<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Body fat part 3: Why the scale can steer you wrong</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.stumptuous.com/body-fat-part-3-why-the-scale-can-steer-you-wrong/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.stumptuous.com/body-fat-part-3-why-the-scale-can-steer-you-wrong</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:48:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Your Authentic Self &#124; Nancy Johnson Chavez</title>
		<link>http://www.stumptuous.com/body-fat-part-3-why-the-scale-can-steer-you-wrong/comment-page-1#comment-6663</link>
		<dc:creator>Your Authentic Self &#124; Nancy Johnson Chavez</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Jul 2011 10:27:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-6663</guid>
		<description>[...] Body fat part 3: Why the scale can steer you wrong :: stumptuous.com. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Body fat part 3: Why the scale can steer you wrong :: stumptuous.com. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://www.stumptuous.com/body-fat-part-3-why-the-scale-can-steer-you-wrong/comment-page-1#comment-4785</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Sep 2010 20:28:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-4785</guid>
		<description>Love this posting on scales.  I found it while looking for reasons why after a long airplane ride, the fat measuring scale indicates a LOWER fat % than before the ride. I dont hav a statistical sample yet so it could be a fluke, but 3 data points (2 for me and one for my wife) - as it is counterintuitive for me i am wondering if anyone has a scientific perspective on this. Given that a) the fat scales work with an impedance measurement, b) water conducts electricity better than fat and c) plane journeys dehydrate you, i would expect the fat readings to go up (dehydration=less conductivity=higher reading)...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Love this posting on scales.  I found it while looking for reasons why after a long airplane ride, the fat measuring scale indicates a LOWER fat % than before the ride. I dont hav a statistical sample yet so it could be a fluke, but 3 data points (2 for me and one for my wife) &#8211; as it is counterintuitive for me i am wondering if anyone has a scientific perspective on this. Given that a) the fat scales work with an impedance measurement, b) water conducts electricity better than fat and c) plane journeys dehydrate you, i would expect the fat readings to go up (dehydration=less conductivity=higher reading)&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mistress Krista</title>
		<link>http://www.stumptuous.com/body-fat-part-3-why-the-scale-can-steer-you-wrong/comment-page-1#comment-3021</link>
		<dc:creator>Mistress Krista</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:28:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-3021</guid>
		<description>Lisa: First, bear in mind that at the farther ranges of %, the formulae often break down. Thus, measuring people with much less or much more fat than average can result in imprecise results. This is especially true when using skinfold calipers for higher bodyfat levels, as it&#039;s tough to get a proper skinfold at many sites like the thighs. However, you can still use skinfolds to track general trends in body composition, by tracking the overall change in total millimetres measured (in other words, the sum of all the skinfolds). You won&#039;t get an accurate % necessarily but total mm are still useful.

Over time our bodies store more bodyfat in the abdominal cavity. This is the #1 reason why age is important in calculating bodyfat %. Additionally, it may not be as desirable for older women to be as lean as younger women, as leanness (technically, the hormonal environment associated with leanness, and what it takes to maintain it) can affect bone density. 

Nevertheless, the exact % doesn&#039;t really matter as much as how you feel and perform. The number attached to the % is just a way of expressing a physical state where you have lots of good lean mass, and enough -- but not too much -- fat mass to support your overall health and athletic performance. We can&#039;t really know what an ideal weight nor % is for a given person; we can only speculate and make informed guesses. We do want people to retain as much lean mass as possible; good nutrition and training just helps keep that valuable lean mass on you (and if we&#039;re really lucky, helps you build a little more lean mass) as fat goes away.

