I recently started attempting to track my bodyfat to serve as a guide to my lean cutting plan. So far I have attempted the 2 site circumference tape around my neck/abdomen and just today I also tried the Jackson/Pollock 3 site pinch method with calipers. I watched the videos, so I am pretty confident that my methodology isn't off, but my reading for one was 23.4% with tape and 20% with Jackson/Pollock. That seems like a pretty wide deviation between the two options. It would be great if I were at 20% BF already, but I am extremely doubtful of that.
Is there anything definitive to suggest that one method is supremely more accurate versus the other?
Thank you.
|
-
06-21-2019, 04:32 PM #1
Best Method for Measuring Bodyfat: Jackson/Pollock 3 site or Tape?
-
06-21-2019, 06:29 PM #2
-
06-22-2019, 12:32 AM #3
IME Jackson Pollock gave me false lows in the past, it became really obvious when I was around 8%BF and it gave me a 4%-reading.
Tape measure is the more consistent one of the two from what I remember. It really doesn't matter though, as any of them can be used to track progress over time, which matters more than a spec number.~ Feel free to PM me if you have any questions ~
" As mind ~ as matter "
-
06-22-2019, 01:42 PM #4
Don't look for a certain %, look for progression. This can be done by measuring your waist at the navel, 1" of loss here signifies abou 5-7 lbs of fatloss. BF% is really a meaningless number actually. Even the extremely expensive machines can be way off. Plus the way someone stores fat can be a huge factor. 2 people with the same BF% can look vastly different.
If you don't get what you want you didn't want it bad enough
Pro Choice
Non Christian
MAGA
2A Advocate
FJB
-
-
06-23-2019, 10:38 AM #5
-
06-23-2019, 08:03 PM #6
Bookmarks