Need to reduce body fat...

stevencloser

stanmann571 wrote: »

AnvilHead wrote: »

PPumpItUp wrote: »

The bioelectrical impedance machine at Complete Nutrition has me 19.78% and it is almost as accurate as a Dexa scan, so I could be up to 21%...

http://weightology.net/the-pitfalls-of-bodyfat-measurement-part-4-bioelectrical-impedance-bia/

Except that the referenced article is grossly dated. And some of the new BIA machines are within the margin of error of DEXA/BodPod

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4965215/

2016 article, BIA still showed 15% lower bodyfat than dxa.

edit: 15% as in the dxa value * 0.85, not a 15% lower bf%.

stanmann571

stevencloser wrote: »

stanmann571 wrote: »

AnvilHead wrote: »

PPumpItUp wrote: »

The bioelectrical impedance machine at Complete Nutrition has me 19.78% and it is almost as accurate as a Dexa scan, so I could be up to 21%...

http://weightology.net/the-pitfalls-of-bodyfat-measurement-part-4-bioelectrical-impedance-bia/

Except that the referenced article is grossly dated. And some of the new BIA machines are within the margin of error of DEXA/BodPod

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4965215/

2016 article, BIA still showed 15% lower bodyfat than dxa.

edit: 15% as in the dxa value * 0.85, not a 15% lower bf%.

4% not 15%.

4% is the average margin of error of either technique.

Table 2

Percentage body fat measured by standing-posture bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) and by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)1.

Method

All subjects (n = 711)
BF%BIA8 22.54 ± 9.48 (5.5, 48.7)2
BF%DXA 26.26 ± 11.18 (5.1, 56.6)
Male (n = 412)
BF%BIA8 17.24 ± 6.53(5.5, 36.9)2
BF%DXA 20.89 ± 9.05 (5.1,41.0)
Female (n = 299)
BF%BIA8 29.85 ± 7.93(11.7, 48.7)2
BF%DXA 33.66 ± 9.49(10.6, 56.6)



1 All values are mean ± SDs; minimum and maximum in parentheses.


2 Significantly different from DXA, P < 0.001 (paired t-test).

stevencloser

stanmann571 wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

stanmann571 wrote: »

AnvilHead wrote: »

PPumpItUp wrote: »

The bioelectrical impedance machine at Complete Nutrition has me 19.78% and it is almost as accurate as a Dexa scan, so I could be up to 21%...

http://weightology.net/the-pitfalls-of-bodyfat-measurement-part-4-bioelectrical-impedance-bia/

Except that the referenced article is grossly dated. And some of the new BIA machines are within the margin of error of DEXA/BodPod

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4965215/

2016 article, BIA still showed 15% lower bodyfat than dxa.

edit: 15% as in the dxa value * 0.85, not a 15% lower bf%.

4% not 15%.

4% is the average margin of error of either technique.

4% less bodyfat% at that average, 85% of the dxa value consistently. Margin of error goes in both ways and should equal out with over 700 measurements, it consistently was that much lower. A one-time measurement difference of a few % can be explained by margin of error, a consistent underestimation not really. And more importantly: it got further off the higher bf% the person had.

Rusty740

This^ is pretty much why I just guess and think I'm close enough

PPumpItUp

trigden1991 wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

trigden1991 wrote: »

PPumpItUp wrote: »

The bioelectrical impedance machine at Complete Nutrition has me 19.78% and it is almost as accurate as a Dexa scan, so I could be up to 21%. I have pretty much no fat on my legs and glutes and I have pubertal gyno that never went away which throws it off as well.

I am pretty sure this is the model they use.
https://www.inbodyusa.com/pages/inbody570#testimonials

BIA machines are not consistent and are absolutely not as accurate as a Dexa.

Unless your legs are striated and you have feathered glutes, you aren't sub 20%. Not being harsh, just informing you should you be basing your "maths" off it.

You'll find you need to diet to much lower weights than you predict.

I don't think striated legs and feathered glutes appear at 19% for most people.

My post was an exaggeration of the fact that his upper body looks to be 25-30% so his lower body would have to be shredded to average sub 20%.

aip85p44bd.jpg

Eeh, whatever, it says what it is. Whether is am 19% or 22% I still have to loose fat to be where I want to be.

Alendralouise

I empathise with the frustration over BF measurements accuracy. With a competition bodyweight category of 69kg that I need to make the most of (obviously), I'm trying to trade fat for muscle and monitor as I go. I'm 69-70kg right now and have done several Tanita scales body comp tests since Jan, which have shown bizarre fluctuations that haven't seemed to correlate with strength performance, visible changes etc. I have a new housemate who is PT with a pair of brand new calipers- she's attacking me with them later so we'll see... I think measurements can be a minefield. Perhaps consistency is key for measuring changes (as with most things!): same scales for bodyweight, plus same person using calipers, plus progress pics...
I'll compare calliper BF with Tanita BF later...

Joanna2012B

I had my BF measured with a Bioelectrical scale. I drank water as normal, didn't eat for 4 hours prior and didn't workout before (which affects it). I am a 43 year old woman standing 5'3", weighing 143lbs, my body fat is 16.5%. Even when I was at my heaviest (191lbs) I did not have 30% BF. I do agree with poster that said get a BF scale and measure regularly, it may not be correct, but at least you can see if you are decreasing your BF.

Noreenmarie1234

Joanna2012B wrote: »

I had my BF measured with a Bioelectrical scale. I drank water as normal, didn't eat for 4 hours prior and didn't workout before (which affects it). I am a 43 year old woman standing 5'3", weighing 143lbs, my body fat is 16.5%. Even when I was at my heaviest (191lbs) I did not have 30% BF. I do agree with poster that said get a BF scale and measure regularly, it may not be correct, but at least you can see if you are decreasing your BF.

Hmm that doesn't seem right with your weight. Most women who are sub 20 are at the lower end of the BMI scale. If that is you in your profile picture you don't look like the women at sub 20. I don't think scales are accurate because it doesn't seem right. I've wanted to buy one to see but it seems like no one gets realistic numbers from scales.

Gallowmere1984

Even DXA is notoriously inaccurate, despite being "the gold standard" here. Jorn Trommelein actually blames their use in protein studies for why many turn up a null result on supplemental protein intake. For example, when they do muscle biopsies and MRI scans when using tracer infused proteins, they find positive results with pre-sleep protein ingestion. Using DXA, you get no statistically significant change.

It's also shown pretty clearly in several video compilations on YouTube of bodybuilders using it. There are guys who are so lean that their skin looks almost translucent coming back as 7-8%, and guys who look more like 10% coming back as 4-5%.

WilmaValley

Great suggestions, everyone. I will do many of these ideas. Thanks.

bbell1985

lol. That picture doesn't show anything between 15-20% for women. You're either slightly soft or SHREDDED. j/k

I wish I knew what I was. I'd love to be 18. Sometimes I think I'm 20 and sometimes I swear I'm 25%

SimplyDe1967

bigizzy wrote: »

PPumpItUp wrote: »

Yeah, that is not very accurate. Are you carrying a lot of fat on your thighs and butt? Your forearm and hands look slim. Post up a whole body pic.

See comment above. I took my first photo yesterday and I'm not comfortable posing that at the moment. Thanks. How do you measure tour body fat or do you go by eye/images?

Wow, you are 150-lbs at 5'6"; this is my 'goal'!

rainbowbow

Rusty740 wrote: »

It doesn't really matter if the home scale is inaccurate so long as it is consistent. It is more important that you know if your BF is going up or down, than it is to know exactly what your BF is. Do as much research as you can to come to the best estimate you think is correct by not using the scale. Tape measure calculations, photos, descriptions of the stages of vascularity, and calipers if you want. You'll be able to get close enough with some reasonable judgments. Grab a medium cost scale. I got mine from a Superstore.

Then hop on the scale. If you guess you're 18% and the scale says 15.5%, just add 2.5% to every scale measurement. This way you'll be able to tell if your body fat is going up or down (which is the most important thing) and you'll be able to have a good estimate of what it actually is.

yeah, the issue with these is that they aren't consistent. Just like with calipers if someone can do it consistently it doesn't really matter how "accurate" it is as you can track trends over time. BIA can vary pretty significantly over the course of a day.

Rusty740

rainbowbow wrote: »

Rusty740 wrote: »

It doesn't really matter if the home scale is inaccurate so long as it is consistent. It is more important that you know if your BF is going up or down, than it is to know exactly what your BF is. Do as much research as you can to come to the best estimate you think is correct by not using the scale. Tape measure calculations, photos, descriptions of the stages of vascularity, and calipers if you want. You'll be able to get close enough with some reasonable judgments. Grab a medium cost scale. I got mine from a Superstore.

Then hop on the scale. If you guess you're 18% and the scale says 15.5%, just add 2.5% to every scale measurement. This way you'll be able to tell if your body fat is going up or down (which is the most important thing) and you'll be able to have a good estimate of what it actually is.

yeah, the issue with these is that they aren't consistent. Just like with calipers if someone can do it consistently it doesn't really matter how "accurate" it is as you can track trends over time. BIA can vary pretty significantly over the course of a day.

Maybe I got lucky with mine. I don't trust it to deliver my real BF, but I measure first thing in the AM and put the results in MS Excel and trend them. Using the information this way has been very effective.