FFM Dilemma!!

[Vixi]

HELP!!! Did I just get FATTER!?

Please help me out with some advice or an different point of view on this question.

Me = 5'4" 34 years old
I had my body composition analysis done on 9/21/02 and the results were
With a hydration level of 47.31%
FFM = 115.2 lbs
Fat % = 35.4 %

I had it checked again today on 10/26/02 and the results were
With a hydration level of 47%
FFM = 110 lbs
Fat % = 35.5 %
8 lbs total lost since previous weigh-in


This was done sponsored by my local hospital using an electrical impedance scale. Not a home use one, but one of those high end $2,500 ones. I know that a lot of people argue the accuracy of such scales but with the hydration being almost exactly the same I figured it was probably pretty close.

I do weights 3x a week for about 45 minutes each time. I also do 1 aerobics, 1 kickboxing and 1 abs class a week and just started running to prep for a 6k run this spring (Am currently up to 1.25 miles). I need to lose about 35 lbs or so but I sure didn't want any of it to be muscle. My fitness level is pretty good overall. These extra pounds just need to go! My goal has been to get to around 15-18% body fat by this spring but gain a little muscle too. My diet is pretty clean and I am getting around 1,200-1,400 calories daily with about 100g-120g of protein (probably not enough?).

Sorry if I am naive or ignorant if there is something glaringly obvious that I am unaware of since I am just learning. Please share some wisdom with me!

 

[Vixi]

Thanks for the resource, Spatts. That was excellent info! There are several universities within a somewhat reasonable driving distance from me so I may do that when I get my weight down a little bit more. Guess I can get some calipers in the meantime.

 

[wilson6]

"Not a home use one, but one of those high end $2,500 ones."

Doesn't matter.

Get in a BodPod or have a UW weigh done, or skin folds by an experienced tech.

W6

 

[d80p]

Gender Hydrostatic % Fat Skinfold Fat Bio Imp %fat
M 35.7 14 27.9
M 39 15.5 33.5
F 42 21 28.4
F 20.21 14 44
F 21.86 17 34.1
M 40 15 21.4
M 15.5 8 15.4
M 16 8 5.1
F 33.16 17 22.1
M 22.068 10 9.9
M 24.137 12 24.1
F 20.5 18 23.2
F 23.12 12.5 19.9
M 26.8 7 9.1
F 21.5 22 32.5
Average 26.77 14.07 23.37
SD 8.85 4.58 10.60
Pearson r 0.42 (hydrostatic/skinfold)
Pearson r 0.25 (hydrostatic/bio Imp)

Sorry, the format is messed up, I was too lazy to edit.

Anyhow, these were the body fat percentage numbers for my exercise science class derived from various testing methods. As you can see, the Bio impedence % and the hydrostatic methods had a Pearson r number of .25. (No correlation) So yeah, if we assume that the hydrostatic %s were correct then we can say that bioelectrical impedence method isn't the most accurate way to test your body fat. Since we're on the topic, the fat calipers had no correlation either.

 

[VeggieLifterChick]

WHOA! Hold on a minute! You're 5'4'', 110 lbs, and you said you want to lose about 35 lbs!!!!???? So you want to weigh 75 lbs?!

How come no one commented on this!? By the way I also find it hard to believe that with those stats your bf% could be as high as you said it is.

 

[d80p]

WHOA! Hold on a minute! You're 5'4'', 110 lbs, and you said you want to lose about 35 lbs!!!!???? So you want to weigh 75 lbs?!

How come no one commented on this!? By the way I also find it hard to believe that with those stats your bf% could be as high as you said it is.

I think her FFM was 110 not her total body weight.

 

[VeggieLifterChick]

Ooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhh! As in, Fat Free Mass? Oh good. Cuz that really bugged me out.

 

[wilson6]

"Since we're on the topic, the fat calipers had no correlation either."

They do if the right formula is used and the skinfold sites are measured accurately. Remember, skinfold formulas are based on hydrostatic weighing, but are specific for that population (i.e. same race, gender, activity level, age, etc.)

So if you used a formula derived from anorectic white chicks on black female bodybuilders, the correlation will be zero.

W6

 

[Vixi]

VeggieLifterChick - hah! No way do I want to weigh 75 lbs! That would be pretty twisted. I am working towards around 125 lbs with around 15-18% body fat.

 

[d80p]

"Since we're on the topic, the fat calipers had no correlation either."

They do if the right formula is used and the skinfold sites are measured accurately. Remember, skinfold formulas are based on hydrostatic weighing, but are specific for that population (i.e. same race, gender, activity level, age, etc.)

So if you used a formula derived from anorectic white chicks on black female bodybuilders, the correlation will be zero.

W6

Well for the numbers above they didn't correlate. So I guess I should revise my statement and say, skinfold site measurement of the average athletic white coed did not correlate with his/her hydrostatic measurement.

....I don't know what we were using as a standard for the fat caliper testing, but if you look at all of the numbers they are all off from the hydrostatic testing.

 

[d80p]

Okay let me revise again, actually I do know what we used as a standard, age, sex and bone density were taken into account, and I can only assume that the standards were for the average caucasian.

Most of my class were athletes and therefore for the most part had less fat mass, while I'll go out on a limb and say that the average caucasian would have more fat mass, yet the body fat caliper testing did not overcompensate their fat free mass, in all cases it was the other way around.


I would have to say that fat caliper testing is an all around inaccurate way to test total fat free mass.

To it's credit though, it's a nice way to see where you started off and use your initial measurements as a guideline to see improvements, but nothing more.

 

[d80p]

Blech, I just woke up.

When I said overcompensate their fat free mass, I meant fat mass. Changes the whole meaning of my sentence huh?

 

[d80p]

Oh BTW Vixi...that is a damn nasty looking picture, she looks like the poster child for Feed the Hungry. I think you made your point nicely.

 

[MS]

Changes in properly applied skinfold measurements are, IMHO THE BEST way for a bodybuilder to monitor the progress of their diet/training method. After all, at the end of the day, s/he who has the most MASS with the thinnest skinfolds wins most of the time (figure competitors aside). The judges can't see your visceral fat, nor do they care how well hydrated (or not) your muscles are, nor how dense your bones are. To use skinfold measurements to your adanvtage you don't need ANY formula to convert to %bf, you just need to see them go down (if you're trying to lose fat) or not go up if you trying to gain overall LBM.

However for your average non-bodybuilding couch spud, application of the correct skinfold formula can tell you where you started from and where you headed since loss or gain of visceral fat is very important in this population, and skinfolds won't measure this.

Bioimpedance is certainly a waste of time in my opinion.

 

[d80p]

Yup, listen to the lady. Even if we assume that the bioimpedence methods are giving accurate bodyfat measurements which isn't always the case (If you look at the bioimpedence numbers are off by an outrageous amount when compared to the hydrostatic), skinfolds caliper and a decent mirror are still the best tools you can have.

 

[Vixi]

Crap. ....I ordered a $144.00 Tanita that shipped out to me last week.