![]() Commercial body fat testing devices are not accurate enough for you to use the information to make better decisions about what to eat and how to train. The technology involved in body fat testing still has some catching up to do. It doesn’t tell you how accurate those estimates are in the first place. All it tells you is how close the estimates are when repeated measurements are made. However, this doesn’t tell you that the scan has done a decent job of estimating your body composition. That is, if you get yourself scanned, then return to the same machine the next day and get another scan, the results will be almost identical. Some argue that doing back-to-back DEXA scans “proves” they’re accurate. That’s a lot of money to spend if the results aren’t telling you anything useful. If you go back for a second scan after a few months, that’s another $100. Another lost nearly 10 percent body fat according to the 4-compartment model, but DEXA showed only a three percent drop.Īnd DEXA isn’t cheap, with a single scan costing upwards of $100. One subject gained five percent body fat according to the 4-compartment model, but DEXA showed that it had dropped by five percent. In some individuals, the results were a close match. When Purdue University researchers compared DEXA with the gold-standard 4-compartment model, the results were a mixed bag. The fact that a body fat test does a good job at estimating group averages doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s equally as good at tracking individual progress over time. When looking at the group results, the average error size is zero. Why is that? DEXA might overestimate body fat percentage in half your group by five percent, and underestimate it in the other half by five percent. But, it’s not as good at tracking individual changes in body fat and muscle mass over time. What about other body fat tests, like DEXA scans? Do they work any better?ĭEXA, short for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, does a reasonable job at estimating group averages. Do X-Rays Work Better for Body Fat Testing? And you run the risk of ditching a training and nutrition program that’s working and replacing it with one that’s less effective. You’d come away with the impression that whatever you’d been doing to generate those results didn’t work, when actually it did. But the scales might show that you hadn’t gained any muscle at all. You could gain 5 to 6 pounds of muscle over a period of several months. Much the same thing holds true for muscle growth. But when you go back for another test, the scales might show that your body fat percentage hasn’t changed at all. You eat right and train hard for a couple of months, and cut your body fat by around five percent. Let’s say you step on some body fat scales, and they tell you that your body fat percentage is 20 percent. In fact, the error rate got as high as eight percent. The researchers found that bioelectrical impedance was the least accurate of all the methods. They compared several body fat tests-including bioelectrical impedance, the technology used in body fat scales-with something called the 4-compartment model, which is currently the benchmark test for body composition and the standard against which other body fat tests are measured. In a study published in Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, scientists looked at changes in body composition in a group of male bodybuilders. However, when researchers have put this idea to the test, the results have been less than impressive. As long as it’s consistent, you can use it to track your progress over time. Put differently, it doesn’t matter if a body fat test is “out” by a few percentage points here or there. The argument in favor of body fat testing is that even if a given test isn’t accurate, at least it’s consistent.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |