Printable View
No offense but I am having a hard time beleive the BF% number. While I know its not 100% accurate my scale says I am around 22% BF being 60 lbs lighter and the same height as you. Don't have an accurate measurement at navel, but I wear a 32 waist in pants.Quote:
Originally Posted by 93STLTH
I'nm hoping he meant 37 not 47. Hell I'm a 44 and 50lbs more
I wear a 38 pants and it's loose on me, the measurement is at the bellybutton, which is above my pants line.
Stealthee, I've been an iron pumper for most of my adult life, (started lifting around 1982) so that's why my BF % is relatively low for my height and weight.
THis would mean that yes when you put 47 inch waist in your 1st post it was an error ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by 93STLTH
Where else is the weight if you wear a 38 loosely? I weigh less than you and wear a 38 pant and it fits normally....
If he's fairly muscular then in his muscles. Muscle does weigh more than fat.
I'm guessing that I need to get an actual BF% test because I am basically lean and toned all over, except for a minor belly. My % may not be near as high as my scale tells me.
Being a bit nit-picky here, but muscle does not weight more than fat. 1 pound of muscle weighs just as much as a pound of fat. Muscle is more dense than fat, while fat takes up more volume.Quote:
Originally Posted by stealthee
Its the same damn thing. If you took a 1lb chunk of muscle it would be smaller than a 1 lb chunk of fat.
Exactly, it's not the same thing because in that example, they weight the same yet are different volumes. I know what you and everyone means when they say that muscle weighs more than fat, it's just not a correct statement though.Quote:
Originally Posted by stealthee
You're in your engineering "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" mode. :p
EDIT: And to put it one more way, if you take a chunk of mucscle that weighs 1lb, and you take a chunk of fat that is identical in size to that chunk of muscle...... the fat will weight less.