| Subject: Re: scales (sorry for the length - but good reading) |
Author:
Deb
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 11:28:14 01/07/05 Fri
In reply to:
Chocolate
's message, "Re: scales" on 10:46:04 01/07/05 Fri
>Deb is right, these scales mostly never work, I used
>to have on at work and it was the state of the art but
>the results of that scale never come out the same as
>test results which are performed in a hospital. If I
>were you I'd save my money.
>A good gym club or fitness centre mostly has a body
>fat metre and they are mostly pretty accurate.
>
>Chocolate
That's what the article I tried to post a link to says...go to a gym and pay about $15.00 for them to do it (usually with skin-fold calipers) if you have the same person do it every time, it's fairly accurate. They used to do mostly hydrostat or underwater weighing but that seems to be becoming extinct.
I just noticed the last link didn't bring you to the page I meant to post...it asks you to subscribe - sorry about that. Here's some passages from the article:
"Exercisers getting in shape will actually change shape via aerobic and strength training. They will drop fat pounds and gain muscle pounds. Overall pounds, as measured on a regular scale, might not change much, so charting improvement in body composition is the best way to highlight success...."
"Unfortunately, the methods to measure body fat aren't a snap. Some have potential accuracy problems. Only one sure way exists to nail down your fat composition: autopsy. Everything else is estimation..."
"Increasingly, the new benchmark is DEXA, or Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry. DEXA uses low X-rays to produce an image of fat, muscle and bone. It's the best method for accuracy, Ball said. It's also impractical for most people because it's done in a lab and uses radiation.
A machine called the Bod Pod is up-and-coming. It works on a theory akin to underwater weighing but uses air displacement to make calculations. Customers sit in an egg-shaped chamber and receive a reading in a few minutes. The manufacturer said there's no Bod Pod in the Kansas City area. Ball has one at his lab at MU and charges $25 for the test..."
"Two other methods are readily available. One is “bioelectric impedance,” in which an electric pulse is sent up one leg and down the other. Manufacturers such as Tanita Corp. have incorporated the technology in a bathroom-style scale. Fat slows the signal, allowing for a body fat computation.
“Bioelectric impedance gets you in the ballpark,” Scott said.
But to Scott, Ball and others, the winning method is still the skinfold test, which measures fat by pinching several sites on the body with calipers. The skin is pulled away from the muscle and measured in millimeters. The measurements are put into a formula that adjusts for factors such as gender, weight and age."
"But accuracy problems still arise. The person performing the test must manipulate the skin just so. Some fitness centers are better than others at training testers. “If they're a little bit off in their technique, it can lead to significant errors,” he said.
Two testers measuring the same person can get different readings. It's important to stick with the same tester as progress is tracked.
“With the skinfold test, it's almost wholly inaccurate to have different people do your percent body fat,” Scott said..."
"Besides skinfold, Scott recommends using a tape measure for “circumference measurements,” including around the arm, abdomen, bottom, waist and neck, and to check weight in pounds. “From those three things you can track a person's progress,” he said."
The people the article is quoting are John Scott from the Scott Fitness Center in Kansas City and Steve Ball who is Assistant Professor of Exercise Physiology at the University of Missouri-Columbia.
Written by: By EDWARD M. EVELD
The Kansas City Star
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 