Dexascan and Renpho - what do I trust?

SModa61

For starters, as a gift to myself, I finally got a Dexa Scan a month ago, on May 6, 2023. I have always been curious what it might tell me. At first, I came away elated, then later I began to wonder "could it be wrong". I have recently picked up a Renpho travel scale that provides data as well, and not sure they are telling me the same things.

I'd love to get insights from others. I am trying to wrap my head around the data. What do I believe and what do I not.

My background is I am a 61 year old, post menopausal woman. My exercise currently revolves around mostly fast walking or jogging. I am 5'5", and waist is 28" ATM.

DexaFit Scan results:
Date 5/6/2023, 8:20 AM
Weight at the time of the scan was 131 dressed and hydrated (required for the test). (129.4 naked AM home scale which matches Renpho)

body Fat% 28.2/37 lb suggested goal 25%
lean mass 68%/90 lb suggested goal 94 lb
Visceral fat 0.46 lb suggested goal 0 lb
Bone mineral Content: Total 4.70 lb
Bone Mineral Density:
total body 1.18
trunk 0.84
head 2.98
arms 0.77
legs 1.10
ribs 0.65
spine 0.89
pelvis 0.96
T-score 1.00

Renpho Body Fat travel scale: (note, the body weight component is dead nuts)
Date 6/9/23, 7:14 AM
Weight 123.4 lb (naked, no hydration) labeled "normal"
BMI 20.6 "normal"
Body Fat 24.0% (29.62 lb) "health"
Fat Free weight 93.8 lb
Subcutaneous Fat 22.5% "standard"
Visceral Fat 4 "excellent"
Body Water 52.2% "normal"
Skeletal Muscle 44.3% "standard"
Muscle Mass 88.2%/88.2 lb "standard"
Bone Mass 4.6%/5.6 lb "above average"
Protein 18.1% "adequate"
BMR 1298 kcal *see note
Metabolic age 56

* the same day I did the dexascan, I did the RMR test and got an REE of 1469.

Online I then tried to learn more about visceral fat numbers. I used the Luxembourg Institute of Health Visceral Fat Calculator. Put in my numbers and got 83.46 cubic cm of visceral fat. Apparently, you want below 130 cubic cm (optimally, under 100 cubic cm). I converted the cm, to grams of fat, to lb and got 0.0418 lb of visceral fat.

What am I learning from any of these? What do I trust? And that are likely errors (can dexascan be wrong)?

Ironically, as I write this post, I am understanding this all a teeny bit more.

TIA

sollyn23l2

SModa61 wrote: »

For starters, as a gift to myself, I finally got a Dexa Scan a month ago, on May 6, 2023. I have always been curious what it might tell me. At first, I came away elated, then later I began to wonder "could it be wrong". I have recently picked up a Renpho travel scale that provides data as well, and not sure they are telling me the same things.

I'd love to get insights from others. I am trying to wrap my head around the data. What do I believe and what do I not.

My background is I am a 61 year old, post menopausal woman. My exercise currently revolves around mostly fast walking or jogging. I am 5'5", and waist is 28" ATM.

DexaFit Scan results:
Date 5/6/2023, 8:20 AM
Weight at the time of the scan was 131 dressed and hydrated (required for the test). (129.4 naked AM home scale which matches Renpho)

body Fat% 28.2/37 lb suggested goal 25%
lean mass 68%/90 lb suggested goal 94 lb
Visceral fat 0.46 lb suggested goal 0 lb
Bone mineral Content: Total 4.70 lb
Bone Mineral Density:
total body 1.18
trunk 0.84
head 2.98
arms 0.77
legs 1.10
ribs 0.65
spine 0.89
pelvis 0.96
T-score 1.00

Renpho Body Fat travel scale: (note, the body weight component is dead nuts)
Date 6/9/23, 7:14 AM
Weight 123.4 lb (naked, no hydration) labeled "normal"
BMI 20.6 "normal"
Body Fat 24.0% (29.62 lb) "health"
Fat Free weight 93.8 lb
Subcutaneous Fat 22.5% "standard"
Visceral Fat 4 "excellent"
Body Water 52.2% "normal"
Skeletal Muscle 44.3% "standard"
Muscle Mass 88.2%/88.2 lb "standard"
Bone Mass 4.6%/5.6 lb "above average"
Protein 18.1% "adequate"
BMR 1298 kcal *see note
Metabolic age 56

* the same day I did the dexascan, I did the RMR test and got an REE of 1469.

Online I then tried to learn more about visceral fat numbers. I used the Luxembourg Institute of Health Visceral Fat Calculator. Put in my numbers and got 83.46 cubic cm of visceral fat. Apparently, you want below 130 cubic cm (optimally, under 100 cubic cm). I converted the cm, to grams of fat, to lb and got 0.0418 lb of visceral fat.

What am I learning from any of these? What do I trust? And that are likely errors (can dexascan be wrong)?

Ironically, as I write this post, I am understanding this all a teeny bit more.

TIA

Yes, dexascan can be wrong and *is* inaccurate because it can be manipulated by water weight. I can drink a bunch of water, go in for a dexascan, then go home, dehydrate myself, go back, get another dexascan and show I've "gained" muscle mass. There are cases of instagrammers pretty clearly appearing to do this to sell products. And people believe it because they got a dexascan done, so it's got to be true!". Basically, at the end of the day, just trust what you see in the mirror and how your clothes fit.

tomcustombuilder

Look in the mirror. How do you look? Too much fat? Lose it. Too thin? Add weight.

I’m just not a fan of any of those machines. You don’t walk around with your BF numbers on your shirt however your body composition is apparent just visually not to mention the inaccuracies of the scales and to a lesser extent the DEXA.

