nearly $4K. The key is to be consistent in when and how you weigh yourself. Ideally, this is first thing in the morning after your bathroom trip. Also, DO NOT weigh yourself every day or worry about 1 kg either way. You’re looking for long-term patterns over weeks or even months.
• Weight and Body Fatness It’s important to note that weight and body fatness are NOT closely related! As muscle is denser than adipose tissue, you can end up decreasing your body fat and have increased muscle mass (e.g., through consistent resistance training), yet end up at the same weight. Of course, the opposite can be the case, especially as one ages and activity levels may decrease.
• Hydrostatic Weighing Underwater weighing is often considered the gold standard for body fatness measurement, because it can directly and fairly accurately calculate body density (fat is less dense than muscle, so a fatter person weighs less underwater than a leaner person of the same weight). This body density is then converted to body fatness. The main limitation is that only a few specialized facilities, usually university exercise physiology labs, will be able to perform them. So of course that’s an expensive option, leading to the two following alternatives.
• Skinfold The most popular alternative to hydrostatic weighing is skinfold measurement, using a caliper to measure the thickness of the fat layer directly under your skin. This can be used to estimate body density, from which the same equations are used to calculate body fatness. Seems easy and cheaper, but beware that technique is absolutely critical (garbage in, garbage out) and harder than it seems. Therefore, make sure the tester is credibly certified, and ideally use the same one each time. Other caveats include natural changes in skin thickness with age, and also that the equations used to estimate density and fatness are population specific and many not apply to you very well. One popular way among scientist to get around the problems with equations based on assumptions is simply to report the individual skinfold values or else the sum of all of the skinfolds.
• Bioelectrical Impedance You may have seen fancy weigh scales in stores or your gym that claims to tell you your body fat too. How they work may be a “shock” to you – a tiny current is sent from one part of the scale, through your body, then to another part of the scale. As fat is an electrical insulator, changes in body fatness changes the speed at which the current is conducted through your body. A huge series of assumptions are used to convert from current conductivity to body fatness, so the accuracy of these units tend to be pretty shaky. However, we’re more interested in reliability, which is pretty good as long as you use the same unit each time.
There are lots of other big and expensive ways to measure body composition, but they aren’t overly practical and you’ll only find them in very high-priced labs or research hospitals. Again, the main thing to consider with body weight or fatness measurement is reliability or consistency (how repeatable is the measurement) rather than the accuracy or validity (does it actually give you the “correct” value). |
|
Thu Apr 12, 2007 5:53 pm |
|
| meemoo
|
|
|
| Interesting information Oldpjams, thanks for sharing it. When I asked the tester about the method they used on me, a big red flag should have gone up when she didn't really know "it just has something to do with lasers" is all she said. But you get what you pay for I guess. In my case it was free. |
|
Thu Apr 12, 2007 6:00 pm |
|
| oldpjams
|
|
|
| I guess the point is that it doesn't matter how she did the test as long as the method is consistent and repeatable. |
|
Thu Apr 12, 2007 6:02 pm |
|