Journal of Exercise Physiology 2012, 2, 1-4

OPEN ACCESS

journal of exercise physiology

aumoodle.andrews.edu/content/journal
Review

Percent Body Fat Assessments

Angelica Miller 1,*
1,

* 5672 48th AVE SE Streeter, ND 58483

E-mail: millera@andrews.edu
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed: millera@andrews.edu; Tel. (701) 368-9841
Received: 4/25/2012

Abstract: Keeping track of your body composition is very important to those that care about
their health. There are many ways in which you can analyze yourself. During this study I
calculated my body fat percentage using girths, a bioimpendance analyzer, an Omron analyzer,
and through hydrostatic underwater weighting. Using these 5 different types of body
composition computations I was able to compare the results of different methods. My results
with %BF from my girths was 21.4, %BF from the Bioimpendance analyzer was 27.9, %BF
from the Omron analyzer was 22.5, %BF from skinfolds was 23.8, %BF from underwater
weighing was 21.0, and my mean %BF of all methods was 23.3 2.8.
Keywords: Girths, percent body fat; bioelectrical impedance; Fat Free Mass, body
composition, %BF, hydrostatic weighing, skinfolds, underwater weighing

1. Introduction
Keeping track of your body composition is very important to those that care about their health. There
are many ways in which you can analyze yourself. You can compute your fat weight, your lean body
weight, and predict % body fat with just simple equations, and to work the equations all you need is your
weight and your height. You can also measure your girths and then use an equation to find your body

Journal of Exercise Physiology 2012, 2, 1-4

composition. Body composition can also be measured using bioimpendance, using an Omron analyzer,
and lastly body composition can be measuring using hydrostatic (underwater) weighing methods.
2. Methods
2.1. Assessing %BF using girths
To calculate our %BF using our girths, we measured the circumferences of our abdomen (Constant A),
right thigh (Constant B), and right forearm (Constant C) in centimeters. We measured each area three
times, and used the average of the three to increase our accuracy. Finally, to calculate our %BF we used
the equation (Constant A + Constant B Constant C 19.6) [2].
2.2 Assessing %BF using a Bioimpendance
To compute our %BF using bioimpendance we laid down on a table, placed an electrode sticky on our
right foot and our right arm, entered in our personal information, including our age, height, and weight.
We then got a print out receipt which showed our lean body mass, fat mass, %BF, BMI, BMR, TBW, and
our TBW/LBM [2].
2.3 Assessing %BF using an Omron Analyzer
To assess the %BF using an Omron Analyzer, I first entered in our age, height (in) and weight (lb). I
then held on to two handgrips, and waited until it showed my %BF on the screen [2].
2.4 Assessing %BF using the measurements of Skinfolds
As a group, we measured the skinfolds for the right side of the body for each member. In order to
measure the skinfolds, we used our index finger and thumb to pick up the skin and subcutaneous fat for
the triceps, suprailiac, thigh, subscapular, and medial calf. We then used a caliper to measure the skinfold
thickness for each site three times. The skinfold measurements were recorder into the data table, which
were then averaged out according to site. For non-athletic females, the sum of the triceps, iliac, and thigh
in millimeters (X1) and the age to the nearest year (X 2) were used to calculate with the Jackson-Pollock
equation of body density: Db = 1.099421 - 0.0009929(X1) + 0.0000023(X1)2 0.0001392 (X2)[4]. The
formula percent body fat = [(4.96/Db)-4.51] 100 was used to calculate the Caucasian female age 1859[4].
2.5. Underwater weighing
To perform the underwater weighing, each member got into the pool and laid face down on the
underwater weighing frame. Their feet were placed at the bottom of the frame and were used as the main

Journal of Exercise Physiology 2012, 2, 1-4

locks to keep themselves in the frame. The individual expelled as much air above water as possible and
then continued exhaling as they submerged themselves into the water. When they felt they could no longer
expel anymore air, they wrapped their arms around the frame and counted 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005
until the professor tapped their shoulder so that they could come up for air. During this process, the
professors assistant recorded the underwater weight. This was repeated nine more times per individual.
When computing the average weight in water in kilograms, the highest and lowest numbers were dropped
and the eight numbers left were used. [3]
3. Results
Table 1. Body composition using 5 different methods
% BF from:

Angelica

Girth

21

Bioimpendance

28

Omron

23

Skinfolds

24

Underwater weighing

21

Average% SD

23.4 2.88

Table 1 shows the % BF using 5 different methodologies: girth, Bioimpendance, an Omron analyzer,
skinfolds, and underwater weighing. Angelicas %BF calculation using girths was 21%, using
bioimpendance 28%, using an Omron analyzer 23%, using skinfolds 24%, and using underwater weighing
21%. Angelicas mean %BF from all 5 methods was 23.42.88. Her calculated fat-free mass was 92 lb and
her fat mass was 28 lb.
4. Discussion
Angelicas results show that she as an average %BF of 23%. Compared to the national norms, Angelica
has an average BF%. Her highest %BF (28%) was measured when she used the bioimpendance method,
and her lowest %BF (21%) was measured when she used her girth measurements and underwater
weighing. Though the differences were small, the possible reason for the difference in the bioimpendance
could be that Angelica was dehydrated and the electrical pulse was hindered due to not enough hydration.
For future reference Angelica will use hydrostatic weighing because it seems to be the most accurate.
5. Conclusions
Angelicas average %BF of 23 shows that she is of good health. She will continue exercising and eating
healthily, to keep up her good health.

Journal of Exercise Physiology 2012, 2, 1-4

Acknowledgements
I would like to extend my thanks to Dr. Pribis for instructing and putting together the lab work sheets
and components for executing and participating in these labs.
References and Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.

Katch, Frank I., et al.: Conversion constants to predict percentage body fat for young women. Fitness
Technologies, Inc., 2006.
Pribis P. Lab Outline for Lab #3 in PETH 465 Exercise Physiology. 2012, 3, 1-4.
Pribis P. Lab outline for Lab # 4 in PETH 465 Exercise physiology, 2012, 4, 1-4.
Pribis P. Lab outline for Lab # 10 in PETH 465 Exercise physiology, 2012, 10, 1-4.

2012 by the authors; licensee JEP, Berrien Springs, Michigan, United States. This article is an openaccess article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).