Just for kicks I dug up the original Jackson/Pollock paper for skinfold measurements for determining body fat percentage. Turns out there's also a 7-point equation that also takes circumference of waist and forearm into account.
Here's a snapshot of the equations for men from the paper ("Generalized equations for predicting body density of men" by A.S. Jackson and M.L. Pollock, 1978. I couldn't find the PDF for the women paper online).
Important notes: skinfolds are in millimeters, circumferences are in meters, and log is the natural log (ln in most computer languages). I plugged my values from two weeks back into a spreadsheet and got the following results:
|Sum of seven skinfolds|
|S, S^2, age||1.0518||20.62%|
|S, S^2, age,C||1.0476||22.51%|
|log S, age||1.0506||21.15%|
|log S, age, C||1.0482||22.25%|
|Sum of three skinfolds|
|S, S^2, age (5)||1.0607||16.69%|
|S, S^2, age,C (6)||1.0549||19.24%|
|log S, age (7)||1.0578||17.95%|
|log S, age, C (8)||1.0574||18.14%|
The most interesting thing here is that there's a large difference between 7 and 3 site measurements, and the 3 site range is significantly larger. Also very interesting to note is that the one-site (suprailiac) AccuMeasure chart is, for me, in line with the 7-site measurement (22.1%). Given other measurements I've taken and just general guesswork based on what I see in the mirror, I think that is a decent estimate.
It's also curious that there are two sets of equations given, one using logs and one using squares.
Moral of the story: more data is better, sometimes not-enough more data is worse than a simpler estimate, and interesting things can be learned when you go to the original source. (This is just a quick note, but the paper is very interesting and reading it will be an interesting exercise that sets proper expectations for, and understanding of, the JP7 skinfold method).