DEXA Scan Shock
Options
richardgavel
Posts: 1,001 Member
Over the past 5 1/2 months, I've lost about 50 lbs. My scale showed a BF drop from 28% down to 19%. I know that bio-impedance is not an ideal method of measuring BF% so I decided to get a DEXA scan to get a more accurate reading, expecting to hear something around 20-25%. Imagine my shock when the result was 31.7%! I recognize that I may have lost a little more LBM that I should have due to not eating back exercise calories (I do eat up to the non-exercise goals) and am pure cardio (I'm a triathlete) as opposed to a weights/cardio mix. But I still have trouble believing the number. My BMI is just inside the normal range (6', 180 lbs) and I have trouble reconciling the BF with the workout results I am getting in terms of performance.
Thoughts? Should I get a second opinion with a different form of measurement, like a body pod?
Thoughts? Should I get a second opinion with a different form of measurement, like a body pod?
0
Replies
-
I would be happy with my workout results and try another method in 6 months. I guess it depends on how important it is to you for the $$.0
-
There is a recent post that had a link to the inaccuracy of all ways of estimating body fat barring a post death procedure.
Go by your happiness during your tri performance/training, and how satisfied you are with your body. No one ever asks your bf%, and if they do tell them they will have to wait until you are dead.
I know it is a disappointing number, but hey, I'd be more pleased with dropping my excess weight and being able to compete in triathlons.
Cheers, h.0 -
To be honest I would have been suprised by the 28% with needing to lose 50pds but you are heaps taller than me so that probably makes a difference.
Have you looked at pictures online of people at different body fat %. I use scales at home which show body fat but I have also looked at heaps those sites and I reckon that my scales are in the ballpark as my body looks like the photos and description for the BF% reading I get.0 -
i'd like to see a picture.
I'm not doubting the dexa, just curious since it's usually pretty easy to verify by a quick look.0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »i'd like to see a picture.
I'm not doubting the dexa, just curious since it's usually pretty easy to verify by a quick look.
This.0 -
I got flabby when I was Ironman training. Hours and hours of steady state cardio is not where it's at if you want low body fat.
https://www.t-nation.com/training/death-of-steady-state-cardio0 -
BMI is useless when considering body fat % because it doesn't account for how the weight is distributed.
I can easily imagine a 6' 180 man with more than a fair share of fat. I know plenty of runners your height or taller who are ~155-165 pounds with 7-12% fat.
Do you look like the ~30% fat men depicted in the following pics?
/5d6f59ac9b627a007e584ff60e9c1f50.jpg
0 -
How important is it to know your BF%?
If you are happy, then why spend the money?
I certainly find knowing my BF% interesting, but the mirror tells me my progress more than the scale.
Edit: Also, it is not unusual for many people to underestimate their BF%. I've seen plenty of people, even athletes be off from reality by 5-10%0 -
How important is it to know your BF%?
If you are happy, then why spend the money?
I certainly find knowing my BF% interesting, but the mirror tells me my progress more than the scale.
Edit: Also, it is not unusual for many people to underestimate their BF%. I've seen plenty of people, even athletes be off from reality by 5-10%
Agreed.0 -
First of all, forget your scale. It is worse than useless in that it actually encourages people to believe it has something of use to say when in reality it doesn't.
Your DXA scan would have given you a detailed analysis about your various body parts and ratios. Do these match with what you see on yourself? How close do you match the pictures previously posted?
From BMI the expectation would be a fat % in the 23-26% range. Were you glycogen depleted when you showed up for your scan?
Have you had your height measured recently or is your 6ft assumption based on measurements when you were younger? is 180lbs correct? What was your weight as per the DXA scan?
If you suspect that the DXA scan is incorrect, you could double check as to when the machine was last calibrated, and explore whether they would be willing to rescan.
