Alan Thrall video on the accuracy of body fat testing
Erik8484
Posts: 458 Member
https://youtu.be/1oWcpweTuXsWatching this I've concluded that either:
1. Body fat testing is highly innaccurate (actually i already thought this); or
2. Your body fat has almost no bearing on your appearance, and is pretty damn meaningless.
What are your thoughts?
0
Replies
-
I got 5 out 15 correct, a failing grade. It was eye opening however, thanks for sharing.0
-
I got all the women right except for the older lady. The guys, I only got a couple right. Great video, thanks for sharing!0
-
Watching this I've concluded that either:
1. Body fat testing is highly innaccurate (actually i already thought this); or
2. Your body fat has almost no bearing on your appearance, and is pretty damn meaningless.
What are your thoughts?
Interesting video, thank you for posting it!
1. I don't think the video is proof that BF% testing is inaccurate. I did find it interesting he said DEXA scans are inaccurate, but I couldn't find much to back that up. Really neither their accuracy nor inaccuracy.
2. Not sure it is meaningless, but true that a lot more factors can come into play for appearance. It's only fat percentage afterall, whether the participant actually had good muscle build up or not seemed to impact appearance separate from just having high/low body fat. That's to say someone heavier with the same body fat will probably look better than someone lighter with the same body fat.
I was surprised that I overestimated on most of the women who weren't lean. So either their BF% was wrong, or I have a skewed view about what 30% and 35% really look like. I didn't bother guessing with the guys since that's not something I pay close attention to and don't know the numbers for men very well.
I'm seriously considering getting a DEXA scan when I get to goal weight, though I may decide appearance is more important and that I don't care. They have them going around in trucks here the same way his truck goes around.
*edited to remove video again0 -
The part when the captioning says that only if he eats below his RMR he'd lose lean mass is incorrect I'm pretty sure.0
-
I've had BIA, Dexa and calipers done (in addition to the most accurate method, posting photos online to get internet opinions). I became interested because my trainer was suggesting I should hit a certain body fat percentage before I started a bulk, which is what I ultimately want to do. At around the time I started I also discovered this series of articles which discusses measurement inaccuracies:
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-3-the-pitfalls-of-body-fat-measurement-parts-1-and-2/the-pitfalls-of-body-fat-measurement-part-1/
Anecdotally, all of my different methods have been within a few percentage points of one another, but knowing your body fat is somewhere between say 12% and 17% is pretty useless information, because it feels like there is a really big difference between the extremities.
Ultimately i think a machine (whether it be BIA, dexa or hydrostatic) that spits out a body fat percentage to the nearest 0.1% provides only the illusion of accuracy. My 2 cents.
Also, I got about 5 right on the video so maybe I'm just butthurt
1 -
That one, pardon, flabby titted dude was supposed to be below 10%? You guys sure that's the gold standard for accuracy?1
-
stevencloser wrote: »That one, pardon, flabby titted dude was supposed to be below 10%? You guys sure that's the gold standard for accuracy?
There seems to be huge scope for user error. If you don't exhale fully, or you for example have air bubbles clinging to your body, then it will make you float more, weight less, and record a lower body fat percentage. If you wanted to arrificially record a low percentage, you would just not exhale as much.
Also, did you notice that Alan did 3 tests and the tester said he would take the best result of the 3? Logically that must be the test that
Alan exhales the least on. They should be taking the worst of the 3 (i would have assumed).
That said, the more muscle you have, the more fat you can carry while still maintaining a low percentage.
(Personally, I think the video illustrates how inaccurate the method can be)0 -
I had hydrostatic done at a college exercise science lab. They did a bit of prep before that I didn't hear about or see in the video. 3x I was asked to breathe out as much air as I could into a little machine and it was recorded. This was before I ever got into the water. The dunk tank was deep, too. I sat in a sling and dipped my head under the water as I expelled air. That was done 3x.0
-
Watching this I've concluded that either:
1. Body fat testing is highly innaccurate (actually i already thought this); or
2. Your body fat has almost no bearing on your appearance, and is pretty damn meaningless.
What are your thoughts?
my thoughts are that when i was 170 pounds but packed with muscle (i used to strength train like a fiend), i looked like i weighed less than when i recently weighed 170 pounds in poor shape with little muscle and lots of body fat. i had a big belly with low muscle and high body fat where i had just a little belly at the same weight but with lots of muscle mass. a bit higher up on the body, my waist was 4 inches smaller when i had lots more muscle, too, and again, that was at the exact same weight.
so my thought is that having higher body fat vs higher muscle mass makes a huge difference in my appearance. whether others could guess which was which, however, is doubtful.
0 -
I had hydrostatic done at a college exercise science lab. They did a bit of prep before that I didn't hear about or see in the video. 3x I was asked to breathe out as much air as I could into a little machine and it was recorded. This was before I ever got into the water. The dunk tank was deep, too. I sat in a sling and dipped my head under the water as I expelled air. That was done 3x.
Thats interesting, i wonder if wasnt done or just wasnt filmed for the video0 -
OP, which five did you get right? Did you write their names down. Curious, because I have five too!0
-
I got 8 of them right. There were a few results that did surprise me, including the one Steven mentioned.0
-
queenliz99 wrote: »OP, which five did you get right? Did you write their names down. Curious, because I have five too!
I did write it down, turns out it was 7 and not 5.
I got gio (2), gina (3), rachel(5), brady (6), sean (8), deb (13), danielle (14). Most of the ones i got were women and pure guesswork (some of them were wearing shirts for example). What shocked me were anthony (skinny guy, #11) and charlie (more build guy, #12). Both were at around 170/180lbs (the closest to my body type), but were hugely different bf%. I just wouldnt have picked it.
Which did you get?0 -
Actually just did a hydrostatic test earlier this month at a company that uses the exact same set up (van that travels to local gyms/places).
The one thing they emphasized was blowing all the air you possibly could out...then they would count to 5 while everything but your nose/mouth was submerged. I guess you could try to fool the test....but I think most people are trying hard to get an accurate reading.
I was surprised by my number (lower than I expected) compared to what I thought it would be based on what I see in the mirror and the weight I had as a target.0 -
So umm..whatever happened to getting visible abs at 15% BF for men? and 20% for women?
So many instagram users claiming 12% bf and ripped and in the video I was surprised what that low of bf% still nada.
Or is it because they got no muscle based on their body weight? My BI device tells me I'm at 21% bf -I use it to see a trend that's about it.
6-8lbs of muscle in a year what on earth. Suddenly I have more respect for people who are like 220-230lbs and have less than 12% bf for me now that seems so unrealistic.0 -
I've had BIA, Dexa and calipers done (in addition to the most accurate method, posting photos online to get internet opinions). I became interested because my trainer was suggesting I should hit a certain body fat percentage before I started a bulk, which is what I ultimately want to do. At around the time I started I also discovered this series of articles which discusses measurement inaccuracies:
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-3-the-pitfalls-of-body-fat-measurement-parts-1-and-2/the-pitfalls-of-body-fat-measurement-part-1/
Anecdotally, all of my different methods have been within a few percentage points of one another, but knowing your body fat is somewhere between say 12% and 17% is pretty useless information, because it feels like there is a really big difference between the extremities.
Ultimately i think a machine (whether it be BIA, dexa or hydrostatic) that spits out a body fat percentage to the nearest 0.1% provides only the illusion of accuracy. My 2 cents.
Also, I got about 5 right on the video so maybe I'm just butthurt
I think the perceived accuracy is pretty funny also. Just because the calculation method can display a result with a bunch of decimal places after it doesn't make the actual measurement more accurate.
I'm in finance for a large company and work with IT and engineering people, who tend to be detail freaks. They will bring me 10 years estimates of a multi-million dollar project showing the dollars and cents for each year.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »That one, pardon, flabby titted dude was supposed to be below 10%? You guys sure that's the gold standard for accuracy?
There seems to be huge scope for user error. If you don't exhale fully, or you for example have air bubbles clinging to your body, then it will make you float more, weight less, and record a lower body fat percentage. If you wanted to arrificially record a low percentage, you would just not exhale as much.
Also, did you notice that Alan did 3 tests and the tester said he would take the best result of the 3? Logically that must be the test that
Alan exhales the least on. They should be taking the worst of the 3 (i would have assumed).
That said, the more muscle you have, the more fat you can carry while still maintaining a low percentage.
(Personally, I think the video illustrates how inaccurate the method can be)
Wouldn't that lead to it saying you're higher bf%? because it reads a lower number of lean mass compared to your total weight.0 -
I got #3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and the last one right. Also Alan himself before he went to get measured I estimated him between 12 and 15 and he was 13.something. That was mostly the more trained people I think.0
-
queenliz99 wrote: »OP, which five did you get right? Did you write their names down. Curious, because I have five too!
I did write it down, turns out it was 7 and not 5.
I got gio (2), gina (3), rachel(5), brady (6), sean (8), deb (13), danielle (14). Most of the ones i got were women and pure guesswork (some of them were wearing shirts for example). What shocked me were anthony (skinny guy, #11) and charlie (more build guy, #12). Both were at around 170/180lbs (the closest to my body type), but were hugely different bf%. I just wouldnt have picked it.
Which did you get?
Like you, I got Gio(2), Brandy(6), Deb(13), and Danielle(14) right. Unlike you, I got Jason(10) right.
The shirted guy(8) had a round face and was hard to tell. I'm calling unfair! LOL
Matt(7) was 23% and Andy(9) was 24%, hard to believe.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions