UKC

had a fitness test at work and part of it was they measured my body fat at 2%. she did it again as it was extremely low but it gave the same reading.
i initially thought that was good but then have been thinking - is it unhealthy for it to be so low?

In reply to dan bulman: How was it measured? Unless it was done Archimedian style you would get a more accurate figure by rolling a dice (I'm assuming it wasn't CT or MRI).

HP (ex random number generator - I mean ex bio-impedance system designer).

In reply to dan bulman:

if you had 2% bodyfat you would be dead. troll

In reply to dan bulman:

They weren't testing for body fat. They were testing for obedience. You clearly passed.

In reply to Chambers:

2% obedience is hardly the stuff of good slave material.

In reply to dan bulman:

Sounds like you need an all day session in MacDonalds.

And Greggs.

And Mrs Muggins cake shop.

In reply to dan bulman:

bad, id have to wrap you in bacon to cook you otherwise youd be dry and tasteless

In reply to dan bulman:

According to tinterweb, top Athletes have
6-14%, so im guessing Probably not too good. And thats From wackypedia so must be true.

In reply to felt:


100% obedience just for participating.

In reply to andymac:




Done all of those

In reply to dan bulman:

How tall are you and what do you weigh?

In reply to dan bulman:

You have not got 2% body fat, your organs would have shut down some time ago.

In reply to dan bulman:

if you had 2% body fat I am surprised you have the energy to utilise your keyboard.

In reply to dan bulman:

It's exceptionally unlikely that this is the correct value. Olympic marathon runners are generally around 5% body fat and the lowest numbers ever recorded (to my knowledge) were those of Fiennes and Dr Mike Stroud (who has an interest in physiology extremes) who had values of marginally under 2% I think having spent (?)90-ish(??) days trekking across antarctica.

In reply to dan bulman:

2% body fat is below essential body fat - so you'd be dead.

In reply to dan bulman:

Probably not, as it is probably wrong.

CB

In reply to dan bulman:

Either you are an apparition from beyond the grave or your test is wrong . I don't think many people outside of starvation experiments have fat levels so low .
Yes , seriously low body fat is not good in normal life . If you took Chris Froome or Bradley Wiggins to a doctor they would be rushed to hospital as anorexic . The difference is that top athletes have a huge team of doctors and sport scientists to keep them alive and winning races .

In reply to dan bulman:

http://www.builtlean.com/2010/08/03/ideal-body-fat-percentage-chart/

The link above gives American Council on Exercise (ACE) figures for Body fat %

If you are TRULY 2% then you are barely alive..

Athletes are normally in the range 6% - 13% so unless you are the anorexic brother of Mo Farah I would question the test results. ( Or go supersize at MacDonalds for the next few months)

In reply to dan bulman:

What's the best way (after a water test) to measure body fat? The five apparently most commonly used body fat equations give me an estimated range of 9.9% to 14.7%. I already get comments that I look too thin for my height. Tried a couple of those impedance machines and it usually comes out about 10% but aren't they just a lottery?

I'm 6'2" / 70kg

In reply to Richard Carter:

Don't need body fat percentages to know you are too skinny at 70kg/6'2".
Eat.

In reply to SethChili:

2% body fat could also occur by HIV or cancer induced cachexia, or terminal hunger strike.

Even the new breed of anorexic looking road cyclists most likely have more around 5-10% body fat, depending on their training/competition state.

CB

In reply to nw:


I'm 19.8 so a perfectly normal weight according to the recommended guideline 'normal zone' of 18.5-24.9

In reply to Richard Carter:

Yeah like I said...don't need body fat % numbers.

In reply to nw:

Err, don't those figures quoted suggest he's not in fact "too skinny" for his height & weight?!

In reply to Fraser:

To me they suggest exactly that. I've been down to 80kg at that height and felt underpowered for my frame, never want to go remotely that low again.

In reply to dan bulman:

Had a mate who was around 5% years ago. Seemed like he was constantly ill too, which made me wonder if a bit of fat is good for your immune system. Good climber mind you.

In reply to peebles boy:


Yes it is.. illness is the big risk for the calorie restrictors who think starving themselves extend lifespan..

In reply to Richard Carter:

Better than a floatation tank would be a medical scan - MRI, CT or DEXA. (The only really accurate way to measure your body fat, since it's the only way to measure it directly - every other method relies on some kind of approximation.)

Not really accessible though, unless you're prepared to spend a fortune.

Equivalent would be 'Bod Pod'. Which is essentially the same thing, but measures the volume of your body using pressurised air rather than dunking you in water. (More accessible, but also pretty expensive.)

Next probably calipers - IF they're used with care, and skill.

And last would be any kind of bio-electrical machine. They're really not very accurate at all.

I don't know where estimates based on body measurements (like the "US Navy" method etc.) fit in with that.

I think for most of us, an honest look in the mirror is probably good enough.

In reply to dan bulman:

As others have said, 2% is unlikely due to reasons already done to death here. When I was extremely fit indeed I got down to a measured-by-calipers-which-isn't-very-accurate-either 8-9%. This was climbing 7 days a week and training aikido three times a week.

However what was fun was getting on one of those electrical impedance measuring things at this time of my life. They got really confused, and when not coming up with "error" (surprisingly often) then either gave silly big figures (25-30%+) or very, very low figures (1-2%). This may be the problem your machine (if it was a machine) was having.

In reply to John_Hat:



[offtopic]Which style mate?[/offtopic]


I think the OP left a zero off; 20%, not 2%.

In reply to stroppygob:

[offtopic]

Aikikai. (ish). Sensei was trained by Chiba, so it was more aikikai-as-it-was rather than aikikai-as-it-is-now.

Yourself, sir?

[end offtopic]

In reply to John_Hat:

Shin Shin Toitsu Aikido (Ki Aikido), studied under the great Sensei Tohei at a summer school once.

In reply to dan bulman:

Well if you're a climber low body fat has got to be a good thing. Don't worry about it. There was a veteran body builder who once got his body fat down to more or less zero (measured using hydrostatic weighing) and he was fine. He wrote a bunch of books about his experiences and experiments in getting lean under the titles of 'Ripped'.