Though, again, as other than curiosity, the fat % number has little meaning by itself assuming other goals are met.0 -
OP
Please start a lifting program!!!0 -
The reason I was looking for an accurate body fat percentage was suggestions that a recomp should wait until you reach 15% and that you need to get to a similar point to see elimination of man boobs. So I was trying to gauge progress towards reaching that point.0
-
richardgavel wrote: »The reason I was looking for an accurate body fat percentage was suggestions that a recomp should wait until you reach 15% and that you need to get to a similar point to see elimination of man boobs. So I was trying to gauge progress towards reaching that point.
Post photos, preferrably from different angles (front back and side) flexed and unflexed and people will probably be able to give you a better idea of where you stand.0 -
richardgavel wrote: »The reason I was looking for an accurate body fat percentage was suggestions that a recomp should wait until you reach 15% and that you need to get to a similar point to see elimination of man boobs. So I was trying to gauge progress towards reaching that point.
If you've got man boobs, then (as you can see in the pictures Trump2016 posted) then 30% sounds about right.0 -
richardgavel wrote: »Over the past 5 1/2 months, I've lost about 50 lbs. My scale showed a BF drop from 28% down to 19%. I know that bio-impedance is not an ideal method of measuring BF% so I decided to get a DEXA scan to get a more accurate reading, expecting to hear something around 20-25%. Imagine my shock when the result was 31.7%! I recognize that I may have lost a little more LBM that I should have due to not eating back exercise calories (I do eat up to the non-exercise goals) and am pure cardio (I'm a triathlete) as opposed to a weights/cardio mix. But I still have trouble believing the number. My BMI is just inside the normal range (6', 180 lbs) and I have trouble reconciling the BF with the workout results I am getting in terms of performance.
Thoughts? Should I get a second opinion with a different form of measurement, like a body pod?
Unless you look like you just got out of a concentration camp, your numbers are way off. At your weight, 31.7% fat would give you a lean body mass of 122 lbs. At 6'1" that would be something I have never seen before in over 10,000 body fat tests. Avg LBM for someone your height is in the 140s.
0 -
richardgavel wrote: »Over the past 5 1/2 months, I've lost about 50 lbs. My scale showed a BF drop from 28% down to 19%. I know that bio-impedance is not an ideal method of measuring BF% so I decided to get a DEXA scan to get a more accurate reading, expecting to hear something around 20-25%. Imagine my shock when the result was 31.7%! I recognize that I may have lost a little more LBM that I should have due to not eating back exercise calories (I do eat up to the non-exercise goals) and am pure cardio (I'm a triathlete) as opposed to a weights/cardio mix. But I still have trouble believing the number. My BMI is just inside the normal range (6', 180 lbs) and I have trouble reconciling the BF with the workout results I am getting in terms of performance.
Thoughts? Should I get a second opinion with a different form of measurement, like a body pod?
Unless you look like you just got out of a concentration camp, your numbers are way off. At your weight, 31.7% fat would give you a lean body mass of 122 lbs. At 6'1" that would be something I have never seen before in over 10,000 body fat tests. Avg LBM for someone your height is in the 140s.
Yeah it's just odd.
I don't know much about man boobs but it probably doesn't mean much... like everything else, everyone doesn't lose from the same place at same time.0 -
BMI is useless when considering body fat % because it doesn't account for how the weight is distributed.
I can easily imagine a 6' 180 man with more than a fair share of fat. I know plenty of runners your height or taller who are ~155-165 pounds with 7-12% fat.
Do you look like the ~30% fat men depicted in the following pics?
/5d6f59ac9b627a007e584ff60e9c1f50.jpg
A 155lb runner with 7% body fat will still have a lean body mass of 144. Per OP's numbers, his LBM is 122lb.
So, no.
0 -
Post a picture. I'm having trouble in my head picturing a 6'0 180 man at 32% BF. I'd question the results...0
-
-
30%ish seems reasonable tbh. Keep working at it, Rome wasn't built in a day, and you sound like you've made great progress so far
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions