I'm not fat! I'm just big boned.

[edporch]

Edporch, In my case the training staff simply did height and weight and tape measured my wrists, chest, waist, legs etc, and used calipers on my belly and thighs. They didn't have the electronic deal that you stand on barefooted or weigh me in a water tank. I think they were just guessing and guessed wrong. All I know is their plan was making me sick. Common sense made me well.

We tested some different methods in my Physiology of Exercise class.
The most accurate practical way to measure body fat is by underwater weighing.
I don't trust the electronic things, because they use body resistance.
People vary to much as far as body resistance.

We studied and did various ways, and the underwater weighing worked the best.

To underwater weigh, we just went to the indoor pool, had the subject wear as brief of a bathing suit as possible (I wore a brief racing suit), then had somebody hold a round hand scale with a small chain on the end.

The subject simply forcefully exhaled all the air they could so they would sink.

The person holding the scale noted the weight.

By using this weight, with the dry on land weight, and using a formula that took into account the residual air volume in the lungs (to account for a slight buoyancy when underwater weighed) we got a body fat measurement.

I still have my notes from that class around here somewhere.

 

[Denny347]

We tested some different methods in my Physiology of Exercise class.
The most accurate practical way to measure body fat is by underwater weighing.
I don't trust the electronic things, because they use body resistance.
People vary to much as far as body resistance.

We studied and did various ways, and the underwater weighing worked the best.

To underwater weigh, we just went to the indoor pool, had the subject wear as brief of a bathing suit as possible (I wore a brief racing suit), then had somebody hold a round hand scale with a small chain on the end.

The subject simply forcefully exhaled all the air they could so they would sink.

The person holding the scale noted the weight.

By using this weight, with the dry on land weight, and using a formula that took into account the residual air volume in the lungs (to account for a slight buoyancy when underwater weighed) we got a body fat measurement.

I still have my notes from that class around here somewhere.

Interesting. I have calipers. While NOT as accurate as water, it is FAR better than those stupid electronic ones.

 

[gungirl65]

I don't need any of these fancy things. I can tell I'm curvy just by looking in the mirror.

 

[rhino]

Heh. This is my topic.

Here's the deal with BMI ... the insurance companies' actuarial tables don't seem to show much difference (at least the last time I read about it) between long term health risks for people whose BMI is high because of bodyfat vs. muscle vs. a combination of the two. Whether that is factual or not, they're always going to base their decisions on the data they've accumulated regardless of whether it supports or refutes other opinions. They only care about relative frequencies of diseases and mortality and the costs associated with them.

By the way, I think Gabriel Iglecias' scale of fatness (SoF) should have a level above "Daaaaamn!" That would be "Oh, my God! It's Moving This Way!"

From about 1983 to 1994 I was well into the "Oh, my God! It's Moving This Way!" I think I'm probably somewhere between fluffy and Daaaaamn! at this point.

 

[Caleb]

And from what I have read about ObummerCare, BMI is going to be a BIG determiner in your health care. Regardless. The Gubmint wants us all to be unarmed 98 pound weaklings as well as uninformed.

Yep...pretty much it

 

[edporch]

Heh. This is my topic.

Here's the deal with BMI ... the insurance companies' actuarial tables don't seem to show much difference (at least the last time I read about it) between long term health risks for people whose BMI is high because of bodyfat vs. muscle vs. a combination of the two. Whether that is factual or not, they're always going to base their decisions on the data they've accumulated regardless of whether it supports or refutes other opinions. They only care about relative frequencies of diseases and mortality and the costs associated with them.

By the way, I think Gabriel Iglecias' scale of fatness (SoF) should have a level above "Daaaaamn!" That would be "Oh, my God! It's Moving This Way!"

From about 1983 to 1994 I was well into the "Oh, my God! It's Moving This Way!" I think I'm probably somewhere between fluffy and Daaaaamn! at this point.

For an insurance company to say that 2 people of the same height and weight, one sedentary and built like a scare crow under 50 pounds of fat is as healthy as one who's physically fit with low body fat TOTALLY PEGS my BS meter and defies common sense.

I think it has more to do with laziness of not wanting to actually measure each policy holder's body fat, and having a REAL picture of their health.

So in the end, the PHYSICALLY FIT policy holders subsidize the sedentary PHYSICALLY UNFIT policy holders.

Other than the most extreme cases, the BMI is a very poor indicator of an individual person's fitness and health.