How to measure the level of fat: bioimpedance vs by eye vs DEXA (Densitometry)
Since the first review of the MGB scales, the controversy has not subsided, and for good reason. However, once again we list the most common ways to assess body composition, talk about matches and share life hacking, where to make 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 both “by eye” and “mirror”. And these people were also right!
A really adequate person with normal self-esteem can simply compare himself with the pictures:
')
And these pictures will give him a clear hint that it’s time to change something or it’s not time. The second method from improvised is a method with a caliper. This is such a thing for 100 rubles with aliexpress, with the help of which you can make a mistake two times, but again: if you are really fat, it will show it.
You measure the subcutaneous fat by clamping this "clothespin" so that the arrows on the handle are opposite each other. On a human test 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 (as 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 the analyzes of medium availability - bioimpedancemetry, which is not loved here. The method, to be frank, still prompts to compare it and compare. In various scientific materials they write that, compared with the reference bio-impedance, it makes a difference of 3 to 6%, but at the same time it is characterized by reproducibility of results. Some write almost categorically that bio-impedance technology can provide accurate readings of fat mass.
At the same time, it is important to note here that we are talking about the so-called clinical bio-impedance meters, first of all about the models of Tanita, common in the west. One of them looks like this:
It is also noted that a number of factors affect bioimpedancemetry, so it is important to correctly indicate height / weight / sex and, if allowed, other features, such as skin color.
In Russia, the bio-impedance meter MEDASS is known, which we talked about in the previous article . He also appears in the publication "Encyclopedia of Testing", where in general the idea of ​​3-6% error is taken as a basis.
Bod pod
Another method is the analysis in the Bod Pod plethysmographic analyzer. It is considered to be accurate, but where it was impossible to find in Moscow.
It is clarified that this is the only plethysmographic analyzer that uses densitometry technology.
Dexa
Actually, densitometry. This is something like a x-ray, and to make in Moscow such an analysis is a kind of quest. Let me explain why: in the overwhelming majority of clinics, this study is done only on the analysis of the mineral composition of bones with suspected osteoporosis.
More precisely, as explained today, the devices can do something completely, but the workers simply do not know what they can, therefore they refuse. Analysis is expensive. Of the five clinics, which the two managed to get through, cost about 7,500 rubles, and the rest (including the manager of the president) include 10,000 rubles.
The promised life hacking: full-body denystometry (the service is called “Total Body”) is cheapest performed at the Endocrinology Research Center in Dm. Ulyanova: cost 2500 rubles ! If anyone is interested, we did not find cheaper prices.
The study requires the comments of the doctor, but they will willingly give them. The recommended frequency - "can be done every six months," if for yourself, for common development.
Note that in the ESC, only this study is done on body composition and bioimpedancemetry is not used, being skeptical about it, however, and this is a direct quotation, “but the results may coincide.”
An analysis is made of the individual number of minutes calculated from height / weight on GE machines. Who cares - here is a PDF with the results .
Why did we do it
Recently, we have caused a wave of indignation with new weights , which are based on the old principle, known on the market for many years, just bioimpedance.
And it seems that no one blamed us in the forehead that we were charlatans, but the sediment remained. As such, the goal of all to deceive, none of us have ever pursued - and if you go through the blog posts, it will be obvious. An incident immediately came out: neither prove nor deny, in fact, we can not do anything, it works like this, and not otherwise. We can only periodically compare results obtained in the same or another way. This time our table will be replenished with measurements with densitometry.
What did you do on:
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 consistency of the results in some parameters (percentage of fat) with an accuracy of 3 to 6%.
Does this mean that the scales are accurate?
They correctly show 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 PDF, saw the margin of error) body composition analysis and reference for the appointment of any treatment.
Why did not all come together?
Assessment of muscle mass, as we explained, with densitomeria occurs much more extensively - it is the muscles of the whole organism, wherever they are. In medical articles, much less parameters are compared - first of all, the level of fat mass and 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 both “by eye” and “mirror”. And these people were also right!
