Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sun, 19 Nov 2000 09:49:49 -0500 |
Content-Type: | TEXT/PLAIN |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Philip Thrift wrote:
> Go to a fitness center with a trained professional.
> The caliper method is typically used and is
> probably a good estimate -- at least to see what range below it
> is in. The hydrostatic method may be more
> accurate.
Since I teach at a university, we have an athletics department
that does these things, primarly for the sports teams (St. Joe's
Hawks) but also as a service to the rest of the university
community. I have found a very close agreement between these two
methods of measurement.
> I have found the electrical impedence method totally
> worthless.
I haven't found this to be so. The electrical impedance methods
has also yielded results very consistent with the other two
methods. I gather that there is great difference in quality
among the impedance devices, however.
> BODY FAT PERCENTAGES
> Fat Level Men Women
>
> Very Low 7-10 14-17
> Low 10-13 17-20
> Average 13-17 20-27
> High 17-25 27-31
> Very High > 25 > 31
Yes, and I tend to fluctuate between the high end of average and
the low end of high, as you already pointed out. I have once or
twice forced myself down to the low BF range, by rigorous caloric
restriction and intense exercise, but I couldn't stay there. It
was just too hard. As I've already indicated, it is also pretty
difficult for me to stay in the average range. That is, it takes
a great deal of mental energy to keep rejecting so many different
kinds of foods. But it can be done.
Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|