Body fat tester

Carl Sundquist said:

I don't know how new this is to the market, but the company where I work had a health-risk
assessment day today. They used an OMRON bodyfat tester
omronhealthcare.comviewDocumentOpen ↗

The old ''Pinch an Inch'' test is still about as good as any if you can't get an underwater
test done.

With the added benefit of it being free!!

--
le Vent a Dos Davey Crockett Six-Day site: 24.112.154.233sixday.htmlOpen ↗

"Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I don't know how new this is to the market, but the company where I work

had a health-risk

Quoted message said:

assessment day today. They used an OMRON bodyfat tester

omronhealthcare.comviewDocumentOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

Presumably it works the same way as the Tanita scale (electrical

resistance).

Quoted message said:

Has anyone tried one of these? How accurate are they? Being a virtually

non riding Fattie

Quoted message said:

Master (< 700 miles this year), I thought my bf would have been higher

than it tested.

Quoted message said:

OTOH, before it was my turn, I saw the numbers for a co-worker at 37.

Naive me, I thought

Quoted message said:

it was some crazy handheld thermometer and was measuring her temp in C (37

being about

Quoted message said:

normal temp in C.)

If they are reasonably accurate, or at least reasonably consistent, they

are a pretty good

Quoted message said:

value at less than $50.

The US Dept. of Defense has developed a couple of body fat tests, using simple circumference
measurements. They claim these tests are as accurate as bioelectric impedance (Tanita, OMRON, etc.),
and less subject to variations associated with hydration levels.

Here's a link to an online calculator that uses the Dept. of Defense procedures:
he.netprothd2.htmlOpen ↗

FWIW - a Body Fat Calculator using these formulas is also built into my CycliStats ride diary and
training log program.

--
~_-* ...G/ \G cyclistats.comcyclistats.comOpen ↗ CycliStats - Software for Cyclists

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Garyg
The US Dept. of Defense has developed a couple of body fat tests, using simple circumference
measurements. They claim these tests are as accurate as bioelectric impedance (Tanita, OMRON, etc.),
and less subject to variations associated with hydration levels.

Here's a link to an online calculator that uses the Dept. of Defense procedures:
he.netprothd2.htmlOpen ↗

FWIW - a Body Fat Calculator using these formulas is also built into my CycliStats ride diary and
training log program.

--
~_-* ...G/ \G cyclistats.comcyclistats.comOpen ↗ CycliStats - Software for Cyclists [/B]

You cannot test body fat with height, neck circumference, and abdomen circumference. The idea that you could calculate body fat within 10% with these three numbers alone is patently absurd.

oh the OMRON. dont trust it. if it showed 12% then you have to multiply it by a factor of 1.8 to get
your correct results. I have used them for yeeeeeeears. was it a grey one or the whitish one. if it
was the grey one, then factor by 2.0. so ya, your fatter than you thought. but at your age, it is
the norm in Arkansas. so no one will notice....

jtn OMRON users guide, guide

"Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]... "> Has anyone tried one of these? " "How accurate are
they? " "Being a virtually non riding Fattie Master "

"elambi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Garyg said:

The US Dept. of Defense has developed a couple of body fat tests,

using

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

simple circumference measurements. They claim these tests are as accurate as bioelectric
impedance (Tanita, OMRON, etc.), and less subject to variations associated with hydration
levels. Here's a link to an online calculator that uses the Dept. of Defense procedures:

http://www.he.net/%7Ezo-" rel="ugc nofollow noopener">he.net%7EzoOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

ne/prothd2.html FWIW - a Body Fat Calculator using these formulas is also built into

my

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

CycliStats ride diary and training log program.
--
~_-* ...G/ \G http://www.CycliStats.com" rel="ugc nofollow noopener">cyclistats.comwww.CycliStats.comOpen ↗ CycliStats - Software for
Cyclists

You cannot test body fat with height, neck circumference, and abdomen circumference. The idea that
you could calculate body fat within 10% with these three numbers alone is patently absurd.

