BodyRecomposition Support Forums  

Go Back   BodyRecomposition Support Forums > General information > General diet questions
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Unread 12-22-2017, 01:56 AM
Determinism Determinism is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 593
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by patriots2 View Post
You’re probably right on Dexa not being as precise as everyone says. Have you ever had one?

My initial Dexa in November said 8.2% (would have guessed I was closer to 11%) a follow up in December was 8.9% and I was leaner in December. Go figure. Tester was adamant the numbers were 100% correct both times.

The mirror and consistent use of calipers would probably work almost as well. It all comes down to how comfy each of us is with their look, something a number can’t always provide.
Exactly! I've never had a DEXA scan, and I never will (unless for medical reasons). As you've experienced yourself, that thing is off by a few %. Anecdotes tell the same story. As you say, an arbitrary number doesn't say much. It's about how you look in the mirror or how comfortable you are in your own skin. So IMO a DEXA scan is only for the ego. We don't need scanners to see if someone is fat or fit
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Unread 12-22-2017, 09:45 AM
TravisGM TravisGM is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 48
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Determinism View Post
Exactly! I've never had a DEXA scan, and I never will (unless for medical reasons). As you've experienced yourself, that thing is off by a few %. Anecdotes tell the same story. As you say, an arbitrary number doesn't say much. It's about how you look in the mirror or how comfortable you are in your own skin. So IMO a DEXA scan is only for the ego. We don't need scanners to see if someone is fat or fit
I agree with you 90%. My ego needs the catering

However, itís nice to know as a baseline estimate (yes, estimate) where my LBM is, how itís changed over the year and what I look like at specific body fat percentage ranges. Iíll use this range of body fat percentage to gauge when I should start bulking. In any case, Iíll post the results here
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Unread 12-22-2017, 08:30 PM
felpadubove felpadubove is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 10
Default estimation?

https://imgur.com/a/vJ5zT
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Unread 12-23-2017, 04:24 AM
patriots2 patriots2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 204
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Determinism View Post
Exactly! I've never had a DEXA scan, and I never will (unless for medical reasons). As you've experienced yourself, that thing is off by a few %. Anecdotes tell the same story. As you say, an arbitrary number doesn't say much. It's about how you look in the mirror or how comfortable you are in your own skin. So IMO a DEXA scan is only for the ego. We don't need scanners to see if someone is fat or fit
Youíre correct. It is all about ego.

Thought it would be a motivator to keep getting leaner (until contradictory results came out), but it was nothing more than another measure with minor flaws.

Win the battle of the ego war. It can be a terrible thing.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Unread 12-23-2017, 04:38 AM
patriots2 patriots2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 204
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by felpadubove View Post
Estimate 17-19%
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Unread 12-23-2017, 09:05 AM
alcahuetej's Avatar
alcahuetej alcahuetej is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 777
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Determinism View Post
Sure, share it with us. There is a "thing" that DEXA is not as accurate as some believe. Having a visual alongside the numbers may make us more conscious about that. Please note that this does not mean the DEXA is wrong by default. Yours may be very accurate.

I could repost my pics from after my DEXA scan from three years ago.

It's all documented on old logs, but none of the images are up due to Photobucket.

I posted the pictures on here and Lyle's old forum before the scan. All estimates were about 7 - 9%. The scan said I was 9.2%, and my torso (which was what the photo on here was of) was 7%.

This was after a PSMF, but I made sure to refeed and have a week at maintenance before the scan. I also drank some water the morning of the scan.

Pictures were taken the morning of the scan.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Unread 12-23-2017, 09:49 AM
patriots2 patriots2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 204
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alcahuetej View Post
I could repost my pics from after my DEXA scan from three years ago.

It's all documented on old logs, but none of the images are up due to Photobucket.

I posted the pictures on here and Lyle's old forum before the scan. All estimates were about 7 - 9%. The scan said I was 9.2%, and my torso (which was what the photo on here was of) was 7%.

This was after a PSMF, but I made sure to refeed and have a week at maintenance before the scan. I also drank some water the morning of the scan.

Pictures were taken the morning of the scan.
It would be interesting to see what you looked liked during the Dexa. Just to see the visual differences on Dexa reporting.

Also, Was it reported 14%2% or 9.2%. Or the 9.2% was adjusted down 5% due to Nhanes method? Hope all is well.

Happy holidays to all.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Unread 12-23-2017, 10:36 AM
alcahuetej's Avatar
alcahuetej alcahuetej is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 777
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by patriots2 View Post
Also, Was it reported 14%2% or 9.2%. Or the 9.2% was adjusted down 5% due to Nhanes method? Hope all is well.

Happy holidays to all.
Reported was 14.2%. Which basically rocked everyone's faith in DEXA scans. I adjusted the 14.2 to 9.2% because the Nhanes method was used for my scan (which I learned about years later).

Happy holidays to you as well. I hope Santa leaves a 4 compartment model DEXA machine under (next to?) the tree for you.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Unread 12-23-2017, 11:03 AM
w1cked w1cked is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,881
Default

As Krieger has mentioned indivual dxas can have 3 to 5% off. Now over a large n number of readings for same subject and same machine it'll be much better...pretty simple gauge r&r principle reallu. There are youtube videos of contest ready guys coming in at 10% and people few weeks out clocking 6. Mirror>>>>dxa imo.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Unread 12-27-2017, 12:09 PM
alcahuetej's Avatar
alcahuetej alcahuetej is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 777
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by w1cked View Post
As Krieger has mentioned indivual dxas can have 3 to 5% off. Now over a large n number of readings for same subject and same machine it'll be much better...pretty simple gauge r&r principle reallu. There are youtube videos of contest ready guys coming in at 10% and people few weeks out clocking 6. Mirror>>>>dxa imo.
DEXA definitely isn't the goal standard it's made out to be.

The bodybuilders being at 10% could be due to which method the machine used. With the Nhanes method 10% is about 5%.

I was fortunate enough to have two scans done about 2 - 3 years apart, on the same machine. Both had me at ~9%, indicating I had lost muscle mass during that time. Which lines right up with strength numbers dropping/the mirror.
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 06:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.