Everyone carries fat differently so 20% on one person can look completely different on someone else.

Those places that have the DEXA SCANS make GOOD money from em so of course they tout the “benefits” and why they’re necessary.

SModa61

Thank you both @sollyn2312 and @tomcustombuilder for your replies.

Tom, I would agree with you totally if my interest in the data were appearance based, and to a degree I do do that. That said, the mirror will never tell me the condition of my bones, which is of interest to me as a 10 year post menopausal woman. Visceral fat AKA the bad fat is purportedly less able to be assessed by just the mirror, or so some claim. The other numbers are just more "interesting", but if reproducible by the device then its an additional way to measure improvements. I do do bi-weekly measurements, which are now not as interesting as I am trying to maintain current weight so number changes are rare.

Sollyn, If proper instructions are given and followed by the user, shouldn't at least certain numbers be accurate?

One more comment about a mirror assessment. Two pregnancies destroyed the skin from above my belly button on down. This does make the mirror assessing more difficult. I will never be able to have visible abs, which I am OK with.

ninerbuff

IMO, the easiest way to figure out if your too fat is just to pinch. Certain people may have thicker skin, but a pinch test will give you an idea. If you pinch area of your body that have little fat (back of your hand, around your forearm) you can tell the thickness of fat compared to say your waist, or hip. Pinching more than a inch would indicate you'd have some fat to lose.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

SModa61

@ninerbuff Wouldn't that apply solely to subcutaneous fat, and not visceral fat? Also, what about bone density? But yes, I remember that age old pinch test.

chris_in_cal

SModa61 wrote: »

(can dexascan be wrong)?

Of course it can. It is the best currently available tool. When used in good faith you can have very high confidence in it.

Seeking, analysing, acting upon data can be powerful. It is how we have science and Western civilization.

Truth, is a different subject.

Do you have a pinch, do you look good in the mirror, disbelieving measurement tools are all subjectively fine. Analysing data is fine too..it is just a different discipline that doesn't appeal to everyone.

SModa61

@chris_in_cal I love data. Don't know why, but I love it. So far, most responses have referenced the mirror. But the data that is given, goes beyond just the mirror. It includes bone and visceral fat info. Both of those are supposed to matter to us.

On another note, a friend in another group suggested I use the Navy body fat calculation. That came back as 23%. Different from both of the above.

AnnPT77

Dexa is the best available way of assessing bone status, IMU. For example, it is the test that's on repeat for me, after having been diagnosed osteopenic (and I think now actually osteoporotic).

The home scale, even a good one, is really not a precision instrument for assessing body composition. If it's just a stand-on model (without separate hand contacts) it's even more iffy. Dexa, while not perfect, should be better.

Reading your numbers, it doesn't seem like they're really far enough apart to be deeply worrying, but I know that's pretty subjective. (FWIW, I'm close to your size, 5'5" (and shrinking 😬), 130-point-something pounds this morning, I figure from various measures around 25% BF +/-, and age 67. So, although that's a subjective comment, it's at least coming from a nearby demographic, if that matters.)

I'd add this: If you're worried about bone quality . . . all you can reasonably do is all you can do. Strength and other exercise, good nutrition (especially things like calcium and vitamin D), avoiding bad habits (excessive alcohol among other things) - you can easily research osteoporosis avoidance lifestyle measures, and adopt them to the extent practical (and I do mean "practical", not "obsessively").

You may be recommended meds if osteopenic, and have to consider that. If so, ideally you'll have specialist medical advice. (I took bisphosphonates for around 4 years. No problems, no big deal, saw improvement; specialist approved going off them. I may need to go back on, that's still up in the air.)

Just my opinions throughout, though.

springlering62

@SModa61 I am your weight loss twin. I am 61, too, have lost a large sum of weight, am very invested in keeping it off, and building muscle. I also dwell on numbers and thrill to graphs.

Like you, I’ve got a Renpho scale and have done DEXAs.

Don’t be too invested in these. I’ve had three, on my first second and third anniversary of beginning weight loss, and am not having any more.

I deep dove and gnawed on the results, sobbing over my “failure”, beating myself up, too emotionally invested.

Look, I’m 61, I’ve lost from 22w to a size 4, that’s really all I need to reassure myself I’m on the right track. It took a few days to “let go” the DEXA results and tell myself “dang girl, you’ve done all right. Chill!”

In retrospect, I feel like a total chump for letting it dictate and get next to me like that.

As far as the Renpho scale, I assume you’ve got the Bluetooth app. Go back and look at trends. It’s so inefficient and inaccurate that some of the graphs are downright laughable.

Also, and this is my humble opinion, I think the DEXA can return odd results for those of us who’ve had large weight loss. It says I have a large band of visceral fat, when I’m pretty sure my core kicks *kitten*, but boasts a floppy ring of what is simply extra skin. There’s not many of us who’ve experienced that kind of weight loss (go, us!!!!) and I honestly don’t think it’s been calibrated or scientifically set to deal with that.

Unless one of us is planning to compete in weightlifting or body building (as if!!!!) mirror results are the best, along with the occasional new personal best for speed, distance, barbell or dumbell attained.

Hug and congratulate yourself. You’ve killed it!

PAV8888

I would look carefully at the suggested goal numbers and who and at what age they are suggested for and independently cross reference them

Also +1 t-score is pretty good bones, right?

Also your machine model should be in the results and can be looked into for error

Also glycogen water and food can all afect dexa independently of the machine error and interpretation/operator error (because a person places the little dots). So more than just one error.

And the bio impedence scale is great.... in being able to tell you that everything goes down or up randomly when your non calibrated weight goes up or down.... at least the weight thing tends to be ok when not playing with fake consistency 🤣 (I e. It's like a fortune cookie)

I did multiple dexa scans and found them interesting, motivational even and ultimately utterly inconsequential other than for their entertainment value one exception being they validated slowing down weight loss a little bit earlier than I would have otherwise. But given the numbers I don't see your as being in a rapid loss phase anyway so think of them as a fallible and manipulatable data points with large discrepancies worth a second look as to why they might be there.

cwolfman13

DXA is the gold standard. I've never seen "places" with a DXA, only medical facilities and the procedure is done by a radiology technician. It also provides way more beneficial information than just BF%, particularly when it comes to bone health.

chris_in_cal

SModa61 wrote: »

@chris_in_cal I love data. Don't know why, but I love it.

My 8 year weigh chart, and my 30 year blood lipid panel results are some of my most prized possession.


Geeks unite!

springlering62

cwolfman13 wrote: »

DXA is the gold standard. I've never seen "places" with a DXA, only medical facilities and the procedure is done by a radiology technician. It also provides way more beneficial information than just BF%, particularly when it comes to bone health.

You can buy DEXA scans at “places” on Groupon here (Deep South). I’ve been to one in an RV kinda rig that goes from gym to gym fitted with a scanner, and two in a bare bones two-room suite in an office building of mostly lawyers and CPAs. A sofa in the waiting room, and a small desk and chair and scanner in the other. And a couple of bog standard inspirational posters of athletes for decor. One in each rather depressing room.

That’s all they do, day in and day out- feed our insecurities, or securities, as the case may be. 😜

PAV8888

Used machines exist in the open market and quite often people with radiology training or even full radiologists are the ones running them. But the operator's choices, versions of software and whether the machine has been calibrated or not and is properly maintained or not do have some relevance

Ultimately though, whether you had one or 10 cups of coffee, a refeed day or a 2 hour run the night or morning before your scan and whether you scan under similar conditions the next time (let's not even forget a high sodium meal) all these things will play into the results

But even more so the narrative that accompanies the results comes into play.

If I recall correctly 61-year-old female? I sort of question the 25% aspiration printed in the results which frames the narrative more so than the results themselves

My first AI assisted Search came up with 24 to 36% being the healthy range for a 61-year-old female and below 24% being under fat

Sort of frames the listed 25% target somewhat differently, doesn't it?

tomcustombuilder

Just to be clear on DEXA bone scans, they read area and not density so a smaller boned, good density person will get a lower reading than a larger boned person with lower density. This is how it was explained to me awhile back.

Now, if the same person got a reading and went back a year later and the reading showed a declining area then I'd imagine that would be a good gauge of how you're doing bone wise

middlehaitch

Hi @PAV8888, for my own curiosity, if you have a link for the women’s over 60 fat recommendation could you post it please.
As you know, I’m a little thing, older, and would guess my fat levels are below/ borderline under. I had read eons ago that the higher fat for older folk was more a protection in case of illness with lack of appetite and that had now been reversed and we olders could have a healthy lower fat level just like the youngers. (Can’t find my link it was so long ago)

@SModa61, I get your quandary on which results to heed. If it were me I would note the dexa but follow the results over time of my bells and whistles scale. You have that on hand and can track over time in the same conditions.

If numbers, over time, were looking like they were going in the wrong direction for bone, muscle mass, visceral fat, and anything else you find applicable, make an appointment with your doc for a full work up including bone scan.

Unfortunately dexa scans have been reduced to toys by the way they are administered for the general populations curiosity.

Personally, being the opposite of a data geek, I’ve relied on movement and nutrition to assuage my worries on bone and muscle health. Still strong, not shrinking, yet, and no medications needed. (I do take D and B12 just in case)

Cheers, h.

SModa61

@AnnPT77 I have thought Dexa’s were as you described and highly respected. Yours were likely performed by medical professionals. Mine was of the type that @Springlering62 has done (I used DexaFit). Mine was done in a simple office setting, and IMM the machine was the machine. You lay in it. It reads you, and that is that. My results were actually really good IMO and I was excited initially, but then your mind gets going. Note that for *kittens” and giggles I paid for their software analysis that predicts certain things. Says I will live to 95 and gave me an A+ amongst other predictions. (New worry, will I outlive our money :P )

So, IF the bone info is accurate, then yay! My bones are really good. I just need to be smart and keep them that way. If wrong then, what was the point of the test. Also, it claimed my visceral fat was good. Another yay! Are these the types of numbers that Dexa tends to get right, or wrong. @Sollyn2312 above pointed out that certain aspects can be manipulated.

@AnnPT77 I appreciate the comparative demographics. I know that you are highly athletic, compared to my dabbling. If you are at 25%-ish, I am certainly higher as I will expect you have more muscles than I.

As for calcium and vitamin D, I am not doing currently as, from my recent reading one wants K (likely K2) in the mix. Argh. Gotta get on this. And as for osteoporosis meds, I have heard that “density” increases but bones become brittle and lose their necessary flexibility which adds a different concern.

@Springlering62 Guessing the “62” in your name means I am a little bit older than you. I was born in 61. What an amazing weight loss you have accomplished. If I recall, Ann has a notable loss as well. My “high” was 168.8, but I am a repeat offender (need to change that), so I likely have lost an awful lot of weight over the course of my lifetime. Funny we both like data. The difference is I am afraid mine is “too good” and therefore false. If it is accurate, I am happy, but if not, then I don’t want wool pulled over my eyes and lead me to making wrong choices. I have only had the Renpho for about 10 days. I bought the travel version solely for its weighing ability (going to Scotland in the fall). Only after I received it, I found it did “other things” and that opened a second can of worms. Sounds like you have a bit more damaged skin than me. Mine is elephant style but fairly immobile. My other annoying skin area is underarm/armpit-ish area. This recent getting my weight down, seems to have increased that. :’(

@PAV8888 Good point on the suggested target numbers. While the target numbers don’t seem to mention an “age” to them, the “analysis” does. For instance, Body fat. The Dexa states Body fat total is 28.2% and 37 lbs, and that I am 22% under the average for my peer group, but suggests that I aim for 25%. It does this for 8 categories. On bone, the give the data with the t-score. I requested additionally my z-score, and that was in the master data, which they also gave me (upon request). And yes, if accurate, I will be very happy with a 1.0 t-score.

I see no reference to machine model in any of the provided reports. I wonder if this is given in the medical setting, vs companies like DexaFit. Also, no “dots” were placed. I don’t recognize what that might be.

@PAV8888 If I am reading between your lines correctly, if sounded like maybe you think mine might be in a correct general ballpark?

@Cwolfman13 – Yes, mine was done through DexaFit. There are a variety of companies out there now that provide this service. Price point is reasonable enough, IF the data has value.

@chris_in_cal Yup, my lipids were not what I expected this year. That is another deep dive area for me as well. I may be paying for some private pay lipid panel re-checks before next year. Was also thinking about an APoB test. And yes, Geek is a wonderful word. I think we are great!

OMG you guys are great. More replies before I got my response together. To be fair, I am multitasking in the kitchen. Hubby and my dinner and now cooking for very pregnant daughter.

@PAV8888 Interesting insights into the machine. I did feel like the process was quite quick. I actually more questioned (after the fact) my REE calculation. Yes, I had been inactive, no caffeine, and fasted, but he put me straight away on the machine despite my just having walked in. Shouldn’t I have “rested” a bit before being measured. That in itself is making me “wonder”. As for the 25% rec, I have no clue, but that is a great point you all have brought up.

@Tomcustombuilder Given that Dexa scans, in the medical setting, are used to actually evaluate for osteoporosis and osteopenia, that sounds like it would be useless if only measure “size” of the bones. But I do agree that evaluating over time and noting change is very valuable. My PCP states I will be given a scan at 65, unless I demand one early. I’m willing to wait for the medical one.

@middlehaitch I had heard about the benefit of extra weight claim as well (I think its my mother-in-law saying it). At the same time, I see the detriment of weight on mobility. As for lack of appetite, that would be a miracle for me. I doubt that is a risk for me any time soon. I appreciate your insights on how to use these tools. As for supplements, I have been researching what I want to add for those. (Thinking D, K2, along with others)

Ha, finally caught up. Will post, then back to the stove!

tomcustombuilder

SModa61 wrote: »

@AnnPT77 I have thought Dexa’s were as you described and highly respected. Yours were likely performed by medical professionals. Mine was of the type that @Springlering62 has done (I used DexaFit). Mine was done in a simple office setting, and IMM the machine was the machine. You lay in it. It reads you, and that is that. My results were actually really good IMO and I was excited initially, but then your mind gets going. Note that for *kittens” and giggles I paid for their software analysis that predicts certain things. Says I will live to 95 and gave me an A+ amongst other predictions. (New worry, will I outlive our money :P )

So, IF the bone info is accurate, then yay! My bones are really good. I just need to be smart and keep them that way. If wrong then, what was the point of the test. Also, it claimed my visceral fat was good. Another yay! Are these the types of numbers that Dexa tends to get right, or wrong. @Sollyn2312 above pointed out that certain aspects can be manipulated.

@AnnPT77 I appreciate the comparative demographics. I know that you are highly athletic, compared to my dabbling. If you are at 25%-ish, I am certainly higher as I will expect you have more muscles than I.

As for calcium and vitamin D, I am not doing currently as, from my recent reading one wants K (likely K2) in the mix. Argh. Gotta get on this. And as for osteoporosis meds, I have heard that “density” increases but bones become brittle and lose their necessary flexibility which adds a different concern.

@Springlering62 Guessing the “62” in your name means I am a little bit older than you. I was born in 61. What an amazing weight loss you have accomplished. If I recall, Ann has a notable loss as well. My “high” was 168.8, but I am a repeat offender (need to change that), so I likely have lost an awful lot of weight over the course of my lifetime. Funny we both like data. The difference is I am afraid mine is “too good” and therefore false. If it is accurate, I am happy, but if not, then I don’t want wool pulled over my eyes and lead me to making wrong choices. I have only had the Renpho for about 10 days. I bought the travel version solely for its weighing ability (going to Scotland in the fall). Only after I received it, I found it did “other things” and that opened a second can of worms. Sounds like you have a bit more damaged skin than me. Mine is elephant style but fairly immobile. My other annoying skin area is underarm/armpit-ish area. This recent getting my weight down, seems to have increased that. :’(

@PAV8888 Good point on the suggested target numbers. While the target numbers don’t seem to mention an “age” to them, the “analysis” does. For instance, Body fat. The Dexa states Body fat total is 28.2% and 37 lbs, and that I am 22% under the average for my peer group, but suggests that I aim for 25%. It does this for 8 categories. On bone, the give the data with the t-score. I requested additionally my z-score, and that was in the master data, which they also gave me (upon request). And yes, if accurate, I will be very happy with a 1.0 t-score.

I see no reference to machine model in any of the provided reports. I wonder if this is given in the medical setting, vs companies like DexaFit. Also, no “dots” were placed. I don’t recognize what that might be.

@PAV8888 If I am reading between your lines correctly, if sounded like maybe you think mine might be in a correct general ballpark?

@Cwolfman13 – Yes, mine was done through DexaFit. There are a variety of companies out there now that provide this service. Price point is reasonable enough, IF the data has value.

@chris_in_cal Yup, my lipids were not what I expected this year. That is another deep dive area for me as well. I may be paying for some private pay lipid panel re-checks before next year. Was also thinking about an APoB test. And yes, Geek is a wonderful word. I think we are great!

OMG you guys are great. More replies before I got my response together. To be fair, I am multitasking in the kitchen. Hubby and my dinner and now cooking for very pregnant daughter.

@PAV8888 Interesting insights into the machine. I did feel like the process was quite quick. I actually more questioned (after the fact) my REE calculation. Yes, I had been inactive, no caffeine, and fasted, but he put me straight away on the machine despite my just having walked in. Shouldn’t I have “rested” a bit before being measured. That in itself is making me “wonder”. As for the 25% rec, I have no clue, but that is a great point you all have brought up.

@Tomcustombuilder Given that Dexa scans, in the medical setting, are used to actually evaluate for osteoporosis and osteopenia, that sounds like it would be useless if only measure “size” of the bones. But I do agree that evaluating over time and noting change is very valuable. My PCP states I will be given a scan at 65, unless I demand one early. I’m willing to wait for the medical one.

@middlehaitch I had heard about the benefit of extra weight claim as well (I think its my mother-in-law saying it). At the same time, I see the detriment of weight on mobility. As for lack of appetite, that would be a miracle for me. I doubt that is a risk for me any time soon. I appreciate your insights on how to use these tools. As for supplements, I have been researching what I want to add for those. (Thinking D, K2, along with others)

Ha, finally caught up. Will post, then back to the stove!

wow amazing responses. So professional. You must be some type of mega organized person. I say that in the highest regard and respect.

PAV8888

middlehaitch wrote: »

Hi @PAV8888, for my own curiosity, if you have a link for the women’s over 60 fat recommendation could you post it please.

in spite of a variation to the exact question bing threw this reference at me both times: https://dexascan.com/guide-dexa-scan-results/ The fat % in a dexa scan may be different than from BMI so both my questions contained dexa derived and 61yo f

PAV8888

@SModa61 I did mine at Bodcomp imaging in Vancouver back when Peter (who both trained and worked as a radiologist) was running it as a one person shop. It was a machine he bought used but he was also maintaining AND calibrating periodically.

There were two settings to his machine depending on whether he was performing a while body or bone density scan. A whole body also gives a basic bone density figure. But for the "medical bone density scan", he set the machine to greater depth / stronger emission and also concentrated much more on the pelvic area and hips. Source: my mom got jelly and wanted a body comp scan for herself and since we were there and Peter was qualified to interpret the scan she also asked him to perform a full bone density scan.

The dots are literally dots on the screen. At least on that (older) version of software the operator, once the scan was complete, had to define (select, approve, or modify) on the image on their screen certain parts of your body so that the machine which know which areas to use for the various calculations. For example the bottom of your crotch and the tips of the shoulder bones (if my eye and I are remembering correctly) can be placed correctly or even a pixel up or down or to the left or to the right could change the calculations, especially when comparing between runs. This is complicated by exact body positioning which again can differ slightly over multiple scans (neck and foot tilt for example)...

SModa61

@tomcustombuilder What a nice compliment! I appreciate everyone here that has given their time to me, so that I can be better informed!

@PAV8888 Nice link! I took a look the info. So looking at that information and comparing it to what my "recommendations" were. The Dexafit recs appear to be pushing me to the minimum Body Fat % for a 60+ woman, but not below that minimum of 25%, and the recommendation of my gaining 4 lb of lean mass would put me at 71.5%, based on their total mass for me that day, which is still 1% below the top % of 72.5% that is recommended for a 60+ year old woman. Going to print this doc out and add it to my papers. So I guess the good takeaway from this for me is that the Dexafit suggestions were not out of line like we feared.

SModa61

@PAV8888 Very interesting to hear the distinctions between the types of uses. I did speak with my sister after mine. She is two years older than me, and had a medical bone scan at 55 I believe. As you mentioned, she had things like pelvic numbers and those other targeted zones. Mine does not. Right or wrong, our T-scores were very different. Hers had been at -1.0 vs mine at +1.0. Is that due to quality of scan, or is this the result of our having distinctively different body types? Unless I get a medical scan, I guess it might be hard to say, and I am not going to do that. As my Dr stated, I have no significant risk factors except for being a 61 year old female (no hormone treatment either).

AnnPT77

Trimming the quoted section just to reply selectively to parts where you mentioned me.

SModa61 wrote: »

@AnnPT77 I have thought Dexa’s were as you described and highly respected. Yours were likely performed by medical professionals.

Yes. They didn't give me any data about body fat percent, but produced a pretty-thick comprehensive report on the state of my skeleton at various points, compared to women my age, and compared to prime-of-life women, with various statistical and risk analyses, plus written recommendations for follow-up action. A specialist (medical doctor) reviewed the report and recommendations with me.

I strongly suspect that some of the hormone therapy drugs I took after breast cancer were a major factor in why I developed osteoporosis. I took one for 5 years that has that reputation (degrading bone quality). Before that period, my bone-specialist Dexa results looked OK. After the drug, osteopenic. (These are anti-estrogen hormone therapy drugs, not normal HRT.) These drugs made it much more likely I'd stay alive, so I don't regret any of that or bemoan the side effect. Alive is a really good start on the rest of my day, y'know?

I'm surprised that your age alone doesn't have your doctor recommending a bone quality assessment. I thought that was a fairly standard thing for women our age, perhaps starting with one of the simpler tests that scans a heel or something (I don't remember what) as a screener.

So, IF the bone info is accurate, then yay! My bones are really good. I just need to be smart and keep them that way. If wrong then, what was the point of the test. Also, it claimed my visceral fat was good. Another yay! Are these the types of numbers that Dexa tends to get right, or wrong. @Sollyn2312 above pointed out that certain aspects can be manipulated.

I don't know enough about Dexa to say which things its more likely to get wrong or right.

Keep in mind that the comparison here in this thread was relative reliability vs. a BIA scale. A BIA scale is running some weak current through your body (just from foot to foot, pretty much, if no hand-holds for 4-point reading). They measure the return through the circuit, and presumably use some kind of population average-ish data in an algorithm to make an estimate.

If your scale knows your age, height, blah blah blah, it may give a slightly more nuanced estimate, but it's still a pretty iffy process to be estimating all the values it claims to estimate, y'know? It's still got to be comparing current sent through your body to some kind of demographic-averages data, seems like.

Better or worse than a fly-by-night strip-mall or RV Dexa? Dunno. I don't think it can be lots better, at best.

@AnnPT77 I appreciate the comparative demographics. I know that you are highly athletic, compared to my dabbling. If you are at 25%-ish, I am certainly higher as I will expect you have more muscles than I.

I don't make any particular assumptions, though I think I'm slightly more muscular than average for our demographic, which is sadly not a high bar. (I don't even lift much!)

FWIW:

That's a very generalized approximate guestimate on my part. I don't care a lot what the answer is, so my interest is academic. When someone posts a method of assessing body fat here on MFP, I tend to try it if it's easy, because why not?

By "25%-ish" I meant something in the middle 20s, with a "probably" in there. I've not had any kind of professional scan for body fat estimates.

My guess is based on a convergence of the rather poor estimating methodologies that are easy: The same kind of BIA scale I criticize as inaccurate in my post, the so-called Navy body fat estimating algorithm, and those fun web photo examples of different women at different BF%s.

My BIA scale at my current weight is usually saying saying something in the upper 24-point-somethings to lower 25-point-somethings percent. The last time I did the Navy calculator thing I weighed a couple of pounds less, 128. Its guess was 24.3%. Subjective comparison to photos, my upper body is pretty thin-looking, maybe as low as upper teens-ish percent, but my lower body is approaching 30%-looking, so maybe averaging out full body to mid-20s someplace. (Keep in mind, too, that I have literally zero breasts, and that's a fat store to some extent for many women.)

Izzat right? Don't know, don't care.

I do suspect that the BIA scale provides a reasonable trend line, i.e., if I ignore any weird outlier values that may pop up now and then, and see that the scale thinks my lean mass is increasing, and my fat mass is decreasing, then maybe that's a reasonable sign that the actual trend is in a good direction. The actual number (25%, 22%, 30% whatever) may not be very accurate, but the trend of the number over a longer time period may have some meaning.

I do think sometimes people look at a body fat percent in isolation as their weight changes, and don't interpret it very thoughtfully.

If I lose fat, but lose no lean mass, my body fat percent goes down. If I lose weight, some of which is useful lean mass, and more of which is fat, my body fat percent probably still goes down. Is that an equivalent outcome, either one equally to be celebrated? I'm not too sure.

I think it's useful to consider estimated lean mass in pounds, when in a context of body weight change. If that absolute number is going up or down, that may be useful info, and - still speaking in context of weight change - potentially more insight provoking than the raw percent number, since the latter is a percent of a changing base amount.

SModa61

@annPT77 I love your trimmed quotes, especially since my post was so lengthy.

From your description, it does sounds like the medical facility version is significantly more comprehensive than my body comp Dexa. But I do wonder if, as a preliminary check, the bone data from the body comp is a good spot check. Ie indicator if more should be followed up medically

Indeed, “alive” is good. Interestingly, my father who has survived three forms of cancer and survived some aggressive treatments usually given to a younger individual, had his hip snap off mid-stride October 2021. My oncologist sister said the cause of his osteoporosis was some component of the treatments that saved his life. She was “shocked” though that no one had monitored his bone health. My thought was also, why did she not suggest it if it was such an obvious action.

As for my not being given a bone scan, I have been told that I have no risk factors. No idea, but I gave the Dexa results to my PCP. Her response was if I wanted a scan early, I could have one, but I will get one at 65 automatically.

As for having my data, the Dexa knew my age and sex. I have not allowed the Dexa Ap, the Renpho ap, or even the MFP ap to have access to my “health” data. Not sure why I am resisting, but just not ready to blindly give access.

On BF methods, I have Dexa, Phenpho and did the Navy. Range varied from 28+% to 23%. As for those BF photos online, I find them impossible as my body shape is not that. I am fairly linear these days. Those women are not post menopausal. :P

I do think I will play with the Renpho over time. I own it, so now it is no further cost to me. I did buy it simply as a travel scale, not as a body fat device (did a sample travel dry run and it is dead nuts after each 2 second calibration). I am doing two weeks in Scotland and while I do plan to enjoy myself, I would love to have the support of a scale for my sanity and so I don’t have extensive repairs after. I think your conclusion that studying lean body mass may have greater value in the long run than body fat %. I would like to stay mobile and strong. I am currently watching my parents physically deteriorate (88 and 86) and it is painful to watch. I continually wonder how different their path may have been if they had focused more on their physicality.

