Body fat confusion...
 

So, I go to my gym and use their electronic body fat calculator....25% registors. I'm thinking that I want to be under 20% at least. At 5'9" (down from 5"10+") I'm weighing in at 190 lbs with a measured 36 1/2" waist. And, when I wake up in the morning and look at myself in the mirror there are no "love handles." Anyway, I decide to buy myself one of those Taylor scales that show body fat % so I can keep track of everything at home. I get on the scale and it shows 30% body fat! OK so these things are not all that consistent but here are my questions: What should I (at age 64) be aiming for in terms of body fat % and what's the best/quickest way to get there?

ELEM (eat less, exercise more) :)

I hate the first half of that formula.

Yes. This is the sad truth.

I don't trust any of the automagic BMI indicators to provide meaningful information, even those in medical establishments. They consistently miss my ample stores of onboard lard, putting me at 19 to 22. Supposedly that's because of muscle mass hiding under the fat.

For most of us, I think, BluesDawg has it right with ELEM.

at 64, most doctors would be pleased to see their patient to be disease free, eating well and riding a bike.

You're not 24 anymore, enjoy life. It doesn't last forever.

Just had my annual checkup and was lamenting to my doc that I was disappointed not to have lost a bit more weight, what with all the bike riding and all. He provided some reassurance, saying in effect: "it's more important for health to be fit than it is to be light." Unfortunately he also mentioned the first part of BD's formula...

BMI is not a perfect science. Scales that electronically measure fat content are unreliable.

The most important scale is how do you weigh yourself? No love handles, well that's a good thing. Do you like what you see in the mirror? Can you do what is reasonable for "our age?" Do you laugh and have people around that you love and care about you?

Guess what I figured out? I won't be racing this year at Leadville (Like I ever did) and no one is going to put me on a magazine cover. But I do have a life that is rewarding. That's a good scale.

I actually have a great life. And, I'm in pretty good shape. I'd like to have that inch in height back but other than that, I'm happy with what I see in the mirror. My issue is that I'm an ex-college scholarship football/baseball player and am always challenging myself to be better/faster, whatever. I can kick back and ride for pure pleasure but I really don't want to give up trying to go beyond my limits. I like that about me.

DITTO, I gave you the lecture my wife gives me. In my dreams I will race Leadville and I will compete.

If The Biggest Loser is any indication, it's eat a lot less, exercise a lot more, when you see a 6' 300lb guy eating just rabbit food, and spending 7 hours a day in the Gym with a professional trainer, losing 5lbs in a week, you kinda wonder how this is supposed to work.....

As to the OP, if your blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar counts are in the normal range and your healthy, then body fat percentage really isn't a huge concern. Electronic body fat calculators use electrical resistance, this can be thrown off by a number of things like hydration level.

Wogsterca called it -- BMI machines are unreliable due to a number of factors. I've taken measurements with the same scale at different times during the day to check against the hydration issue, and it's true. One measurement showed me at 29%, a later one at 27%, all in an 8-hour period of time.

Resting pulse; LDL/HDL/trigs; hematocrit; BP. THESE are the numbers that are the better indicator of your overall health. Think about this: BMI measurements put Schwarzenegger down as OBESE!

Final word -- BMI is electronic snake oil.

They give you a general idea of % BF. If you get a quality caliper BF analysis, or better yet, an immersion analysis, you can use that to compare to the then current number from your Taylor or Tanita. Tanita has scales with not only impedance measurement at your feet, but hand grips too for upper body analysis. The ones you just stand on only give an approximation for the lower half of your body.

Get a good physical, discuss your health with your doctor, and decide on any weight changes based on that. If ALL you want to do is improve your cycling, lose 30 lbs. and get your waist down to 32 or less.

Also, post your question in the fitness section of roadbikereview.com forums, and see what kind of answers you get.

For the last two years at the annual Health Fair at work, nurses from a local hospital have measured my percent body fat (not BMI) with the hand-held electronic device. Came out 20-21% each time. I look at the nurse quizzically. I'm 5'10.5, 31" waist, and weigh 147 in all my winter bike gear from the ride over there. "Do I look like 20% body fat to you?" "Well, that's what it says." Using several body measurements with calipers and look-up tables, I always come out about 10-11%. I know which one I'm believing. ;)

I still think the most telling measurement is which hole in your belt you use.

I think I need to find some place that has the equipment to do these tests accurately. Unfortunately, I have no idea where that might be around here. Think I'll go inquire at my LBS and cycling club.

