Has anyone ever used the bodyfat monitors or scales that also display what your muscle mass percentage is? Could someone tell me what sort of percentage is normal for someone who works out?
Thread: Muscle Mass Percentage?
10-21-2008, 05:11 AM #1
10-21-2008, 05:21 AM #2
- Join Date: Nov 2007
- Location: Plain City, Ohio, United States
- Stats: 6'8", 231 lbs
- Posts: 4,996
- BodyPoints: 1959
- Rep Power: 1913
10-21-2008, 06:54 AM #3
10-21-2008, 07:01 AM #4
10-21-2008, 09:18 AM #5
thanks for the replies guys, but I'm asking for muscle mass percentages. On the scale you have to input your height, gender and age and then it gives you your weight, bodyfat percentage, water percentage and muscle mass percentage.
I got 12% bodyfat, and 46% muscle mass. It says that the average man has between 40% and 50% muscle mass. I just wondered if any of you other guys had used such a scale and what muscle mass percentages you got???
10-21-2008, 09:31 AM #6
- Join Date: Sep 2008
- Location: Saint Peters, Missouri, United States
- Age: 26
- Stats: 6'1", 174 lbs
- Posts: 415
- Rep Power: 0
10-21-2008, 09:59 AM #7
- Join Date: Jun 2008
- Location: Freehold, New Jersey, United States
- Age: 26
- Stats: 5'9", 179 lbs
- Posts: 852
- Rep Power: 142
10-21-2008, 10:05 AM #8
01-30-2009, 10:45 AM #9
06-20-2009, 01:00 PM #10
Are you all complete idiots?
First everyone responds to any issue other than the actual question. Then, everyone gives completely wrong information.
Bio-impedence will give you a fat %. It can also give you a water %. It does not give muscle %. Unless you are a MASSIVE bodybuilder with little body fat, you will not approach 45% muscle. NOT even close. I know you all think you're huge, but get real.
The average athletic person will be about 60 to 70% water. The more muscle you have, the greater your water % (muscle retains water). Assuming 70% water, if you are 10% body fat, that leaves about 20% for OTHER- about 40 lbs on a 200 lb person.
But, listen up knuckleheads- that doesn't mean the remaining 20% is MUSCLE. All lean tissue makes up that 20%- liver, kidneys, brain (maybe not so much in this group), skin (heavy). Plus, you carry about 10 to 20 pound of feces in your colon at any time- otherwise know as crap- which you clowns are full of. You would be very lucky to be 10% muscle, which on a 200 pound person would be 20 pounds of muscle.
45% muscle? Get real, unless you are a steroidal, no neck body builder. For those who take offense to my tone- you should. Read a book. Start with Harry Potter.
It would be nice to know the answer to the original question, but it's a tough one.
06-20-2009, 01:52 PM #11"Every great achievement was once considered impossible."
5/3/1 Log: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=125248671
Reps for posting
06-20-2009, 02:00 PM #12
- Join Date: Dec 2008
- Location: Virginia, United States
- Age: 24
- Stats: 5'9", 177 lbs
- Posts: 3,713
- Rep Power: 3024
04-01-2010, 07:26 PM #13
Wow MR1111! If you are going to answer a question, start by getting your head out of your butt! Not everyone is a genius like you obviously think you are. Before you get cocky, I think you need to double check your information.
Males are made up of about 42% skeletal muscles and females 36%. That means a 200 male is made up of about 84 pounds of muscle. This is just your average Joe...not a body builder. The body needs muscles to move, this includes the 64 in your head alone!