A really adequate person with normal self-esteem can simply compare himself with the pictures:
')
Men
Women
And these pictures will give him a clear hint that it’s time to change something or it’s not time. The second method from improvised is a method with a caliper. This is such a thing for 100 rubles with aliexpress, with the help of which you can make a mistake two times, but again: if you are really fat, it will show it.
You measure the subcutaneous fat by clamping this "clothespin" so that the arrows on the handle are opposite each other. On a human test 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 (as 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 the analyzes of medium availability - bioimpedancemetry, which is not loved here. The method, to be frank, still prompts to compare it and compare. In various scientific materials they write that, compared with the reference bio-impedance, it makes a difference of 3 to 6%, but at the same time it is characterized by reproducibility of results. Some write almost categorically that bio-impedance technology can provide accurate readings of fat mass.
At the same time, it is important to note here that we are talking about the so-called clinical bio-impedance meters, first of all about the models of Tanita, common in the west. One of them looks like this:
It is also noted that a number of factors affect bioimpedancemetry, so it is important to correctly indicate height / weight / sex and, if allowed, other features, such as skin color.
In Russia, the bio-impedance meter MEDASS is known, which we talked about in the previous article . He also appears in the publication "Encyclopedia of Testing", where in general the idea of ​​3-6% error is taken as a basis.
Bod pod
Another method is the analysis in the Bod Pod plethysmographic analyzer. It is considered to be accurate, but where it was impossible to find in Moscow.
It is clarified that this is the only plethysmographic analyzer that uses densitometry technology.
Dexa
Actually, densitometry. This is something like a x-ray, and to make in Moscow such an analysis is a kind of quest. Let me explain why: in the overwhelming majority of clinics, this study is done only on the analysis of the mineral composition of bones with suspected osteoporosis.
More precisely, as explained today, the devices can do something completely, but the workers simply do not know what they can, therefore they refuse. Analysis is expensive. Of the five clinics, which the two managed to get through, cost about 7,500 rubles, and the rest (including the manager of the president) include 10,000 rubles.
The promised life hacking: full-body denystometry (the service is called “Total Body”) is cheapest performed at the Endocrinology Research Center in Dm. Ulyanova: cost 2500 rubles ! If anyone is interested, we did not find cheaper prices.
The study requires the comments of the doctor, but they will willingly give them. The recommended frequency - "can be done every six months," if for yourself, for common development.
Note that in the ESC, only this study is done on body composition and bioimpedancemetry is not used, being skeptical about it, however, and this is a direct quotation, “but the results may coincide.”
An analysis is made of the individual number of minutes calculated from height / weight on GE machines. Who cares - here is a PDF with the results .
Why did we do it
Recently, we have caused a wave of indignation with new weights , which are based on the old principle, known on the market for many years, just bioimpedance.
And it seems that no one blamed us in the forehead that we were charlatans, but the sediment remained. As such, the goal of all to deceive, none of us have ever pursued - and if you go through the blog posts, it will be obvious. An incident immediately came out: neither prove nor deny, in fact, we can not do anything, it works like this, and not otherwise. We can only periodically compare results obtained in the same or another way. This time our table will be replenished with measurements with 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 + fluid - 48.6 |
| Metabolism | 1555 Kcal / day | 1348 Kcal / day | 1427 Kcal / day |
| Mineral composition | 2,652 kg | 2.5 kg | 2,773 kg |
What did you do on:
- Bioimpedance at the Central Clinical Hospital of the Russian Railways named after Semashko on MEDASS.
- Densitometry in the ESC on a special device from GE Healthcare
- They were compared with the readings of MGB Body Fat Scale smart scales (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 consistency of the results in some parameters (percentage of fat) with an accuracy of 3 to 6%.
Does this mean that the scales are accurate?
They correctly show 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 PDF, saw the margin of error) body composition analysis and reference for the appointment of any treatment.
Why did not all come together?
Assessment of muscle mass, as we explained, with densitomeria occurs much more extensively - it is the muscles of the whole organism, wherever they are. In medical articles, much less parameters are compared - first of all, the level of fat mass and analysis of the mineral composition of bones.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/373753/
All Articles