Free DEXA Scan Opportunity
chunky_pinup
Posts: 758 Member
So, we just received an announcement at work that entitles all employees to a free Fitness Evaluation at one of our new rehab facilities. It includes a 1 hour evaluation looking at medical history/risk factor analysis/exercise history, Resting BP and heart rate, submaximal endurance assessment, flexibility assessment and body composition analysis (DEXA), a consult with an exercise specialist and one month free use of our new Sports Med fitness center.
I had a DEXA done a few years back, and am interested in doing this again. My question is this:
It’s a one time offer, and we can do it any time (it’s a new employee benefit so it won’t expire). Do I wait until I hit my physical “goal” to see or do I do this now, to give myself an idea of how far I need to go still? I don’t want to waste it, as I know they are expensive to have a DEXA done, so I’m just curious what you all would do if given the chance to have one done for free?
I had a DEXA done a few years back, and am interested in doing this again. My question is this:
It’s a one time offer, and we can do it any time (it’s a new employee benefit so it won’t expire). Do I wait until I hit my physical “goal” to see or do I do this now, to give myself an idea of how far I need to go still? I don’t want to waste it, as I know they are expensive to have a DEXA done, so I’m just curious what you all would do if given the chance to have one done for free?
0
Replies
-
I'd do it now so you can set your calories more accurately. You can always pay for another later on if you are so inclined, but what use is the data after the fact? You would just be confirming your BF% once you hit your goal.
I would rather have data that is usable than data that verifies what I already know.2 -
Does this all need to be done in one session, or are you looking to do the DEXA scan separately? Because knowing your VO2 max is useful for exercising. I'd get it done ASAP. You never know what they might find.
0 -
read the fine PRINT it said free to us too- Ours used our medical insurance as payment then about three months later I got a Nice $310 bill it was free if our deductible was already met.. I was so pissed4
-
ClubSilencio wrote: »Does this all need to be done in one session, or are you looking to do the DEXA scan separately? Because knowing your VO2 max is useful for exercising. I'd get it done ASAP. You never know what they might find.
It's all in one session.Michael190lbs wrote: »read the fine PRINT it said free to us too- Ours used our medical insurance as payment then about three months later I got a Nice $310 bill it was free if our deductible was already met.. I was so pissed
No insurance needed. It's through our new Sports Rehab Center, so anyone who works for the hospital gets this. Already asked about any stipulations.GauchoMark wrote: »I'd do it now so you can set your calories more accurately. You can always pay for another later on if you are so inclined, but what use is the data after the fact? You would just be confirming your BF% once you hit your goal.
I would rather have data that is usable than data that verifies what I already know.
Thanks all! I hadn't really thought about it in this way....I think I'm going to sign up sooner rather than later!0 -
Completely late to reply but I would be another vote for getting it done now rather than waiting. That way sometime down the road if you want to have one to see how you've changed, you have a baseline for comparison.
(Obligatory warning that DEXA scans show error rates averaging 5% and ranging up to 10% for individuals.)0 -
I would love to have a free DEXA Scan-definitely do it!0
-
Yep do it now, then you know exactly what your working with0
-
Do it now. We don't know how long until you reach your goals.0
-
Do it now to establish a baseline and do it again later when you've achieved your "physicsl goal" to determine the change in LBM, BF and other measures and to determine whether you need/want to alter your goals or do anything else to make any further changes or not.0
-
Ultimately I think it's a good idea to consider the error rates associated with any method of body fat analysis including DEXA, and while it's not bad to get additional information when it's available to you, I don't think you're going to learn anything pivotal from a DEXA scan that you won't already have from other metrics.
2 -
Ultimately I think it's a good idea to consider the error rates associated with any method of body fat analysis including DEXA, and while it's not bad to get additional information when it's available to you, I don't think you're going to learn anything pivotal from a DEXA scan that you won't already have from other metrics.
This. DEXA is only useful if you are going to have another one to compare against. Using too many difference measures to track your progress can cloud your judgement.
That being said; it's free so you should do it.0 -
trigden1991 wrote: »Ultimately I think it's a good idea to consider the error rates associated with any method of body fat analysis including DEXA, and while it's not bad to get additional information when it's available to you, I don't think you're going to learn anything pivotal from a DEXA scan that you won't already have from other metrics.