07-15-2010, 04:17 PM #14
11-08-2010, 08:33 AM #15
- Join Date: Dec 2007
- Location: Oak Brook, Illinois, United States
- Stats: 5'11", 175 lbs
- Posts: 1
- BodyPoints: 1103
- Rep Power: 0
I Love Stupid People Who Think They Are Smart
07-31-2011, 02:36 PM #16
Ok guys, let's not lose our heads here. This is a forum where anybody can discuss questions they have on their mind. It's supposed to be beneficial site, not a hostile environment. Let's no defeat the purpose of this. That being said, I "think" I might have stumbled on an answer, but I'm not sure. I too have the same question about muscle mass percentage. I also have an electronic scale that measures body fat, H20 (water), bone mass (density), BMI and of course over all weight. I created a log/chart where I can chart my progress. I am overweight, but I am also pretty muscular - I've always been. I'm just older now and gotten fluffy - but its high-time I get back on track - I'm just sick of myself. Anyway, so my weight is 228lbs; 35.1% fat; 47.3% H2O;7.2lbs Bone density and 32.6 BMI. So, I did the math and it translates: 80lbs fat; 107.84lbs water; 7.2lbs bone. This leaves me with 32.94lbs of whatever is left including muscle. That's only 14%!!! My fat is more than twice my muscle content!! I'm really blown away by this. So, I can only conclude that unless that scale is a piece of crap, my muscle content in percentage form is very, very small. That is why I had to find out what the average muscle mass index was so I can gauge approximately, if these findings have any real value. Plus, I also know that muscle is very dense. So I think you guys actually have good information, but its incomplete, which creates opposition. I sure, my info is also incomplete, and I hope someone else has been able to do a little more personal research on the subject to make the picture more complete. This is how the forum should work, guys. Let's get along and help each other out. Thanks.. The Tiger..
Last edited by SanSooTiger; 07-31-2011 at 02:41 PM.
10-04-2011, 06:21 PM #17
Work on your math skills...
01-31-2012, 06:29 AM #18
05-05-2012, 04:37 PM #19
This is an interesting thread and it is interesting because I am looking at this in terms of my own scale.
1) FAT and Muscle - both contain water (so the percentages are not going to add up to 100 - also bone density is usually given as lBS not %)
2) Water % measures level of hydration.
3) Measuring muscle mass is VERY important if you are also looking at Catabolization -
As for what normal is- that is what broght me to the question here.
06-05-2012, 01:27 AM #20
- Join Date: Feb 2008
- Location: Auckland, North Island, New Zealand
- Age: 46
- Stats: 5'11", 230 lbs
- Posts: 266
- Rep Power: 1096
I just got my bio impedence tested today
weight 100 kg
height 180 cm
Muscle mass 75 kg = 75 %
Body Fat Mass 20 Kg = 20%
water = 60% of me bod
Its so easy when you weigh 100kg
... SO YOU ARE "W.R.O.N.G" dude ---> W R O N G
you done said the wrong
If an average man is 50% a bodybuilder certainly can expect to be anything up to 80% - maybe more for super muscle men
Um but what about dem bonez ??? my test didnt cover dat
maybe u izz rite
Last edited by FreeFitnessGuru; 06-05-2012 at 01:45 AM.Gareth Thomas
Auckland, New Zealand
I've Been a Weight Lifter Since 1984
06-08-2012, 09:36 PM #21
- Join Date: Mar 2008
- Location: Mountain View, California, United States
- Age: 34
- Stats: 5'9", 217 lbs
- Posts: 139
- Rep Power: 99
That means some one that's 5'9" 190 lbs will have from 40.008 - 60.591kg muscle mass
TL;DR ================================================== =============================================
That means some one that's 5'9" 190 lbs will have from
34.026 - 54.609 kg (74.829 - 120.112 lbs) of muscle mass (39.384% - 63.217% muscle mass) [These have been corrected]
Mistake in my calculations had the brain at 360g not 1360. Add 1 kg or 2.2 lbs to the organ mass and subtract that amount from muscle mass
Forgot about blood. At around 4.7 liters at 1060 kg/liter (or m^3)
So about 4.982 kg or 10.988 lbs. You can adjust below from there.
All are assumed to be wet mass (ie with water)
Suprarenal (What is this?) 19.66g
Before skeleton 4.073 kg (8.979 lbs) of organ mass. Since I'm missing some of the smaller organs and the intestines let's make a guess of about another 1 kg (probably a gross over estimate, but should catch the high end of the range)
Skeleton (9kg - 18.5kg) this is around 17.58% of body weight (I assume this percent is based on age/height/weight averages, so something like 5'9"/154 lbs for a male would be 12.252 kg)
Meaning my organs would be approximately 16.325 kg (35.99 lbs)
This is a less than complete list.
Skin, Muscle and Fat are the organs I expect to vary significantly from person to person (inside an age/gender/height group).
Skin (3.6kg/2m^2) 0.007184*W(in kg)^0.425* H(in cm)^0.725 = 2.0189 m^2 = 3634 g (8.011 lbs)
GI Tract weight
"The mean 24 hour stool weight was 407.66 ± 133.27g ... in men"
"The mean body weight of the subjects was found to be 63.4 kg"
"On the whole, the mean stool weight of the specimens was 349±131 g with a median of 320 g"
"stool weight increased by 42.4 g for every 10 kg increase in body weight"
This along with this
"The mean transit time using carmine and activated charcoal was 12.46 ± 4.58 hours"
Make me believe we carry much less in our GI tracts than most people would assume. (Thinking about it why would your body waste all the extra energy carrying around lots of stool/undigested food. It'd want to get what it can from it and get rid of it as soon as possible)
That would put me at 445.6g (.982 lbs) of stool at any given time.
This was interesting too
"It seems that the reason for the strong correlation between stool weight and use of bread (and not with other food substances)"
I will assume standard fat calculations (hydrostatic) are actually approximately correct.
So for a 190lb male I have approximately
20.404kg (44.983 lbs) of non-muscle lean mass (yes, stool counts for the most part as it is heavier than water)
Given that I'm sure I'm missing organs let's go all the way up to 21.404 kg (47.188 lbs)
that leaves fat and muscle to battle it out for the remaining
145.017 - 142.8 lbs.
30% 25.9 kg (57 lbs)
25% 21.591 kg (47.5 lbs)
20% 17.273 kg (38 lbs)
15% 12.955 kg (28.5 lbs)
10% 8.637 kg (19 lbs)
05% 4.318 kg (9.5 lbs)
That means some one that's 5'9" 190 lbs will have from
40.008 - 60.591 kg (88.017 - 133.3 lbs) of muscle mass (46.3% - 70.158% muscle mass)
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_does_the_colon_hold (This seems quite feasible, but I've been unable to find a better source)
http://www.ams.ac.ir/aim/0034/asl0034.html (Better source on stool weight)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...al+maintenance (skeletal weight % based on google cache highlight of % for article)
Last edited by solarmist; 06-09-2012 at 01:41 PM. Reason: Mistake
08-07-2012, 05:12 PM #22
09-12-2012, 08:00 PM #23
- Join Date: Feb 2008
- Location: Grover Beach, California, United States
- Age: 28
- Stats: 6'0", 167 lbs
- Posts: 1
- Rep Power: 0
01-23-2013, 04:57 AM #24
IF YOU HAVE TO INPUT ANY NUMBERS INTO A MACHINE THEN ITS NOT MEASURING ANYTHING-ITS JUST REFERENCING A TABLE
The maths involved in these things is ridiculous-whats your height? WTF has that got to do with anything if you dont input width and depth-2 guys same height but one is 6in wider accross the shoulders and his rib cage is 8in deeper-they still have to weigh the same or the difference is fat -er what? Even if you did input all the 3D measurements these toys could only calculate your body volume not what is fat or muscle.
THE ONLY SCIENTIFIC WAY TO DETERMINE BODY FAT/MUSCLE PERCENTAGES IS TO DO A TOTAL BODY DISSECTION AND WEIGH ALL THE BITS.
Water is a massive component of muscle and a muscle is at its most efficient when fully hydrated so you will have more total muscle when you are smooth rather that dehydrater and cut.
In terms of practicallity- get your middle how you want it and keep your belt on the same notch-the only problem with this is that assuming you start from an ideal sustainable bodyfat level then you will never be able to gain strength in your core as this will widen the muscles in the abs,erectors and obliques which will make you wider. If you start with a flabby middle (almost everyone) it will be impossible to keep an accurate log of fat loss vs muscle gain.
As a side note 6 packs dont mean ****-most people who think they have a good middle are simply skinny if you have good ab muscles and the low fat to go with it (Hardly anyone) you should be able to place a ruler an inch plus into the gaps between ab muscles.
05-12-2013, 11:09 AM #25
05-15-2013, 02:57 PM #26
My opinion : this measuring tools use ml amps current streams , so to measure al this different density's it gets for each part like fat /water/muscle/bones...ect unique currents back so you get body fat rated on 100% but also you water % is rated on 100% and the rest of the data on 100% sepretly .
For example you can have :
-muscle mass=45 %
I just mean you can't count them up they are calculated seperetly so you must look at them seperate each on 100%... theoretical everything could be 99 or 1 .
BTW body fat is also calculated in a swimmingpool in weight belts connected to loadcells calibratoin between 2 points they weigh your dry weight and the in the water , the 1st minus the 2nd is your bodyfat is kg ... mith some simple math each idiot would manage to put it in %
i just mean you can not count everything up its calculated each sepretly on 100%
01-16-2014, 07:27 AM #27
It really doesn't matter who is right about the percentages. As long as you are using the same scale to track your own progress in eliminating fat and gaining muscle, then you have a control.
If you want answers on body composition and makeup of anatomy and what everything in your body weighs, google.com knows everything. Peace out girlscouts! xD
01-16-2014, 08:10 AM #28
08-01-2014, 01:21 AM #29
- Join Date: Dec 2009
- Location: Madison, Ohio, United States
- Age: 26
- Stats: 6'0", 205 lbs
- Posts: 188
- Rep Power: 0
This is hands down, the greatest bro-science thread ever so I'm beating that dead horse.
40-50% muscle mass?!?
That's absolute nonsense spread by the web.
I'm an electronic engineering student and know a lot more about the technology used to determine body mass indexing and how it's really not accurate at all, just a much better number to work with regarding body fat as opposed to using a scale to measure progress.
It's measuring resistance and estimating how much fat, muscle and bone you have based on?
EMPIRICAL DATA TAKEN FROM BODIES DONATED TO SCIENCE.
People who have been stripped down 1 layer at a time by lab geeks measuring everything from nerves to total vascular system length and so on then, the data is either published under an accredited college or sold to a massive, accredited resource bank or some other organization of that nature relating to the medical science industry be it commerce or education.
They then have numerical data relating to how much impedance and conductivity you can expect from various tissues and, what the means/averages were on the cadavers used in research to supply that data.
Each device may be doing something different but most will just be measuring DC resistance and time scaled measuring drop off due to the diamagnetic response of mass or, hitting you with a ping frequency and measuring voltage drop across your body then make a calculation based on again, the empirical data produced from cadavers.
Most will just be measuring DC resistance and nothing more.
In the end, even if the unit is a bit more sophisticated it's all just crunching numbers based on some simple electrical readings and the empirical data from cadaver research.
Just looking at the biometrics from the knee to the tips of your toes, the end product of total muscle is about 20-30% of the mass when you put it into the contracted state.
People are misinterpreting what the claimed experts are saying.
They are saying MASS.
MASS as in physical space.
If you think your body is on average, 40 to 50% muscle, I have some bridges in Arizona for sale at a great price!
To actually measure muscle mass with an electrical device not only is the required numerical data relating to a certain person's body impossible to obtain but it's going to be based on putting the muscle into resonance and measuring how much power is damped.
It's just such a ridiculous claim of these companies and the methodology to actually pull it off scientifically is vast.
There's probably 10 different ways to do it all of which are absurdly complicated and approximate even if reliably approximate. I am REALLY engrossed in science since EE is one of the most challenging degrees that exists putting you through chemistry, all levels of math, quantum physics and more.
Most of what people think is science isn't science at all.
It's highly political information produced by a study that is inferring what is far from proven.
"The data produced by the experiment implies that...." and if I had a dollar for every time I read that when I dig through scientific reports.
It takes a fair amount of formal education in an accredited institute to know the good from the bad.
Worst of all at least half of the experimental studies are financed by grants and the granters are seeking results favorable to their industry.
If you were 90lbs of muscle on a 6 foot, 180lb frame, you would look pretty much grotesque!
You would be eating all the time and struggle to keep single digit body fat.
While it's not accurate, break it down to sectioned off portions of body mass.
Fingertip to elbow 50% muscle??
Toe tip to knee 50% muscle??
Even knee cap to top crest of the butt cheek 50% muscle?
Some portions will be close or maybe even accurate but generally speaking, the tremendous drop offs of other portions in contrast to those in the 40 to maybe 50 percentile are dropping you back down to 20%.
Maybe THE biggest guys are 35 to 40% by weight but all of you who think you're 40 or even 50?
I wish you luck as a member of the 99%!
There's just so much wrong with the average DIY genius today I rarely participate in communities where people think 10% of the picture has given them enough increased thinking capacity, new mental skills and the ability to apply them with unity, accurately to guess about the other 90%.
The crap I read from about 200 million DIY people regarding electron theory and all their amazing gadget repairs or builds or modifications or installs SMH....S...M...H!!
Last edited by JonnyDarko; 08-01-2014 at 01:27 AM.
08-01-2014, 06:53 AM #30
- Join Date: Mar 2014
- Location: bunbury, western australia, Australia
- Age: 19
- Stats: 5'6", 136 lbs
- Posts: 38
- Rep Power: 0