August 28, 2017 at 16:18How to measure fat level: bioimpedance vs by eye vs DEXA (densitometry)
Since the first review of the MGB, the debate has not subsided, and there are reasons for this. Nevertheless, once again we list the most common ways to assess body composition, talk about coincidences and share life hack, where to do the cheapest densitometry in Moscow.
So, there are a lot of ways to analyze the body for such components as fat / bone mass, etc. Here in the comments they even supplemented “by eye” and “mirror”. And these people were right too!
A truly adequate person with normal self-esteem can simply compare himself with pictures:
And these pictures hint to him quite transparently that it’s time to change something or not time. The second method from the henchmen is the caliper method. This is such a thing for 100 rubles with aliexpress, with which you can make a mistake every two times, but again: if you are really fat he will show it.
You measure subcutaneous fat by clamping this “clothespin” so that the arrows on the handle are opposite each other. On the tested human sample, the indicator is 8-10, and according to the table it is about 12% fat. The difference with the testimony is due to the fact that this thing (they say) measures only subcutaneous fat, and not fat in the whole body, which is in the bones and muscles. But you can understand whether you are fat or thin.
From analyzes of medium availability - bioimpedansometry, which is not liked here. The method, to be honest, still encourages us to compare it and compare it. Different scientific materials write that, compared to the reference, bioimpedance gives a difference of 3 to 6%, but it is characterized by reproducibility of the results. Some write almost categorically that bioimpedance technology can provide accurate readings of fat mass.
At the same time, it is important here to note that we are talking about the so-called clinical bio-impedance meters, primarily the Tanita models, which are widespread in the west. One of them looks like this:
Also notedthat a number of factors influence bioimpedansometry, therefore it is important to correctly indicate height / weight / gender and, if allowed, other features, for example, skin color.
The “IMASS” bioimpedance meter is known in Russia, which we talked about in the previous article . He appears in the publication "Testing Encyclopedia", where in general the idea of a 3-6% error is taken as the basis.
Bod Pod
Another way is to analyze in the plethysmographic analyzer Bod Pod. It is considered accurate, but where to find in Moscow could not be found.
It is clarified that this is the only plethysmographic analyzer that uses densitometry technology.
Dexa
Actually, densitometry. This is something like an x-ray, and to make such an analysis in Moscow is a kind of quest. Let me explain why: in the vast majority of clinics, this study is only done to analyze the mineral composition of bones in cases of suspected osteoporosis.
More precisely, as explained today, the apparatus can do something completely, but the workers simply do not know what they can, and therefore they refuse. Analysis is expensive. Of the five clinics that two managed to get through to, the price is about 7,500 rubles, and the rest (including presidential administrators) have about 10,000 rubles.
The promised life hack: denistometry of the whole body (the service is called “Total Body) is the cheapest performed at the Endocrinology Research Center in Dm. Ulyanova: the cost of 2500 rubles! If anyone is interested, we did not find cheaper prices.
The study requires the comments of a doctor, but they will be gladly given. The recommended periodicity - "can be done once every six months", if for yourself, for general development.
Note that in the ESC only this study is done on the body composition and bioimpedansometry is not used, treating it with skepticism, however - and this is a direct quote - " but the results may coincide. "
An analysis is made of the individual number of minutes calculated from height / weight on GE devices. Who cares, here is a PDF with the results .
Why did we do this ?
Recently, we caused a wave of indignation with new scales , based on the old principle, known on market For many years, just bioimpedance.
And it seems like no one accused us straight on our foreheads that we were charlatans, but the sediment remained. As such, none of us has ever pursued the goal of deceiving everyone - and if you go through the blog posts, it will be obvious. Immediately there was an incident: neither prove nor refute, in fact, we can’t do anything, it works like this, and not otherwise. We can only periodically compare the results obtained in the same or another way. This time our table will be replenished with measurements from densitometry.
On what did:
And, perhaps, the most interesting:
Does this mean that bioimpedance is an accurate and reliable technology?
We do not know: there are a number of clinical studies that confirm the compliance of the results in some parameters (percentage of fat) with an error of 3 to 6%.
Does this mean that the scales are accurate?
They correctly show the weight, and also coincide on 1 person for the same indicators with a small (as it seems to us) error, which for a consumer device makes them quite reliable for this person.
What else can you compare?
DEXA analysis is considered the most accurate (below, who watched the PDF, saw the margin of error) analysis of body composition and a reference for the appointment of any treatment.
Why didn't everything fit together?
Evaluation of muscle mass, as we have been explained, occurs in densitherapy much more extensively - these are the muscles of the whole body, wherever they are. In medical articles, much less parameters are compared - primarily the level of fat mass and the analysis of the mineral composition of bones.
So, there are a lot of ways to analyze the body for such components as fat / bone mass, etc. Here in the comments they even supplemented “by eye” and “mirror”. And these people were right too!
