Bodyfat Experiment: Dexa and Hydrostatic Same Day

Options
2»

Replies

  • GiddyupTim
    GiddyupTim Posts: 2,819 Member
    Options
    Scans, schmans.
    You look marvelous!
    Good luck with the lifting meet!
  • maybyn
    maybyn Posts: 233 Member
    Options
    heybales wrote: »
    maybyn wrote: »
    sgt1372 wrote: »
    maybyn wrote: »
    sgt1372 wrote: »
    maybyn wrote: »
    I've read that DEXA is more accurate.

    Proponents of both DXA and Hydro claim each claim to be the "gold standard" for BF measurement and to be more accurate than the other but independent sources report both to have a error factor of about 5%.

    See:

    https://weightology.net/the-pitfalls-of-body-fat-measurement-part-6-dexa/

    and

    https://weightology.net/the-pitfalls-of-body-fat-measurement-part-2/

    That said, they are still the most accurate means of measuring BF that are commercially available.

    While the results given may not be absolutely precise empirically, they are accurate w/in a known and reasonable degree of error and if you use the same method over time should give you a reasonably accurate graph of the trend.

    Thanks for the insight. If hydro results are generally lower, that works well for me :)

    What about accuracy of online calculators and measurements?

    Online calculators based on measurements have never been accurate for me - - always too high as compared w/DXA and Hydro.

    Interesting. I always thought they showed lower results and were not accurate that way. I haven't had any dexas lately so I can't compare. Maybe it's an individual thing.

    Thanks again for your response.

    Very individual, and I'd suggest if some thought given to it - a known effect.

    Using something like this that uses several measuring spots, and 2 different formulas.

    www.gymgoal.com/dtool_fat.html

    Of course the correlation between the measurements and BF% is still based on some averages, but you can see looking at that list if you have body parts that are outside the norm.

    We've probably all seen people (or are one) that have bigger calves or forearms than rest of arm/leg would appear average to, or wrists that are very thin compared to bigger arms.
    Or for women those variable hip to waist measurements.

    Those type of non-averages will throw off the formula results by some amount.

    But as it's been mentioned - measurements can be very consistent even if not dead on for accuracy (which is needed for ..... ).

    The one thing I've seen complaints about on measurements is how to keep consistent ones.
    Well, belly button is easy, and the smallest part of the waist is easy, and the widest part of the others is easy.
    Where that widest spot is exactly will certainly move likely as fat is lost, but widest is widest no matter where it is.
    So pretty easy.
    The harder part is probably confirming the tape is going horizontal around a line (except neck has tilt to tape) for like waist or hips or abdomen.

    Oh yes, I've got giant calves compared to the rest of my legs! And worse thing about them is that they're all muscle.

    You're right, consistency is key for the measurements. I personally try to measure with the mirror to make sure the tape is horizontal etc.

    Thanks for the insight.

Categories