Not according to the Dept. of Defense. As part of a program to ensure that their service members are
in shape and not overweight, they looked at a lot of different circumference measurement techniques.
Their research studies allowed them to zero in on the measurements that most accurately estimate
body fat (thus, the difference in measurements for men and women). Their formulas for using
circumference-based measurements were originally developed by the Navy, and were re-reviewed and
adopted for all service branches on November 5, 2002, as DoDI 1308.3.

Per the directive making these tests part of this program: "6.2.2.3.1. Circumference-based methods
are inextricably linked to the military body fat standards. This method has been carefully evaluated
against other methods and for applicability to Service members."

See dtic.mili13083p.pdfOpen ↗ for more (much more)
info on this program.

Per: nhrc.navy.milstudiesbodycomposition.htmOpen ↗

"Data collection for this study was completed in 2001. Analysis of the results indicates that 1) the
circumference equations are valid estimators of percent body fat; 2) the Navy circumference
equations compare favorably to commonly used skinfold equations and to other circumference-based
equations; 3) there is no racial bias in the circumference equations between African-American and
Caucasian men or among African-American, Caucasian, Hispanic, Asian, or Filipino women."

For background research on how their circumference measurements were developed and tested, look
here: mwr.navy.mildevbodycomp.pdfOpen ↗
--
~_-* ...G/ \G cyclistats.comcyclistats.comOpen ↗ CycliStats - Software for Cyclists

Quoted message said:

--

Quoted message said:

--------------------------<

Posted via cyclingforums.com cyclingforums.comcyclingforums.comOpen ↗

"JTN" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

oh the OMRON. dont trust it. if it showed 12% then you have to multiply it by a factor of 1.8 to
get your correct results. I have used them for yeeeeeeears. was it a grey one or the whitish one.
if it was the grey one, then factor by 2.0. so ya, your fatter than you thought. but at your age,
it is the norm in Arkansas. so no one will notice....

jtn OMRON users guide, guide

I can only imagine how much worse it would be if microbrews were as popular here as in CO.

Carl Has nothing against microbrews, just thinking of the additional beer drinking-waist growing
potential.

Carl Sundquist said:

"JTN" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

oh the OMRON. dont trust it. if it showed 12% then you have to multiply it by a factor of 1.8 to
get your correct results. I have used them for yeeeeeeears. was it a grey one or the whitish one.
if it was the grey one, then factor by 2.0. so ya, your fatter than you thought. but at your age,
it is the norm in Arkansas. so no one will notice....

jtn OMRON users guide, guide

I can only imagine how much worse it would be if microbrews were as popular here as in CO.

Carl Has nothing against microbrews, just thinking of the additional beer drinking-waist growing
potential.

As long as you moderate your intake you should be fine. I'm doing a couple hundred miles a week and
an average of 1 beer a day and I've been losing weight. My miles are generally flat, but may include
700 to 1000' of climbing.

Richard Adams said:

Quoted message said:

As long as you moderate your intake you should be fine. I'm doing a couple hundred miles a week
and an average of 1 beer a day and I've been losing weight. My miles are generally flat, but may
include 700 to 1000' of climbing.

i noticed that as soon as i switched from skating and cycling to just plain running, i lost weight.
plus my training time is cut at least in half. too bad i'm a crappy runner.

heather, a candy bar a day..

GaryG said:

"elambi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You cannot test body fat with height, neck circumference, and abdomen circumference. The idea that
you could calculate body fat within 10% with these three numbers alone is patently absurd.

Not according to the Dept. of Defense.

As if they know what they're talking about. I was in the USAF for 10 years. Every year, I had to
"prove" my fitness by running 1.5 miles. Once. Big giant, hairy, impressive deal. In those days,
they were expelling body builders for failure to comply with weight standards. Never mind that there
was no discernible fat on some of these guys. They've changed their rules at least twice in the last
10 years but there's still no indication that reality is a concern. If a fitness standard was
written by DoD bureaucrats, that alone should be enough to discredit it. I know a guy who says the
illuminati have wired his brain. His credibility is better than the DoDs here.