Sometimes local universities have physiology study departments that you can contact.

how do those hand held things work - they send an electric signal through your body to test resistance or something? does the scale at home do that? do you have to stand with bare feet on sensors or something? maybe foot calluses are affecting the reading.

anyway any 2 scales from different manufacturers would register different weights, so I would assume the same is true of this kind of measurement. so just use one. maybe the home device can be calibrated? can you go to a water tank and get a precise measurement and then calibrate the home device to match?

That's a great attitude, but I have to wonder. Are you thinking you'll be able to maintain what you have done in the past? I know my best times now do not match my best times from 20 years ago.

We all age and performance will diminish with time. There are changes that happen in life and for me personally, I have to think that what I gain from experience, eclipses what I lose in physiological ability.

I can only judge from my past experiences and here's how some of that went.....I didn't start cycling until I was around 40 yrs. old. I almost always rode alone except for an annual century until I was approaching age 50. I decided that I wanted to do my 20 mi. "time trial" at 20 mph on my 50th birthday in mid-June of 1996. Rode my rollers all winter and trained hard in the Spring. On my birthday I managed to ride the TT at exactly 20 mph. But, I was so burned out from going hard all winter and Spring that I basically put the bike away and didn't ride again for 8 yrs. Then at age 58 there was a new woman in my life who wanted to start cycling. So, I got back into it. It was miserable. I was older, fatter and out of shape. There was virtually no one in CT who was slower up a hill than me. But, we persevered. Joined a club at age 60 and started riding the B ride on Saturdays. In '08 I managed a best time on a new 15 mi. TT at around 16+ mph. I weighed in at around 195 lbs, well over my ideal weight of 175 lbs. Last year I changed my eating habits and was down to 185 lbs. during cycling season. I didn't ride with the club on their 60 mi. Sat. rides and rode alone alot. Most of my rides were in the 15-35 mi. range. Had a month off the bike in June-July due to pneumonia. But, by Sept., at age 63, I rode that 15 mi. TT at 17.4 mph. Two days ago, I rode that same ride for my first ride of this season. Just used low gears and higher cadence. Was really surprised to see that I did it at 15.1 mph. My goal is to do it at 18 mph by mid-June. As far as I'm concerned I'm getting better with age.

I guess you are!

I was coming from my experience which has been cycling continuously for the last 26 years. I cycled before that of course, just as a kid and an adolescent, not being concerned at all with fitness from riding.

I've always had the habit of pushing myself so when I got back in the saddle as a young adult, I saw significant improvement that built until I plateaued in my early 30's. Stayed level for quite a while and then an ironic thing happened. My wife bought me a heart rate monitor one year. I had wanted one to improve my fitness for a long time but they were really expensive. With the passing of time, they had become affordable.

I found that I was still working hard (as I always had), but my times were slower. More importantly, I was not as keen as pushing myself to newer heights of fitness as I had been in the past. I think enjoying myself and looking forward to the next ride is more important than pushing myself so hard that my fitness improves, but I don't enjoy the ride. I guess I'm mellowing.

I can see where you're coming from. I guess I was thinking at 64 you were trying to be competitive with 34 year olds. I was wrong.

Closetbiker--

I have a feeling your "plateau" was considerably higher than mine. I found that without that period of rest and mellow rides I just burned out. I learned a lesson I'll never forget. Now I push myself once or twice a week and then just have fun the other times. Just trying to be versatile in my approach to riding. Combine that with innate lazziness and a love of beer and whiskey and I'm just a psychological mess. Happy but a mess. :)

I vaguely recall reading once that performance in aerobic sports declines after the mid-30s, and that the rate of decline varies from about 0.5%/year for those who continue to exercise at the same level, up to 1-1.5%/year for those that don't.

Personally, at age 60 now I enjoy a 7-hour century more than a one-hour, 20-mile TT. I might be deluding myself thinking my 90 centuries last year kept me in great shape, but at least I enjoyed it along the way.

It's been funny for me. I've always been pretty consistent with my riding, but the last couple of years I've seen differences that do not reflect my work or diet habits.

It's a good thing riding still brings me the joy it always has. It's that, rather than the health benefits, that have kept me on the saddle. The health benefits are just a side benefit to the fun (and practicality) of riding.

I'm just punched more holes in the belt, before the ones that are there, so I must be doing Great. Of course it may help if you know that the belt in question is a 50 inch belt. And the only reason body fat makes a difference is BMI is not a useful nor accurate method of measuring fitness. (It can't tell the difference between Michael Jordan at his peak, and a true porker.)