Do you think getting a DXA scan is worth it to calculate bodyfat % (especially if starting out)?

I found a Groupon for a scan close to my home that's originally $150 USD for $90. Don't think I'll buy it now since I can get In body Analysis for free at Mayo Clinic (not as accurate, but I'm not focusing on bf% at the moment). Anyway, my point is check to see if you can find a good deal on it first, and then decide whether it's worth the price.

No methods are 100% accurate, so the important thing to measure is the progress. This can be measured by any method as long as you measure by the same method every time. I don't think dexa scans are worth paying that much for. However, making the investment might make you stick more to your diet if that is a problem for you, so it can help in that sense but then I would rather recommend getting a coach.

neely47 wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

Are you going to want to pay $120 every time you want to check on your progress?

If it's only once or twice a year, I don't see the harm in it.

Agreed.

No method is perfect but DXA is more accurate and reliable than most others, except for hydro which is equal to DXA IMO.

I have had my BF measured by both DXA and hydro quarterly for the past 18 months. I did them both because I wanted to compare the data to test their validity, which was easy because there are discount mobile providers in my area who only charge $40-45/test.

If you are on a regular dietary/training program and your objective is to lose BF, testing every 6 months should be enough to allow time for changes to occur and to establish a trend.

I prefer DXA over hydro because of the additional data it provides (like VAT, bone wt/density and BF distribution by body part) but I prefer hydro because it always gives me a redult 3-5% lower than DXA.

My last BF results were 12.5% DXA and 8.3% hydo. I just average the 2 and consider myself at 10% but, if asked, I always quote the lower number. LOL!

More importantly, my VAT result was only 0.6# & 1.61 cubic inches (an extremely low level of VAT) down from 1.41# and 41.5 cubic inches in 18 months.

High VAT levels are directly associated w/higher risk for heart disease, diabetes and other medical issues and DXA is the only commercially available method to measure it.

If you are an older person at risk for osteoporosis, the DXA scan also measures your bone wt & density (which is what it was originally designed to do) which helps to assess your risk for that disease and, if you get tested regularly it will reveal any bone degeneration over time.

So, there are at least 2 reasons (other than to measure your BF) to get a regular DXA scan.

For health assessment, 1x a year would be enough but for BF measurement, I think you'd want to do it at least 1x every 6 months.

I say worth it — it cost me $75. The variance between the Dexa and my home scale was huge (like 5% higher.) I think once a year for a benchmark is perfect. I’m going back for my 2nd annual next week.

neely47 wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

Are you going to want to pay $120 every time you want to check on your progress?

If it's only once or twice a year, I don't see the harm in it.

OK. It wasn't intended as a leading question. If you really care about this one data point, and you're willing to pay that much to get it, it's your money and your decision. I wasn't sure from your original post whether you were picturing it as a one-time cost and that you'd be able to meaningfully compare BF% obtained in the future from free or less expensive methods.

It wouldn't be worth it to me, but value can be a highly subjective concept.

I had a Dexa scan done last year for free as part of a research study I volunteered for. It gave me the same body fat % as my scales at home, which I wasn’t expecting! I guess for me, I wouldn’t pay for one as I’m not hung up on numbers. I lost almost half my body weight and roughly halved my body fat too, gained some weight and some fat back, had the scan done. If I was hard out bodybuilding and hung up on getting to a particular body fat % then I’d probably pay to repeat it, but so long as my clothes size is getting smaller and my muscle definition is improving I really don’t care.

So it really depends on how much you care about the exact numbers.

While I will acknowledge that they were absolutely NOT necessary, I have to say that I am very happy with the series of scans I got because they definitely added interesting information to my weight loss and maintenance period.

I will note that the amounts are in Canadian dollars so $120 is US$90.

Peter (I am assuming you're looking at bodycomp imaging) charges less for subsequent scans, offers a multi scan package, and does include a degree of both nutritional and training advice with the scan session.

He gives you a printout and emails a pdf (you may have to ask the first time) of your results.

As he enjoys lower carb than I do, I never spent much time with him discussing the nutritional aspect but he did show me some modified exercises to address injured body parts.

I've definitely recommended his services to my friends and I believe I'm now up to 7 scans, though the last two were each a year apart as I am no longer trying to lose.

The printouts to August 2017 could only fit 6 scans and did not do the VAT measurement mentioned above. I know about the 6 comparison point limit because I asked Peter to redo my latest pdf so as to continue to have my oldest scan as the initial point of comparison.

As it is sometimes desirable to use the same machine and operator to minimize sources of variance when comparing scans, Peter mentioned in late august 2017 that it would be my last scan on the old machine, as he had a new dexa scan machine on order.

You may want to confirm with him whether the new machine is operating and whether it also does VAT. At risk women can probably combine the scan with a look at bone density levels if they so wish. Peter used to work as a hospital radiology technician and seems to be quite careful and thorough (he did one for my mom).

I believe the web site has examples of print outs. If you want to have a look at mine (which is presumably based on older software) private message me.

I got a bodpod scan done a while back and it was nice to see truly how much my measurements were then. The deal was 2 scans and I have yet to go in for the follow up and half the reason is I have yet to get to my goal weight.

I know Dexascans are more detailed and will show you where the fat is and bone mass. If it is something you can afford why not.

neely47 wrote: »

rollerjog wrote: »

Here is a good link for mobile body fat testing http://www.bodyfattest.com they have many locations in the united states, i see your in BC, I have used body fat test .com many times and they are really good, the person i have used is brain lee he is located in the seattle area, i think its a good idea to get a dexa or hydrostatic body fat test done, it gives you a good starting point, good luck

Thanks. But what is the difference between DEXA and hydrostatic body fat test?

One uses a machine to scan you. The other you get dunked into water to get your results. DRY/WET

neely47 wrote: »

rollerjog wrote: »

Here is a good link for mobile body fat testing http://www.bodyfattest.com they have many locations in the united states, i see your in BC, I have used body fat test .com many times and they are really good, the person i have used is brain lee he is located in the seattle area, i think its a good idea to get a dexa or hydrostatic body fat test done, it gives you a good starting point, good luck

Thanks. But what is the difference between DEXA and hydrostatic body fat test?

DXA uses a form of x-rays to calculate the measurements based on tissue density.

Hydro measures the difference between your weight normally and under water; fat floats.

DXA is the most convenient because you just get undressed down to your skivies, lay down and get scanned.

W/hydro, you have to wear a bathing suit and drunk yourself under water and blow out as much air as you can out of your lungs (because air makes you bouyant and throws off the fat measurement) and you have to do this 3 times.

My hydro tech says that blowing out the air is the biggest problem for most people. The less air blown out, the higher and more inaccurate the BF reading.

So, for comfort and convenience, DXA is best but, if you're comfortable under water and have no difficulty blowing air out of your lungs, hydro probably will give you a lower BF%, as it does for me.

I’m planning on getting one when I hit my goal weight. I love numbers and am curious not just about body fat, but bone density as well. I could see doing it yearly for progress markers after that.

No. I can't see the point. There are other ways to measure body fat % that don't involve what is in reality a medical procedure. Better yet, look in the mirror and judge from that. Not "trusting" other methods is not a reason for this.