Rethinking My Goal: Only 7 Pounds Away

I am much closer to my goal than I thought. Today was the day that I had my skin-fold body composition testing. I also had my blood work done, but I won’t have the results from it until Monday. I have been basing my goals loosely on the body mass index (BMI) even though I know that with my workout schedule, 3-4 days per week, I’ve been building muscle as well as losing fat. I was thrilled when I reached the BMI overweight mark and was no longer considered obese. Today I weighed 166 pounds for a total loss of 44.25 pounds. Previously I set a goal for myself of pre-1998 normal according to the BMI for an index of 27.4 even though I knew that the BMI was devised for a sedentary population. I was flying blind and didn’t really know what was appropriate. When the exercise physiologist/Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist at the Ouachita Fitness and Rehabilitation Center, Larry Wood, suggested that he could help me determine my goal based on my body composition, I jumped at the chance.

Larry used a seven-site skinfold test using calipers and, along with body measurements, determined that my body fat percentage was 22.4. My target is now 19%, only 7 pounds away, so my target weight is 159. Larry had to tell me this fact 3 times before it sunk in. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing; I was nearing the end of this road. About 5 weeks ago I had my body fat analyzed using electronic body fat analyzer and if I were considered normal, and not an athlete, it calculated that my body was 30.6%. I told it I was an athlete, if only a 3-4 day per week fitness center one, and it recalculated my body fat at 27%, still not a good number. I still didn’t know whether I was an athlete or not and wasn’t sure what today’s results would show. They are far better than I could have hoped.

My waist-hip ratio has dropped from .958 to .95 and I have gone from moderate risk for heart disease to normal. A ratio of .9 is considered the ideal for men, but at least the risk for my heart is down. Larry said that when I reach my goal he would help me tone up some areas, I said this loose skin and things that sag, and he said yes. He also said that when I go to a maintenance diet of 2000 calories while continuing to build muscle, my weight might go up to 165 or more, but “who cares, if your body fat is 18%?” Who indeed?

Here is my recap for the last two days.

Daily Dietary Recap-5/16/2007
Calories	Protein	Carbohydrates	Sodium	Fat	% Calories from Fat
1015.83	59.39 g	174.01 g	1047.9 mg	12.97 g	11.03%

Daily Dietary Recap-5/17/2007
Calories	Protein	Carbohydrates	Sodium	Fat	% Calories from Fat
1252.33	70.92 g	191.84 g	1089.36 mg	16.6 g	11.93%

Body Composition Testing: Feeling the Pinch

Friday I am going to have two different types of health assessment. In the morning, I will go to the Mena Medical Center to have blood drawn for testing. This is the “after” part of the 8 week walking program I have been participating in as a member of one of four teams from the college and numerous other teams from the community. Our campus wellness committee is paying for the blood work and I will report on it later. In the afternoon, I have an appointment with the Ouachita Rehabilitation and Fitness Center where I work out, to have skinfold body composition testing using calipers.

Body composition testing is intended to reveal the density of the body. The assumption is that there is a relationship between higher levels of body fat and disease conditions such as diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure. I have written before about the Body Mass Index (BMI) which is a crude measure of body fat and is based on sedentary populations. The BMI is not appropriate for anyone who works out to build muscle, nor does it work on the extremely thin. Body composition analysis is a good way to track progress toward health during weight loss and/or fitness regimes. The recommended levels of body fat for men should range between 8-25 percent, and for women, 21-36 percent.

The most accurate way to measure body fat is to measure it after death, but by then, it’s too late. There are various methods to measure body fat, but the most accurate, on a living person, uses underwater or hydrostatic weighing. This isn’t always the most convenient method because the facilities for such testing are usually only available at research institutions and colleges or universities (not a small rural community college such as mine). Hydrostatic testing is based on the fact that bone and muscle are more dense (have more mass per volume unit) than fat. Fat floats in water so a body with more fat is lighter in the water. The accuracy of hydrostatic testing in vivo is +/- 1.5% error when compared with postmortem testing.

Skinfold Testing

Skinfold testing measures body density by taking measurements of how thick the folds of skin are at several points on the body using calibrated calipers. These measurements do not measure body density (or body fat) directly. Instead, they rely on the thickness of the fat in the skin fold and use equations that correlate with body density, and another equation that correlates with body fat. The body fat percentage is determined from the estimate of body density. Skinfold measurement correlates very well with hydrostatic testing, about .9, and has a standard error of about 3%. The BMI, on the other hand, has a much lower correlation of about .6. Skinfold testing is more convenient than hydrostatic testing and more accurate than simply using the BMI. Measurements are taken from either 7 points on the body, the 7 site skinfold test, or on three sites, the 3 site skinfold test. The 7 site test is slightly more accurate at predicting body fat with a hydrostatic correlation of .9 than the 3 site at .89. The sites that are measured are listed below.

7 site skinfold:

• chest
• triceps
• subscapular
• axilla
• suprailiac
• abdomen
• thigh

3 site skinfold (Men):

• chest
• abdomen
• thigh

3 Site Skinfold (Women)

• tricep
• suprailiac
• thigh

Here is my recap for the last few days.

Daily Dietary Recap-5/13/2007
Calories	Protein	Carbohydrates	Sodium	Fat	% Calories from Fat
1168.39	60.54 g	194.88 g	969.22 mg	16.11 g	12.01%

Daily Dietary Recap-5/14/2007
Calories	Protein	Carbohydrates	Sodium	Fat	% Calories from Fat
1392.54	42.49 g	242.79 g	827.94 mg	28.86 g	18.32%

Daily Dietary Recap-5/13/2007
Calories	Protein	Carbohydrates	Sodium	Fat	% Calories from Fat
1168.39	60.54 g	194.88 g	969.22 mg	16.11 g	12.01%

Body Mass Index Revisited and Body Fat Index

I had a chance to have my body fat index measured by one of those electronic body fat analyzers today. The extension office loaned us an Omron HBF-306C, a handheld device that uses bioelectrical impedance to measure your body fat. It was easy to use and incredibly fast, about seven seconds to obtain a reading. It also did a crude correction for muscle by having you determine your FIT level using a formula based on frequency of working out, intensity, and length of workout. There were only two categories, normal (sedentary) and athlete. I consider myself far from an athlete but I was well over 60 FIT points needed to be assessed as one.

Ostensibly the loan was for those of us who are participating in the 8 week “Walk for Health”, but it was available to anyone at the college. I have to say that I was impressed. I put myself in as normal and did the test with a result of 30.6%, not a good number. When I chose athlete, it calculated my body fat as 27%. This was better, but still not where I need to be. At least it took my word for having some muscle after 3 months of four-days-a-week workouts.

It also calculated the body mass index (BMI) from the height and weight information I gave it but it came out the same both times. The BMI doesn't make allowances for muscle as it is based on a sedentary population.

Here is my recap from yesterday.

Daily Dietary Recap-4/5/2007
Calories	Protein	Carbohydrates	Sodium	Fat	% Calories from Fat
1165	69.93 g	192.71 g	911.97 mg	17.59 g	13.59%