@PAV8888 I love the progression of photos. I did not study them last night!

ninerbuff

SModa61 wrote: »

@ninerbuff Wouldn't that apply solely to subcutaneous fat, and not visceral fat? Also, what about bone density? But yes, I remember that age old pinch test.

Yes, just subcutaneous fat. But it's a good indication if you're holding a good amount of fat because you'll usually have more subcutaneous fat than visceral.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

chris_in_cal

SModa61 wrote: »

Interestingly, my father who has survived three forms of cancer and survived some aggressive treatments usually given to a younger individual, had his hip snap off mid-stride October 2021.

I am currently watching my parents physically deteriorate (88 and 86) and it is painful to watch. I continually wonder how different their path may have been if they had focused more on their physicality.

I'm curious about your (and other people's) perspective and aspirations in measuring and seeking snapshot details?

As I am sure you are aware, probably 80%+ people on this thread would celebrate if their parents were alive at ages 88 and 86. You write "painful." I get it, but what's the big picture you are carrying? How does your big picture apply to your current efforts on your own health and wellbeing?

A doctor I heard on a podcast this week talked about western medicine and society being wildly successful on reducing 'fast death' (think consumption, 40 y/o smokers having heart attacks, etc.) and we are left with everyone else who face 'slow death.' Not to get too morbid, but I'm hoping there is contentedness and vitality and happiness in doing ones best, enjoying the process, and accepting fate.

I'll step off my soapbox. I do very much appreciate and identify with what you are questioning, I'm just curious abit on how you hope it will support you?

AnnPT77

Quotes snipped for focus.

SModa61 wrote: »

From your description, it does sounds like the medical facility version is significantly more comprehensive than my body comp Dexa. But I do wonder if, as a preliminary check, the bone data from the body comp is a good spot check. Ie indicator if more should be followed up medically

From talking with friends, it may be that medical facility vs. strip-mall/RV maybe-clinic is important, but there's a pretty big gap from what my friends got from a respected general medical facility, vs. what I got from a really good local specialist practice. They have a couple of specialties, but bone health is one of them.

As for my not being given a bone scan, I have been told that I have no risk factors. No idea, but I gave the Dexa results to my PCP. Her response was if I wanted a scan early, I could have one, but I will get one at 65 automatically.

Ah - I'm probably just not in tune with the age threshold that's standard. My scans for sure started way early because of my health history.

If I were you (which I'm not), I'd consider that if your less-official-source Dexa results looked good, and you don't have risk factors, that as a whole picture would be reassuring.

As for having my data, the Dexa knew my age and sex. I have not allowed the Dexa Ap, the Renpho ap, or even the MFP ap to have access to my “health” data. Not sure why I am resisting, but just not ready to blindly give access.

I was really asking if the Renpho knew things like your age, sex, height. My BIA scale is not internet enabled. (I dislike the "Internet of Things" (IOT) now for a variety of reasons, privacy not being the biggest in my mind.) I had to set up the scale (using buttons on it) to set various values, those among them. IMU, which isn't deep, if the BIA device has none of that info, its estimates get very tenuous.

On BF methods, I have Dexa, Phenpho and did the Navy. Range varied from 28+% to 23%. As for those BF photos online, I find them impossible as my body shape is not that. I am fairly linear these days. Those women are not post menopausal. :P

Again, I'm not you, but if I were looking at that, I'd be pretty comfortable assuming "mid twenties" and I personally wouldn't worry about it after that.

I do think I will play with the Renpho over time. I own it, so now it is no further cost to me. I did buy it simply as a travel scale, not as a body fat device (did a sample travel dry run and it is dead nuts after each 2 second calibration). I am doing two weeks in Scotland and while I do plan to enjoy myself, I would love to have the support of a scale for my sanity and so I don’t have extensive repairs after. I think your conclusion that studying lean body mass may have greater value in the long run than body fat %. I would like to stay mobile and strong. I am currently watching my parents physically deteriorate (88 and 86) and it is painful to watch. I continually wonder how different their path may have been if they had focused more on their physicality.

Yeah, I'm talking about looking at mass (in pounds/kg) rather than percents, because implications of percents can be unintuitive sometimes. That said, I estimate my lean mass in pounds using my BF% estimate(s), and my then-current weight. Close enough.

I would think you might be seeing something of a "two paths" phenomenon among your relatives and friends, at your age. I know I am.

What I mean is that in about my 50s, as a broad generalization, I started noticing that inactive/obese people my age whom I knew were starting to lose capabilities, and active, healthy people my age were thriving on. At first, it was sort of small stuff - y'know, maybe how people start to complain or make not-funny "jokes" about how it's hard to get up off the floor, or get into those low cupboards, etc.? Maybe it's harder to find peers who want to do things that involve lots of walking, stairs, or other mini-"challenges"?

As my age (and my circle's ages) moved on, the (average) divergence increased between those groups. I ate dinner with a group of a dozen women (40s to a few early 70s), and over half couldn't get into the higher chairs that were at a high-top table, without help from others. Another group, a fair fraction couldn't get a leg over a picnic table bench to sit in the center.

As there were sadly deaths, the fit and healthy people who died more often had some quite acute, sharp decline (or instant death kind of phenomenon that can happen at any age). The less fit and fatter folks were more likely to die after a very long, unpleasant down-spiral of increasingly bad health that rendered them unable to be independent for a long time near the end.

Then I started noticing that most doctors' offices I visited had more of overweight, mobility-challenged older people, and more general venues (let alone active events) had a higher relative percentage of slimmer, more mobile people in the same age group.

You don't have to whack me with a 2x4, I hope!

One of my local heroes as a rowing buddy who's about to turn 77, is quite capably rowing with people half her age, carrying heavy boats, etc. Physically, she looks/acts like maybe healthy 50s. She needs no routine prescription meds. She started strength training in her 30s, when women just didn't do that (normatively speaking). She was a hair stylist before retirement, told me that back then she didn't tell her clients she lifted because they would've dropped her. She's still in the gym lifting on non-rowing days, does Pilates regularly, and more.

She had a hip fracture - cause not known. Two weeks after her hip replacement surgery, I picked her up for a coffee outing, and she walked to the car without a cane/walker. If you didn't know her, you wouldn't have known she had anything wrong, seeing her. Thirty days to the day after surgery, she was back rowing a boat, and rowing is a leg sport.

By contrast, another friend, very inactive and obese, about a decade younger, had a hip replacement surgery around the same time. She got an infection, spent multiple weeks in a rehab facility because she wasn't mobile enough to take care of herself at home. It was many weeks to months before she was back in her normal (limited) routine, and she still needs a cane to this day (couple years later).

Object lesson for me. Obviously, individuals will vary, and there are spectrums of behavior not just the extremes, but the trends seem pretty clear to me.

Man, I gotta stop writing rant/essays.😬

kshama2001

AnnPT77 wrote: »

...One of my local heroes as a rowing buddy who's about to turn 77, is quite capably rowing with people half her age, carrying heavy boats, etc. Physically, she looks/acts like maybe healthy 50s. She needs no routine prescription meds. She started strength training in her 30s, when women just didn't do that (normatively speaking). She was a hair stylist before retirement, told me that back then she didn't tell her clients she lifted because they would've dropped her. She's still in the gym lifting on non-rowing days, does Pilates regularly, and more.

She had a hip fracture - cause not known. Two weeks after her hip replacement surgery, I picked her up for a coffee outing, and she walked to the car without a cane/walker. If you didn't know her, you wouldn't have known she had anything wrong, seeing her. Thirty days to the day after surgery, she was back rowing a boat, and rowing is a leg sport.

By contrast, another friend, very inactive and obese, about a decade younger, had a hip replacement surgery around the same time. She got an infection, spent multiple weeks in a rehab facility because she wasn't mobile enough to take care of herself at home. It was many weeks to months before she was back in her normal (limited) routine, and she still needs a cane to this day (couple years later).

Object lesson for me. Obviously, individuals will vary, and there are spectrums of behavior not just the extremes, but the trends seem pretty clear to me.

Man, I gotta stop writing rant/essays.😬

I love your essays!

At my partner's mother's wake in 2016, I met a 91 year old woman who had and still participated in the Senior Olympics. She gave me the impression that this was not any where near as rigorous as regular Olympics, but still, she is active every day. She radiated good health and vitality and walked without a cane/walker. Her son, on the other hand, did use one or the other.

kshama2001

chris_in_cal wrote: »

SModa61 wrote: »

Interestingly, my father who has survived three forms of cancer and survived some aggressive treatments usually given to a younger individual, had his hip snap off mid-stride October 2021.

I am currently watching my parents physically deteriorate (88 and 86) and it is painful to watch. I continually wonder how different their path may have been if they had focused more on their physicality.

I'm curious about your (and other people's) perspective and aspirations in measuring and seeking snapshot details?

As I am sure you are aware, probably 80%+ people on this thread would celebrate if their parents were alive at ages 88 and 86. You write "painful." I get it, but what's the big picture you are carrying? How does your big picture apply to your current efforts on your own health and wellbeing?

A doctor I heard on a podcast this week talked about western medicine and society being wildly successful on reducing 'fast death' (think consumption, 40 y/o smokers having heart attacks, etc.) and we are left with everyone else who face 'slow death.' Not to get too morbid, but I'm hoping there is contentedness and vitality and happiness in doing ones best, enjoying the process, and accepting fate.

I'll step off my soapbox. I do very much appreciate and identify with what you are questioning, I'm just curious abit on how you hope it will support you?

I'm not the one you asked, but will answer. My father was 83 when he had what we called a "good death." He was feeling poorly and was dead of leukemia a week after diagnosis - long enough to say goodbye to everyone and give instructions for funeral, etc.

Just a few weeks prior, he'd been taking car of himself, including food shopping, driving locally and having lunch with his friends. (He'd stopped driving on highways some years earlier.)

On the other hand, my partner's parents lingered and lingered and lingered. For the last few years of her life, his mother said she wanted to die and complained about Jesus not taking her. She was in a nursing home the last year of her life and hated it. (She required too much care to be at home.) My partner visited her every day. I'm sure it was painful seeing her bedridden and unhappy, but he was stoic about it.

cwolfman13

springlering62 wrote: »

cwolfman13 wrote: »

DXA is the gold standard. I've never seen "places" with a DXA, only medical facilities and the procedure is done by a radiology technician. It also provides way more beneficial information than just BF%, particularly when it comes to bone health.

You can buy DEXA scans at “places” on Groupon here (Deep South). I’ve been to one in an RV kinda rig that goes from gym to gym fitted with a scanner, and two in a bare bones two-room suite in an office building of mostly lawyers and CPAs. A sofa in the waiting room, and a small desk and chair and scanner in the other. And a couple of bog standard inspirational posters of athletes for decor. One in each rather depressing room.

That’s all they do, day in and day out- feed our insecurities, or securities, as the case may be. 😜

Are they truly DXA? I guess if that's the case I might question whether the machines are properly maintained and calibrated as well as the qualifications of the operator. I've only seen them in the radiology department at the hospital.

Maybe they're around other places...IDK, I've never really entertained the idea of getting one so have never looked. The hospital where I get my blood work done has the radiology department right next to the blood work area and that's the only place I've ever noticed it.