"Tim Lines" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:U0hmb.19595$e01.36869@attbi_s02...

Quoted message said:

GaryG said:

"elambi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You cannot test body fat with height, neck circumference, and abdomen circumference. The idea
that you could calculate body fat within 10% with these three numbers alone is patently absurd.

Not according to the Dept. of Defense.

As if they know what they're talking about. I was in the USAF for 10 years. Every year, I had to
"prove" my fitness by running 1.5 miles. Once. Big giant, hairy, impressive deal. In those days,
they were expelling body builders for failure to comply with weight standards. Never mind that
there was no discernible fat on some of these guys. They've changed their rules at least twice in
the last 10 years but there's still no indication that reality is a concern. If a fitness standard
was written by DoD bureaucrats, that alone should be enough to discredit it. I know a guy who says
the illuminati have wired his brain. His credibility is better than the DoDs here.

But, you're not bitter, eh? :-)

It sounds to me like they have learned from previous experience and are looking at the issues
somewhat more rationaly. Using the new body fat measurements, weight lifters would not be penalized
for having above average BMI's, assuming their body fat percentages would fall within the
acceptable limits.

As to their body fat estimation techniques, the research studies cited provide lots of background
info on how they were developed, and how they compare to other methods (e.g., skin fold, bioelectric
impedance, etc.).

--
~_-* ...G/ \G cyclistats.comcyclistats.comOpen ↗ CycliStats - Software for Cyclists

"h squared" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Richard Adams said:

Quoted message said:

As long as you moderate your intake you should be fine. I'm doing a couple hundred miles a week
and an average of 1 beer a day and I've been losing weight. My miles are generally flat, but may
include 700 to 1000' of climbing.

i noticed that as soon as i switched from skating and cycling to just plain running, i lost
weight. plus my training time is cut at least in half. too bad i'm a crappy runner.

That works for me too. IMO, it's because of the pounding, weight bearing nature of running.

Quoted message said:

heather, a candy bar a day..

candy bar?

Kurgan Gringioni said:

That works for me too. IMO, it's because of the pounding, weight bearing nature of running.

yeah, it's amazing, now i *do* things on my days off. it helps that i have a training partner who is
sooo pretty home.comcast.netjoeydoodle.JPGOpen ↗ helps me to stay super-motivated. and
she can't come with me when i skate or cycle. i was sure at first i would gain 10 lbs on this
schedule, but instead i lost some?!? too bad running isn't exactly the most exciting sport to
compete at (imo, of course).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

heather, a candy bar a day..

candy bar?

well, this was about drinking a beer a day and staying skinny, but i can't drink a beer a day. i do
eat plenty of candy, so i substituted that.

heather

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

i noticed that as soon as i switched from skating and cycling to just plain running, i lost
weight. plus my training time is cut at least in half. too bad i'm a crappy runner.

That works for me too. IMO, it's because of the pounding, weight bearing nature of running.

IMO, it's because you can't coast.

h squared said:

Richard Adams said:

As long as you moderate your intake you should be fine. I'm doing a couple hundred miles a week
and an average of 1 beer a day and I've been losing weight. My miles are generally flat, but may
include 700 to 1000' of climbing.

i noticed that as soon as i switched from skating and cycling to just plain running, i lost
weight. plus my training time is cut at least in half. too bad i'm a crappy runner.

heather, a candy bar a day..

I was running and cycling, but my left knee has a problem with calcification on the anterior of the
patella. Painful if I run. Seems perfectly happy with road riding, even when I have to get out of
the saddle on steeper grades. I'm not complaining. :-)

"Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in

message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

i noticed that as soon as i switched from skating and cycling to just plain running, i lost
weight. plus my training time is cut at least in half. too bad i'm a crappy runner.

That works for me too. IMO, it's because of the pounding, weight bearing nature of running.

IMO, it's because you can't coast.

That too.

The pounding though I think is significant. Runners can't put in very much training time compared to
cyclists because of the damage due to the pounding. Repairing that damage sucks up resources which
equals more calories burned during recovery (for the same amount of training time).