home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!noc.near.net!nic.umass.edu!fremont!rmuller
- From: rmuller@fremont.hampshire.edu (Richard Muller)
- Newsgroups: misc.fitness
- Subject: Re: % fat counting at the gym....
- Date: 25 Jan 1993 00:51:09 GMT
- Organization: Hampshire College, Amherst, MA
- Lines: 32
- Distribution: usa
- Message-ID: <1jvdhtINNfho@nic.umass.edu>
- References: <25377@galaxy.ucr.edu>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: fremont.hampshire.edu
-
- In article <25377@galaxy.ucr.edu> samari@watserv.ucr.edu writes:
-
- [Describes having a %fat measurement done by measuring the circumference
- of several spots, instead of by calipers]
- >
- >My question is... is this at *all* acurate??? They figured it out to be around
- >20% fat... but I can't even begin to guess whether that is about right, since
- This method is described in detail in McArdle, Katch, and Katch: _Exercise
- Physiology_ and, I suspect, in several other places. MK&K is, I'm told, a
- completely reputable source. About this method, they say (page 500):
-
- ...The circumference-based prediction equations are most useful in ordering
- individuals within a group ... the error in predicting an individual's
- body fat is generally between +/- 2.5 to 4%. These relatively low prediction
- errors make the equations particularly useful to those without access to
- laboratory facilities.
-
- They also warn that these equations are not good for individuals who are
- either very thin or very fat; who are members of athletic teams; who have
- been involved for a number of years in strenuous sports or resistance train-
- ing.
-
- So, Tammy, it sounds like the odds are that your actual %fat is somewhere in
- the range 16-24%.
-
- Rich
-
- --
- Rich Muller
- School of Communications and Cognitive Science
- Hampshire College, Amherst MA 01002 USA
- (413) 549-4600 ext 501; rmuller@hamp.hampshire.edu
-