A truly adequate person with normal self-esteem can simply compare himself with pictures:
Men
Women
And these pictures hint to him quite transparently that it’s time to change something or not time. The second method from the henchmen is the caliper method. This is such a thing for 100 rubles with aliexpress, with which you can make a mistake every two times, but again: if you are really fat he will show it.
You measure subcutaneous fat by clamping this “clothespin” so that the arrows on the handle are opposite each other. On the tested human sample, the indicator is 8-10, and according to the table it is about 12% fat. The difference with the testimony is due to the fact that this thing (they say) measures only subcutaneous fat, and not fat in the whole body, which is in the bones and muscles. But you can understand whether you are fat or thin.
From analyzes of medium availability - bioimpedansometry, which is not liked here. The method, to be honest, still encourages us to compare it and compare it. Different scientific materials write that, compared to the reference, bioimpedance gives a difference of 3 to 6%, but it is characterized by reproducibility of the results. Some write almost categorically that bioimpedance technology can provide accurate readings of fat mass.
At the same time, it is important here to note that we are talking about the so-called clinical bio-impedance meters, primarily the Tanita models, which are widespread in the west. One of them looks like this:
Also notedthat a number of factors influence bioimpedansometry, therefore it is important to correctly indicate height / weight / gender and, if allowed, other features, for example, skin color.
The “IMASS” bioimpedance meter is known in Russia, which we talked about in the previous article . He appears in the publication "Testing Encyclopedia", where in general the idea of a 3-6% error is taken as the basis.
Bod Pod
Another way is to analyze in the plethysmographic analyzer Bod Pod. It is considered accurate, but where to find in Moscow could not be found.
It is clarified that this is the only plethysmographic analyzer that uses densitometry technology.
Dexa
Actually, densitometry. This is something like an x-ray, and to make such an analysis in Moscow is a kind of quest. Let me explain why: in the vast majority of clinics, this study is only done to analyze the mineral composition of bones in cases of suspected osteoporosis.
More precisely, as explained today, the apparatus can do something completely, but the workers simply do not know what they can, and therefore they refuse. Analysis is expensive. Of the five clinics that two managed to get through to, the price is about 7,500 rubles, and the rest (including presidential administrators) have about 10,000 rubles.
The promised life hack: denistometry of the whole body (the service is called “Total Body) is the cheapest performed at the Endocrinology Research Center in Dm. Ulyanova: the cost of 2500 rubles! If anyone is interested, we did not find cheaper prices.
The study requires the comments of a doctor, but they will be gladly given. The recommended periodicity - "can be done once every six months", if for yourself, for general development.
Note that in the ESC only this study is done on the body composition and bioimpedansometry is not used, treating it with skepticism, however - and this is a direct quote - " but the results may coincide. "
An analysis is made of the individual number of minutes calculated from height / weight on GE devices. Who cares, here is a PDF with the results .
Why did we do this ?
Recently, we caused a wave of indignation with new scales , based on the old principle, known on market For many years, just bioimpedance.
And it seems like no one accused us straight on our foreheads that we were charlatans, but the sediment remained. As such, none of us has ever pursued the goal of deceiving everyone - and if you go through the blog posts, it will be obvious. Immediately there was an incident: neither prove nor refute, in fact, we can’t do anything, it works like this, and not otherwise. We can only periodically compare the results obtained in the same or another way. This time our table will be replenished with measurements from densitometry.
| Data | MEDASS | Mgb | Dexa |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fat mass in% | 19.5 | 21,4 | 19.7 |
| Fat mass in kg | 12.5 | 13.6 | 11.9 |
| Muscle mass | 27,2 | 28.5 | Muscle mass + connective tissue + fluids - 48.6 |
| Metabolism | 1555 Kcal / day | 1348 kcal / day | 1427 kcal / day |
| Mineral composition | 2,652 kg | 2.5 kg | 2,773 kg |
On what did:
- Bioimpedance at the Central Design Bureau of Russian Railways named after Semashko at MEDASS.
- Densitometry in the ECC on a special apparatus from GE Healthcare
- Compared with the readings of smart scales MGB Body Fat Scale (bioimpedance).
And, perhaps, the most interesting:
Does this mean that bioimpedance is an accurate and reliable technology?
We do not know: there are a number of clinical studies that confirm the compliance of the results in some parameters (percentage of fat) with an error of 3 to 6%.
Does this mean that the scales are accurate?
They correctly show the weight, and also coincide on 1 person for the same indicators with a small (as it seems to us) error, which for a consumer device makes them quite reliable for this person.
What else can you compare?
DEXA analysis is considered the most accurate (below, who watched the PDF, saw the margin of error) analysis of body composition and a reference for the appointment of any treatment.
Why didn't everything fit together?
Evaluation of muscle mass, as we have been explained, occurs in densitherapy much more extensively - these are the muscles of the whole body, wherever they are. In medical articles, much less parameters are compared - primarily the level of fat mass and the analysis of the mineral composition of bones.