Throughout your fitness journey and life, your goals will probably change. Use an iterative process where you use evidence of health indicators and athletic performance to evaluate your progress and goals as you go along. If you get to 200 lbs and feel great at whatever bodyfat % that is, then awesome. If you feel good but want to keep on truckin&#039; with fat loss, then that&#039;s cool too.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lisa: First, bear in mind that at the farther ranges of %, the formulae often break down. Thus, measuring people with much less or much more fat than average can result in imprecise results. This is especially true when using skinfold calipers for higher bodyfat levels, as it&#8217;s tough to get a proper skinfold at many sites like the thighs. However, you can still use skinfolds to track general trends in body composition, by tracking the overall change in total millimetres measured (in other words, the sum of all the skinfolds). You won&#8217;t get an accurate % necessarily but total mm are still useful.</p>
<p>Over time our bodies store more bodyfat in the abdominal cavity. This is the #1 reason why age is important in calculating bodyfat %. Additionally, it may not be as desirable for older women to be as lean as younger women, as leanness (technically, the hormonal environment associated with leanness, and what it takes to maintain it) can affect bone density. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, the exact % doesn&#8217;t really matter as much as how you feel and perform. The number attached to the % is just a way of expressing a physical state where you have lots of good lean mass, and enough &#8212; but not too much &#8212; fat mass to support your overall health and athletic performance. We can&#8217;t really know what an ideal weight nor % is for a given person; we can only speculate and make informed guesses. We do want people to retain as much lean mass as possible; good nutrition and training just helps keep that valuable lean mass on you (and if we&#8217;re really lucky, helps you build a little more lean mass) as fat goes away.</p>
<p>Throughout your fitness journey and life, your goals will probably change. Use an iterative process where you use evidence of health indicators and athletic performance to evaluate your progress and goals as you go along. If you get to 200 lbs and feel great at whatever bodyfat % that is, then awesome. If you feel good but want to keep on truckin&#8217; with fat loss, then that&#8217;s cool too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lisa</title>
		<link>http://www.stumptuous.com/body-fat-part-3-why-the-scale-can-steer-you-wrong/comment-page-1#comment-3019</link>
		<dc:creator>Lisa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2010 12:52:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-3019</guid>
		<description>I have been working with a personal trainer who measured my body fat through the skin fold caliper method. I currently weigh 280 lbs, am 45, female, 5&#039;8 and have always had a large body frame. They measured me at 36% body fat and set an ideal weight at about 200 lbs. and 20% body fat.

When I was in my early 30&#039;s I was a runner, fit and weighed 165 lbs (size 8 then vs. size 20 now), so if I compare those numbers with my goal numbers set by my trainer, there&#039;s a 40 lb difference. This seems inaccurate to me.

So my question is around how our bodies change over time as we age.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have been working with a personal trainer who measured my body fat through the skin fold caliper method. I currently weigh 280 lbs, am 45, female, 5&#8217;8 and have always had a large body frame. They measured me at 36% body fat and set an ideal weight at about 200 lbs. and 20% body fat.</p>
<p>When I was in my early 30&#8242;s I was a runner, fit and weighed 165 lbs (size 8 then vs. size 20 now), so if I compare those numbers with my goal numbers set by my trainer, there&#8217;s a 40 lb difference. This seems inaccurate to me.</p>
<p>So my question is around how our bodies change over time as we age.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vicki</title>
		<link>http://www.stumptuous.com/body-fat-part-3-why-the-scale-can-steer-you-wrong/comment-page-1#comment-2578</link>
		<dc:creator>Vicki</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2010 02:12:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-2578</guid>
		<description>What a great post! It&#039;s really good to read about strength-training and fitness for women that doesn&#039;t end with &quot;so you can fit into those skinny jeans!&quot; ;) Not that I mind skinny jeans.

May I humbly suggest that you change the word &quot;gender&quot; in the first sentence under &quot;body fat norms&quot; to sex--I&#039;m pretty certain that that is what you mean (in most common usage, sex=biologically male or female, gender=male- or female-identified).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What a great post! It&#8217;s really good to read about strength-training and fitness for women that doesn&#8217;t end with &#8220;so you can fit into those skinny jeans!&#8221; ;) Not that I mind skinny jeans.</p>
<p>May I humbly suggest that you change the word &#8220;gender&#8221; in the first sentence under &#8220;body fat norms&#8221; to sex&#8211;I&#8217;m pretty certain that that is what you mean (in most common usage, sex=biologically male or female, gender=male- or female-identified).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Elizabeth</title>
		<link>http://www.stumptuous.com/body-fat-part-3-why-the-scale-can-steer-you-wrong/comment-page-1#comment-943</link>
		<dc:creator>Elizabeth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2009 20:32:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-943</guid>
		<description>Good to know about the electric method -- a friend of mine went to the doctor about a sudden unexplained weight loss, and they tested her at 5% bodyfat. Now, she&#039;s a slender person, but she&#039;s neither a bodybuilder nor a concentration camp survivor, so I figured that had to be bullshit. Even 10% sounds way too low for the way she looks, though she has a batch of food allergies which may make it hard for her to put on fat.

I knew I&#039;d be able to find the answer here, though. Thanks!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good to know about the electric method &#8212; a friend of mine went to the doctor about a sudden unexplained weight loss, and they tested her at 5% bodyfat. Now, she&#8217;s a slender person, but she&#8217;s neither a bodybuilder nor a concentration camp survivor, so I figured that had to be bullshit. Even 10% sounds way too low for the way she looks, though she has a batch of food allergies which may make it hard for her to put on fat.</p>
<p>I knew I&#8217;d be able to find the answer here, though. Thanks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