This. DEXA is only useful if you are going to have another one to compare against. Using too many difference measures to track your progress can cloud your judgement.
That being said; it's free so you should do it.
Even if you have another one to compare it against, it's not necessarily useful due to error rates, IMO.
Now, if I were getting one for free I'd do it purely for entertainment, but I'd not place any significance on the output.1 -
Even if you have another one to compare it against, it's not necessarily useful due to error rates, IMO.
So, are you saying all methods of LBM/BF measurement are useless because they are all subject to measurement error?
Can't agree with this.
DXA and other LBM/BF measurement techniques (even calipers and bioelectrical devices, which are the most error prone) are the only things we've got to take subjective evaluation out of the equation.
Error prone or not, they at least provide an empirical means of assessment that can track your progress, be it weight/fat loss and/or LBM/muscle growth.
Without them, it's just anyone's guess and that is clearly inadequate as a means of assesment.
0 -
trigden1991 wrote: »DEXA is only useful if you are going to have another one to compare against. Using too many difference measures to track your progress can cloud your judgement.
I agree that 1 data point is all but useless if your intent is to track your progress towards a weight loss or gain goal.
I also agree that it is best NOT to mix measurement methods. It won't "cloud yor judgement" (per se) to use different measurement methods, but it would not be credible to directly compare DXA w/Hydrostatic results (for example) because of the different techniques used to arrive at the measurement results.
However, while the results for each method will differ, the trends should be similar, which I have found after having my LBM/BF measured multiole times by both DXA Scan and Hydrostatic Testing over the past 6 months.
0 -
Ultimately I think it's a good idea to consider the error rates associated with any method of body fat analysis including DEXA, and while it's not bad to get additional information when it's available to you, I don't think you're going to learn anything pivotal from a DEXA scan that you won't already have from other metrics.
What other metrics are you referring to?0 -
Even if you have another one to compare it against, it's not necessarily useful due to error rates, IMO.
So, are you saying all methods of LBM/BF measurement are useless because they are all subject to measurement error?
Can't agree with this.
DXA and other LBM/BF measurement techniques (even calipers and bioelectrical devices, which are the most error prone) are the only things we've got to take subjective evaluation out of the equation.
Error prone or not, they at least provide an empirical means of assessment that can track your progress, be it weight/fat loss and/or LBM/muscle growth.
Without them, it's just anyone's guess and that is clearly inadequate as a means of assesment.
I would say that a measuring tape can provide an equally good means of assessment to track progress, at a much lower cost than either DEXA or most other methods. Once you start looking into it (I really suggest reading the weightology.net pieces on body fat measurement), the methods aren't that great at the individual level and aren't that great for tracking changes over time. I think they can be interesting, yes, but when you consider the error rates, it's still anyone's guess as to whether or not your results are actually showing changes to body composition.0 -
Even if you have another one to compare it against, it's not necessarily useful due to error rates, IMO.
So, are you saying all methods of LBM/BF measurement are useless because they are all subject to measurement error?
Can't agree with this.
DXA and other LBM/BF measurement techniques (even calipers and bioelectrical devices, which are the most error prone) are the only things we've got to take subjective evaluation out of the equation.
Error prone or not, they at least provide an empirical means of assessment that can track your progress, be it weight/fat loss and/or LBM/muscle growth.
Without them, it's just anyone's guess and that is clearly inadequate as a means of assesment.
Can you present an example where you need to know the information it tells you?0 -
_incogNEATo_ wrote: »Ultimately I think it's a good idea to consider the error rates associated with any method of body fat analysis including DEXA, and while it's not bad to get additional information when it's available to you, I don't think you're going to learn anything pivotal from a DEXA scan that you won't already have from other metrics.
What other metrics are you referring to?
I think that in the vast majority of cases (I'm willing to be wrong here if someone can present me an example) you can use a combination of metrics to conclude what is happening with lean mass even if you don't know the exact ratios of fat to water to lean/etc.
Example: You are bulking. You want to determine if you are gaining muscle mass. And so you can look at training volume along with training history (is training volume increasing), rate of change in bodyweight on the scale, tape measurer, photographs, training performance, and with a combination of these things you can very likely conclude whether or not you are successful.
