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
  #1  
Unread 07-24-2014, 09:49 AM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default Women's Body Fat, Low Ab Fat And Skinny Fat Q&A

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...-training.html
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Unread 07-24-2014, 11:07 AM
alcahuetej's Avatar
alcahuetej alcahuetej is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 651
Default

As far as the DEXA question is concerned in your article, would it simply read higher because it can scan for the greatest amount of fat among all methods?

For example, calipers can only pinch so many areas, and none that I know of include the glutes as an area to pinch (more often than not the area most people will carry the greatest amount of fat)?

To take it one step further, DEXA consistently measured lower than the 4 compartment model, or, the true "gold standard" (obviously aside from dissecting a cadaver, nothing is truly accurate) in the study linked below. Perhaps the more sophisticated the method, the more fat it can detect.

http://jap.physiology.org/content/94/2/499

"These body fat scores in combination with Fig. 1 demonstrate that DEXA tends to progressively underestimate the body fat of leaner individuals compared with the 4C model."

Visual estimates online could simply be lower than what the actual percentages are. My recent scan said 14% overall, even though no one's visual estimate came even close to that (most were around 7, the highest was 9%). If DEXA was good at one thing, it appeared quite accurate at telling me where I hold fat.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Unread 07-24-2014, 12:25 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

Maybe. End of the day it's just a number. Which is the mostest accurate is less relevant than consitency. I mainly brought it up because most of the visual estimate numbers seem to come out lower than what DEXA says.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Unread 07-28-2014, 02:49 PM
saw7988 saw7988 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 76
Default

Lyle, while I agree mostly with your sentiment of consistency, this topic has actually brought up some minor issues for myself an others in the past. Mainly regarding communication. Prime examples of this are when myself and others that I talked to have tried to interpret some of your recommendations. For example, you recommend UD2 only to people under 15% bodyfat; do you mean 15% on the visual scale or on the DEXA scale? Same thing with the recommendation to cut/bulk to 10%/15%. I mean sure, yea you can say that you should just pick a range and stick with it and be happy. But when one person talks to another, this issue could cause them to be referring to very different things. You may think I should cut more, when I think I'm already at 10%.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Unread 07-28-2014, 03:01 PM
Violinist's Avatar
Violinist Violinist is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,260
Default

Yeah that sounds like a big problem. He should personally review every person's physique before sanctioning a bulk or cut. Because by giving ranges, the big meany leaves people with nothing more than their brains with which to judge the results of their efforts and make adjustments for their next attempt.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Unread 07-28-2014, 03:44 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by saw7988 View Post
Lyle, while I agree mostly with your sentiment of consistency, this topic has actually brought up some minor issues for myself an others in the past. Mainly regarding communication. Prime examples of this are when myself and others that I talked to have tried to interpret some of your recommendations. For example, you recommend UD2 only to people under 15% bodyfat; do you mean 15% on the visual scale or on the DEXA scale? Same thing with the recommendation to cut/bulk to 10%/15%. I mean sure, yea you can say that you should just pick a range and stick with it and be happy. But when one person talks to another, this issue could cause them to be referring to very different things. You may think I should cut more, when I think I'm already at 10%.
Visual/calipers is where my numbers derive from. DEXA didn't exist for most of the time I was doing this.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Unread 07-30-2014, 08:53 AM
saw7988 saw7988 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 76
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Violinist View Post
Yeah that sounds like a big problem. He should personally review every person's physique before sanctioning a bulk or cut. Because by giving ranges, the big meany leaves people with nothing more than their brains with which to judge the results of their efforts and make adjustments for their next attempt.
Totally missing the point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lylemcd View Post
Visual/calipers is where my numbers derive from. DEXA didn't exist for most of the time I was doing this.
Thank you very much, this is what my belief has always been.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Unread 09-14-2014, 09:36 PM
Scarletgray Scarletgray is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 28
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lylemcd View Post
Link's broken. A lot of them are.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Unread 09-14-2014, 10:03 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

Yeah, my permalink structure is wonked right now
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 04:16 PM.


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