BodyRecomposition Support Forums  

Go Back   BodyRecomposition Support Forums > General information > Articles on the Main Site
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Unread 06-14-2013, 07:42 AM
simpleman simpleman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 32
Default

Still interested in my original question though
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Unread 06-14-2013, 08:03 AM
troypulk's Avatar
troypulk troypulk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Washington State
Posts: 187
Default

I had a hydrostatic BF test done and it only cost $45 the margin of error is ~1.5%
http://bodyfattest.com/calendar-.html

When using a BIA scale you need to do it right after you pee when you wake up in the morning, that's when it's the most accurate and drink as least 8 cups of water a day.

Individual results may vary, but when I compared my hydro test with my calipers and BIA, my BF for hydro was 19%, calipers 15%, BIA 18% and the RFL calculator was 20%.

In the end it's just a progress guide which will work with any method but if you're concerned about accuracy the hydro test is the best one to use.

Last edited by troypulk : 06-14-2013 at 08:08 AM. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Unread 06-14-2013, 08:05 AM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,680
Default

Doesn't matter. BIA sucks.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Unread 07-04-2013, 04:06 AM
Milk's Avatar
Milk Milk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Posts: 121
Default

Lyle, thanks for the articles.

I was wondering, for the purposes of tracking stubborn fat areas, would I not be better off simply directly measuring/pinching the fat in those areas rather than the typical skinfold sites?

For example, if I want to lose that bit around my lower back, why wouldn't I just measure that and track changes? Assuming of course that I'm down to stubborn fat levels.

That way I could more accurately track the areas I'm targetting rather than get an overall reading, which always gives me a ridiculously low bf% anyway (like 6% - and yes, I'm doing multiple tests using the method you describe in the article and by another person).

Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Unread 01-04-2014, 01:55 PM
JohnnyBoy JohnnyBoy is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 16
Default

BIA seems very unreliable as it is so dependent on hydration levels which can give very different readings in seconds even. Take a BIA, drink some water then weigh yourself again - it looks like you've increased weight and lowered BF % - ie increased lean bodyweight - in seconds!

Here is a good article on the flaws of BIA - and indeed other measurements
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=218

There is no way to measure muscle. What is measured - or rather estimated is 'fat-free' weight.

On the Tape measurement system where is the waist? Across the belly button? Higher up?

What is the best, or least-worst system?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Unread 01-04-2014, 02:17 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,680
Default

Read the articles on the main site. For this and all of your other questions.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.