I don't think you need a DEXA reading to verify this, and I've seen many cases where due to error the DEXA tells a story that virtually every other metric disputes.
2 -
Additionally, a 5-10% individual error rate is pretty significant when you look at how it assesses individuals.
Hydration status can throw this off pretty significantly as well.
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-5-the-pitfalls-of-body-fat-measurement-parts-5-and-6-skinfolds-and-dual-energy-x-ray-absorptiometry-dexa/the-pitfalls-of-body-fat-measurement-part-6-dexa/1 -
Even if you have another one to compare it against, it's not necessarily useful due to error rates, IMO.
So, are you saying all methods of LBM/BF measurement are useless because they are all subject to measurement error?
Can't agree with this.
DXA and other LBM/BF measurement techniques (even calipers and bioelectrical devices, which are the most error prone) are the only things we've got to take subjective evaluation out of the equation.
Error prone or not, they at least provide an empirical means of assessment that can track your progress, be it weight/fat loss and/or LBM/muscle growth.
Without them, it's just anyone's guess and that is clearly inadequate as a means of assesment.
I would say that a measuring tape can provide an equally good means of assessment to track progress, at a much lower cost than either DEXA or most other methods. Once you start looking into it (I really suggest reading the weightology.net pieces on body fat measurement), the methods aren't that great at the individual level and aren't that great for tracking changes over time. I think they can be interesting, yes, but when you consider the error rates, it's still anyone's guess as to whether or not your results are actually showing changes to body composition.
^ Exactly this.
a 5% average error rate on individuals is huge.0 -
_incogNEATo_ wrote: »Ultimately I think it's a good idea to consider the error rates associated with any method of body fat analysis including DEXA, and while it's not bad to get additional information when it's available to you, I don't think you're going to learn anything pivotal from a DEXA scan that you won't already have from other metrics.
What other metrics are you referring to?
I think that in the vast majority of cases (I'm willing to be wrong here if someone can present me an example) you can use a combination of metrics to conclude what is happening with lean mass even if you don't know the exact ratios of fat to water to lean/etc.
Example: You are bulking. You want to determine if you are gaining muscle mass. And so you can look at training volume along with training history (is training volume increasing), rate of change in bodyweight on the scale, tape measurer, photographs, training performance, and with a combination of these things you can very likely conclude whether or not you are successful.
I don't think you need a DEXA reading to verify this, and I've seen many cases where due to error the DEXA tells a story that virtually every other metric disputes.
That makes sense. Agreeable.0 -
_incogNEATo_ wrote: »Ultimately I think it's a good idea to consider the error rates associated with any method of body fat analysis including DEXA, and while it's not bad to get additional information when it's available to you, I don't think you're going to learn anything pivotal from a DEXA scan that you won't already have from other metrics.
What other metrics are you referring to?
I think that in the vast majority of cases (I'm willing to be wrong here if someone can present me an example) you can use a combination of metrics to conclude what is happening with lean mass even if you don't know the exact ratios of fat to water to lean/etc.
Example: You are bulking. You want to determine if you are gaining muscle mass. And so you can look at training volume along with training history (is training volume increasing), rate of change in bodyweight on the scale, tape measurer, photographs, training performance, and with a combination of these things you can very likely conclude whether or not you are successful.
I don't think you need a DEXA reading to verify this, and I've seen many cases where due to error the DEXA tells a story that virtually every other metric disputes.
This was my experience. I had a DEXA done in August, which put me at 36% bf. Previous visual estimates had me at 26% so I expected up to 30% since it was a DEXA. But obese still (see avi and pic in profile), no.0 -
Can you present an example where you need to know the information it tells you?
I find it really odd to be asked to "defend" the need for LBM/BF measurement. It's like saying there's no need to weigh yourself, estimate your cals consumed or burned, calculate your BMI or whatever. It's self-evident.
There's no other way to measure your LBM/BF w/o using some method, be it DXA Scan, Hydrostatic Testing, calipers or bio-electrical. Yeah, they all have a certain degree of error but is that the reason not to use them?
I think not.
Do you really "need" to know exactly (or approximately w/in the estimated degree of error) what your BF% is and how it changes over time?
I'd say, yes you do, if you're engaged in a weight loss and/or muscle development program because there's no other way to track your progress with any degree of specificity.
LBM/BF percentages are also indicators of general health and fitness. Why else do people on MFP always seem to start a thread on how to "estimate" BF% or LBM (and muscle) development?
You would compare your pics to other body pics on the Net which claim to represent certain BF%'s or use a tape measure (which is also subject to error) to track your "progress" but neither of these methods will tell you with any degree of certainty how much, if any, your LBM/BF has changed.
Also, without such measurements, people engaged in recomp will never know if what they are doing is actually decreasing BF and increasing LBM while maintaining their weight w/in their desired range.
So, I don't think this is a matter for debate.
If you disagree and don't think that it's worth the effort to put a number on LBM/BF, fine. We can agree to disagree about this but I will continue to measure these things in order to track my progress over time.
0 -
Can you present an example where you need to know the information it tells you?
I find it really odd to be asked to "defend" the need for LBM/BF measurement. It's like saying there's no need to weigh yourself, estimate your cals consumed or burned, calculate your BMI or whatever. It's self-evident.
There's no other way to measure your LBM/BF w/o using some method, be it DXA Scan, Hydrostatic Testing, calipers or bio-electrical. Yeah, they all have a certain degree of error but is that the reason not to use them?
I think not.
Do you really "need" to know exactly (or approximately w/in the estimated degree of error) what your BF% is and how it changes over time?
I'd say, yes you do, if you're engaged in a weight loss and/or muscle development program because there's no other way to track your progress with any degree of specificity.
LBM/BF percentages are also indicators of general health and fitness. Why else do people on MFP always seem to start a thread on how to "estimate" BF% or LBM (and muscle) development?
You would compare your pics to other body pics on the Net which claim to represent certain BF%'s or use a tape measure (which is also subject to error) to track your "progress" but neither of these methods will tell you with any degree of certainty how much, if any, your LBM/BF has changed.
Also, without such measurements, people engaged in recomp will never know if what they are doing is actually decreasing BF and increasing LBM while maintaining their weight w/in their desired range.
So, I don't think this is a matter for debate.
If you disagree and don't think that it's worth the effort to put a number on LBM/BF, fine. We can agree to disagree about this but I will continue to measure these things in order to track my progress over time.
No worries, I'm ok with disagreeing.
0 -
_incogNEATo_ wrote: »Ultimately I think it's a good idea to consider the error rates associated with any method of body fat analysis including DEXA, and while it's not bad to get additional information when it's available to you, I don't think you're going to learn anything pivotal from a DEXA scan that you won't already have from other metrics.
What other metrics are you referring to?
I think that in the vast majority of cases (I'm willing to be wrong here if someone can present me an example) you can use a combination of metrics to conclude what is happening with lean mass even if you don't know the exact ratios of fat to water to lean/etc.
Example: You are bulking. You want to determine if you are gaining muscle mass. And so you can look at training volume along with training history (is training volume increasing), rate of change in bodyweight on the scale, tape measurer, photographs, training performance, and with a combination of these things you can very likely conclude whether or not you are successful.
I don't think you need a DEXA reading to verify this, and I've seen many cases where due to error the DEXA tells a story that virtually every other metric disputes.
This was my experience. I had a DEXA done in August, which put me at 36% bf. Previous visual estimates had me at 26% so I expected up to 30% since it was a DEXA. But obese still (see avi and pic in profile), no.
Yep, and because the error rate is so high, it makes it quite useless as a tool to gauge progress.
For example if you had a tape measurer that was within +/- 3" and you didn't have a way to verify whether or not it was accurate at the time, or if your scale was +/- 5lbs every time you stepped on it, and you couldn't verify whether it was accurate from day to day, the metric would be pretty useless.
If we had a method that was as accurate as a tape measurer or scale when it came to providing consistent feedback so you could use it to track changes over time then I'd change my stance on this issue.
An average error rate of 5% is just way too big to rely on this as being useful and I've seen this enough times in clients to just disregard it.
Additionally, I have never seen one example where the information provided by a bodyfat% readout caused me to change strategies or modify an existing program.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions