UncleEbenezer wrote:BMI, 31 point something. Obese.
Body fat measurement from some kind of electric instrument: 17%. Bang in the middle of healthy range (from memory, 14-20%) for a man of my age. So evidently, obese but not fat.
Ah yes, the electric instrument. But brace yourself, my GP tells me that that their usefulness and accuracy is disputed.
Stand on a "smart" electronic scale, she says, and the electrical signal goes right up one leg and straight back down the other one, she says. It tries to follow the path of least resistance - so it doesn't get anywhere near your gut.
Pick up a pair of hand-held electronic terminals, and it's the same thing, except that the signal goes up one arm and down the other. And again, nowhere near your midriff. Which is a pity, because the geographical location of people's fat is probably more important in terms of risk than the quantity. (Some locations signal greater cardiac risk, while others don't mean much more than that the patient is female.
)
To add insult to injury, my doc also says that these gizmos don't really distinguish well beween muscle and fat and water, so they're not that much better than BMI. Oh, and your bone mass screws up the calculation, sometimes dramatically.
Their best contribution is that,if you use them regularly, it'll focus your mind on the task in hand and perhaps instil some good habits. Personally, though, when I'm on a weight-loss campaign I resort to some rough and ready calorie counts at the end of each day. That works better for me, especially when I also take the time to walk each day. If I don't, the benefits of diet restriction alone are quite a bit less noticeable.
BJ