True story: I had a dexa scan that confirmed a very lean bodyfat level for a woman. It truly didn't make my life one bit better or solve any problems or make me feel better about myself. I was clearly very lean and now I had a number to put on it. Then I busted my *kitten* and overtime saw changes in my body that were noticed not only by me, but by family members, friends, perfect strangers.

I thought I should get another scan done over a year after the first...I wondered how much muscle I had gained. So I went, but I had to go to a different place because the place I got my original scan at was no more. I had it done and low and behold!! The numbers came out different and showed a slightly higher bf% (definitely within a margin of error) and a slightly lower lean mass!!! This is after over a year of progressive heavy lifting, veins all over my body, an increase in muscular definition that is noticeable by anyone looking. I couldn't help but feel a little disconcerted.

Once I had time to digest it, I came to the conclusion that the differences in my body over time are probably not going to be measurable, especially not by different machines with different calibrations- there is still a margin of error and these changes, while visually noticeable (I didn't start with much bodyfat to begin with), are just not easily measurable. The dexa operator did tell me that the numbers the scan puts out tend to be 5-7 percentage points higher than other methods like calipers.

So the moral to my story is, don't let numbers rule how you feel. And...when people throw out bodyfat percent numbers, they are often VERY underestimated and they are most definitely not very accurate.

True story: I had a dexa scan that confirmed a very lean bodyfat level for a woman. It truly didn't make my life one bit better or solve any problems or make me feel better about myself. I was clearly very lean and now I had a number to put on it. Then I busted my *kitten* and overtime saw changes in my body that were noticed not only by me, but by family members, friends, perfect strangers.

I thought I should get another scan done over a year after the first...I wondered how much muscle I had gained. So I went, but I had to go to a different place because the place I got my original scan at was no more. I had it done and low and behold!! The numbers came out different and showed a slightly higher bf% (definitely within a margin of error) and a slightly lower lean mass!!! This is after over a year of progressive heavy lifting, veins all over my body, an increase in muscular definition that is noticeable by anyone looking. I couldn't help but feel a little disconcerted.

Once I had time to digest it, I came to the conclusion that the differences in my body over time are probably not going to be measurable, especially not by different machines with different calibrations- there is still a margin of error and these changes, while visually noticeable (I didn't start with much bodyfat to begin with), are just not easily measurable. The dexa operator did tell me that the numbers the scan puts out tend to be 5-7 percentage points higher than other methods like calipers.

So the moral to my story is, don't let numbers rule how you feel. And...when people throw out bodyfat percent numbers, they are often VERY underestimated and they are most definitely not very accurate.

^^I had an issue with a DEXA scan I had done last year. It was obviously very wrong. It's hard not to take it to heart a bit. Nowadays, I rely on eyeballing BF%, measurements, scale and what I see in the mirror as well as progress I am making in the gym - they do not tell the whole story individually, but combine to get a good gauge as to what is going on. For example, I am 'about' the same BF% as I was before my bulk. My measurements are lower by a decent amount (proportionately) but the scale is only down by 1lb. What that means specifically - who knows. But it does mean that I am leaner. When you get down to a few percentage points and a few lbs here and there, it is just too close (and not very meaningful) to pinpoint a number.

Also, what does it change? Will (should) you change your routine? Will it make you happier/unhappier with what you see in the mirror? Will your strength change? Will your clothes fit differently?...no....so, while it is natural/human nature to tend to hang a lot of importance on the number (I do it myself), it's not really meaningful in the scheme of things.

Another point to make is that it tells you nothing about BF distribution (as Prof Rat mentioned). From a health perspective, fat distribution is as important in some cases as your BF%. So is it from an aesthetics perspective. Personally, if I was told that I had to stay at a certain bf% forever, and had a choice between someone at say 22% BF% with a less preferable distribution for my personal tastes v someone at say 26% with a BF distribution that was more in line with my tastes re aesthetics - I would pic the 26% BF one.

This is why I ignore body fat%. I use skinfold measurements as a a metric of progress, but I couldn't give less of a **** about whether it means 20% or 18%. Measurements are hard numbers and the best way to gauge progress in my opinion.

Love this post. It demonstrates how important mental well being and self esteem is in this process. If internally you think "you're not quite good enough" then numbers, whether scale or BF%, have more power over the way you see yourself.

I cried after I received my DEXA bf% estimate. I laugh about it now. I am choosing to blame my lady hormones. Stupid lady hormones...

While I think a bf% goal may be better than an arbitrary weight goal, I see this becoming problematic for people as well. What is considered a healthy bf% (one below the point where evidence suggests increased health risks) is way higher than what it seems most people think (particularly when adjusting for age AND/OR fat distribution). It is so easy to get too wrapped up in any kind of arbitrary goal.

So, not only is a more accurate estimate useful SO IS more information regarding healthy goals. Vanity goals are fine, but too often people will proclaim their arbitrary vanity goal as being "healthier" than another when there is no evidence to support the claim. I think there is a wider range of healthy body fat goals than most people realize and it is really helpful to keep things in perspective. In other words, no crying after you get your average bf% estimate and it falls within the very healthy range but isn't as low as the vanity goal arbitrarily set by those around you on MFP just because you've got a lot of "junk in your trunk" .

On my DEXA report (from my doctor) the following information is given. I'll bet many people will be shocked by these ranges.

"Health Standards represent the percentage of body fat that generally does not increase your risks for health problems."

Health Standards
Men <40 8-22%
Men >40 10-25%

Women <40 20-35%
Women >40 25-38%

Fat distribution matters as well, so one would want to look at Android (trunk fat) Gynoid (lower body fat) ratio and not JUST average bf.

Slightly off topic, but does this mean a woman over 40 should not have a BF% under 25? That's news to me.

No, I don't think it does. They suggested that lower could be achieved healthily by athletes and/or people who are involved in long term training of some kind. So, I would think someone who is lean with a good amount of muscle mass would easily not have any increased health risks at a lower body fat percentage than the "health standards" range suggests.

Ha ha, I am just that person who has moved on from weight to BF% goals. I'm 45 yrs with a supposed BF % of 23 (by scale) but I don't look like someone with that %. My issue with comparing pictures is that the ones that I've seen are of non-saggy, young people...when you get a bit older, doesn't general skin tone make a difference to the appearance BF%? For me I guess that as long as the number is going down though, it doesn't matter what the actual number is.

I also recently had a dexa scan done, it was my second scan. I didn't know what to expect for my first one, so I just used that number as a baseline to track progress. At the time I wanted to find out my lean mass so I could set my macros more accurately. Knowing an 'accurate' number didn't make me feel differently about myself. BF% is just one of a number of things I use to motivate myself.

I did use my results from the second scan to get confirmation that I'm on the right track exercise-wise and diet-wise. Of the weight I lost, almost all of it was fat and I managed to retain almost all of my muscle mass. Even taking into account that there is a margin of error, I figured those to be good results.

Honestly the mirror and progressing in my exercise routines are enough to make me happy with myself, but I lurve my spreadsheets.

While I would like the idea of being a certain BF%; I go mostly by the what the mirror shows.

Yes I still weigh myself and take measurements every now and then, but my clothes and the mirror are my true reflection of progress.

I was trying to figure out exactly how to verbalize my feelings on the matter. Then I read the above. Yeah - that's me.

Nowadays, I rely on eyeballing BF%, measurements, scale and what I see in the mirror as well as progress I am making in the gym - they do not tell the whole story individually, but combine to get a good gauge as to what is going on.

This is exactly why I happily continue to weigh and measure myself without any guilt or anxiety. I use all the data I am able to collect to get a multifaceted picture of my fitness, health, and and appearance. The numbers help me to accurately see what is in the mirror, which can be difficult sometimes. Especially when changes to the body start happening more slowly, when you are at a generally healthy fitness level, having that hard data can also be fantastic motivation. For me, it is the delta between the measurements that matters.

I will admit though, if I had a scan and found out, for instance, that my lean body mass was incredibly low for my weight, it probably would change my program. I love both running and lifting, but I would probably put more of my exercise hours into lifting than I currently do to combat that low muscle mass issue.

Like someone else said, more information is almost never a bad thing.

I think the issue is, is that it can be sometimes. Either because it is inaccurate, or because it makes you feel worse about yourself but there is nothing you can be doing that you are not already doing.