Estimating bodyfat: RFM

[quark]

I think that whichever variety of fat my waist size came from, losing it would free up about the same amount of loose belly skin

Nope.

A "power-belly" is visceral fat. A "beer-gut" is visceral fat.

You have normal waist now, so it's okay.

I'd guess the waistline fat I can grab by the handful is subcutaneous?

[michael]

Yeah, the pinch an inch stuff. If it's below your abs it's bad.

It's apple shaped vs pear shaped.

[JordanFeigenbaum]

So at 5'10" my healthy waist sizes would be 30.1" to 36.5". The Navy calculator would put me at 10-22% bodyfat for those waist sizes.

How does one know how much visceral fat he has?

Waist size is basically a proxy for visceral fat.

Exactly and BMI is more more sensitive for LBM levels than BF levels, which is why I recommend using both BMI and WC to drive management decisions.

[TimK]

Yeah, the pinch an inch stuff. If it's below your abs it's bad.

It's apple shaped vs pear shaped.

I mean, are there actually guys (besides gigantic pro bodybuilders who have been abusing insulin (or whatever) for years) walking around with a big round bubble gut and visible abs? I used to have plenty of fat around my gut and it appeared to be subcutaneous for the most part. I could definitely pinch multiple inches of it. And it's gone away more and more as I lost weight. I get that there is such a thing as visceral fat and that guys have more of it, but it doesn't seem to be such a black and white either/or situation.

[cwd]

Yeah, the pinch an inch stuff. If it's below your abs it's bad.

It's apple shaped vs pear shaped.

I mean, are there actually guys (besides gigantic pro bodybuilders who have been abusing insulin (or whatever) for years) walking around with a big round bubble gut and visible abs? I used to have plenty of fat around my gut and it appeared to be subcutaneous for the most part. I could definitely pinch multiple inches of it. And it's gone away more and more as I lost weight. I get that there is such a thing as visceral fat and that guys have more of it, but it doesn't seem to be such a black and white either/or situation.

I also felt that my waist size was due to subcutaneous fat, but I worry I was carrying visceral fat instead.

Let's check the geometry of this:
* Right now I can pinch .5" at my waist, with circumference 34.5". Navy says I'm 18% bodyfat.
* If I lost .5" all around, circumference would fall by (2 * delta_r * pi) == about 3 inches.
* If my waist were 31.5", Navy would then call me 12% bodyfat and I'd have visible abs.

Maybe it was mostly subcutaneous fat all along. Losing X inches in a pinch implies losing 6X inches in waist size.

[JonA]

This reminds me. I came up with with a body fat equation that is pretty accurate for the bulk of the population, (well, within a margin of +/- 5% anyway). Here it is:

[equation]bf = 25%[/equation]

With exception of a few outliers, it's very accurate.

[michael]

[equation]bf = 25%[/equation]

With exception of a few outliers, it's very accurate.

Excellent!

Here's mine:

[equation]bf = whatyouthinkbfis + 10%[/equation]

[michael]

Yeah, the pinch an inch stuff. If it's below your abs it's bad.

It's apple shaped vs pear shaped.

I mean, are there actually guys (besides gigantic pro bodybuilders who have been abusing insulin (or whatever) for years) walking around with a big round bubble gut and visible abs?

Like this:

[TimK]

Like this:

First thought: Damn that guy's about to burst!

Second thought: Holy shit, those paws! Is this a paparazzi photo of Zydrunas Savickas on vacation or what?