PDA

View Full Version : BOD POD Vs. Multi Frequency BIA


MoEcho
06-19-2009, 01:04 PM
Hello!

Just curious -- when it comes to accuracy, does anyone have any thoughts on the BOD POD vs BIA?

I have heard great things about the InBody 520.

http://www.biospaceamerica.com/product/inbody_520.asp

If you had to choose, which method do you think would be more accurate? Assuming ideal conditions..I.e. not full of water..

Thanks for any info!

Heidi :)

banderbe
06-19-2009, 03:56 PM
I'm sure BOD POD is more accurate but it's not going to be exact. There's a paper somewhere on line studying the BOD POD compared to other methods and it's usually off by 3 to 5% from DEXA and hydrostatic weighing.

MoEcho
06-20-2009, 03:14 PM
Cool! Thanks!

cycomiko
06-21-2009, 02:51 AM
Thyey all suck for an individual

MoEcho
06-22-2009, 10:42 AM
Thyey all suck for an individual

Um.. thanks? ;)

What do you mean?

lylemcd
06-22-2009, 10:57 AM
Um.. thanks? ;)

What do you mean?

He's saying that while they can be realtively accurate on average or used in a population based kind of thing, for any given individual they can be tremendously inaccurate.

which isn't very helpful practically and is arguably true of all methods. Consistency is a bit more important than accuracy here.

cycomiko
06-22-2009, 03:38 PM
even DEXA's consistency is not overly great for picking up small ~0.5-1.0kg changes in body composition, even with same program, same operator. Density measures or estimates are not better, just different. The multifrequency BIA are interesting, but being pretty much 'closed' standards, its always difficult to see what theri variation is.

Practically, it means do not be a paranoid nutter and get all worked up over a BF%. having a machine or equation that says you are 6% when you can pinch an inch means about as much as if it tells you that you are 25% BF when you have abs (and yes, you can get those type of figures out of some things).

the simplest and cheapest method is tracking skinfold measurements But sometimes its not even worth doing from the standard landmarks I often take ones that I can get the most consistent measurements from. Sure it doesnt allow you to create a BF measurement to give you an e-penis to wave around, but if it allows you to track trends over time more precisely than the standard SKF measures, then its all good.

Take them often enough and use a rolling average to track changes and it will smooth out all of the bumps.

MoEcho
06-22-2009, 07:11 PM
He's saying that while they can be realtively accurate on average or used in a population based kind of thing, for any given individual they can be tremendously inaccurate.

which isn't very helpful practically and is arguably true of all methods. Consistency is a bit more important than accuracy here.

even DEXA's consistency is not overly great for picking up small ~0.5-1.0kg changes in body composition, even with same program, same operator. Density measures or estimates are not better, just different. The multifrequency BIA are interesting, but being pretty much 'closed' standards, its always difficult to see what theri variation is.

Practically, it means do not be a paranoid nutter and get all worked up over a BF%. having a machine or equation that says you are 6% when you can pinch an inch means about as much as if it tells you that you are 25% BF when you have abs (and yes, you can get those type of figures out of some things).

the simplest and cheapest method is tracking skinfold measurements But sometimes its not even worth doing from the standard landmarks I often take ones that I can get the most consistent measurements from. Sure it doesnt allow you to create a BF measurement to give you an e-penis to wave around, but if it allows you to track trends over time more precisely than the standard SKF measures, then its all good.

Take them often enough and use a rolling average to track changes and it will smooth out all of the bumps.

Thank you so much guys!! :)