4 ms·
In my mind, it's equivalent to subtracting a coarse estimate of how much extra muscle by mass I have compared to the median adult male they're using to construc
by hansvm 2mo ago
In my mind, it's equivalent to subtracting a coarse estimate of how much extra muscle by mass I have compared to the median adult male they're using to construct BMI charts.
My actual methodology is pretty crude though -- when I was 15lbs lighter I had borderline visible abs and other visual indicators of being around the 15-20% body fat mark, and aside from gaining weight I don't have any reason to believe I've had any notable muscular atrophy since then, so I'm estimating the actual excess fat in that ballpark. It's be easy for numbers to be off 10lb or more, but even then it'd still indicate the overfat surplus being much less than the overweight surplus.
A better methodology uses calipers and various skin measurements to estimate true body fat percentage.
- sanderjd 2mo agoRight, but what is the line of body fat percentage that you would consider "over fat", that's what I was curious about. I think it's implicit in your comment that it is maybe 20%.
- hansvm 2mo agoYep, that's right. Denominated in some fixed weight and any fixed fat percentage the delta is the same (e.g., if my weight is exactly 150lb or 200lb or 250lb and, at some concrete weight, I evaluate my real BMI at X and my naive BMI at Y, then the delta Y-X is independent of my target 20%. But my target is to waffle around 20% or so on average.
- sanderjd 2mo agoThanks!