This and related articles are fine as far as they go. But they are dated and do not go far enough. For example, the World Health Organization recommends an optimal BMI range for HEALTH AND LONGEVITY of 22-18.5 which is based on thorough statistical analysis of mortality and medical cost records.
This article offers no reasons for targeting any specific body composition. After all, without a target, why consider body composition at all? Additionally, it misses the best body composition method: MRI which is the most accurate and detailed and provides pictures of exactly where body fat is located. Fat location has important health and longevity implications because visceral adipose tissue is a marker for a number of potentially fatal diseases.
This is the best explanation of accurate weight calculations, including BMI, that I have seen in some time. Although it does not account for "shrinkage" as we age (therefore, height and weight may be inaccurate, since the appearance of "body fat" may be in the midsection due to spinal compression), it clearly details the different methods for calculation of accurate weight for height and body habitus. Thank you.
Bod Pod is like underwater weighing but less accurate due to the difference in density between water and air. It has all the same sources of error and then some. It's better than no measurement. But circumference measurements are probably better tracking than anything but DXA for most people.
I am reading the book "Racing Weight" by Matt Fitzgerald and he talks about DEXA scanning being a highly accurate way to measure body fat percentage. Before reading this book, I didn't know that. I'm wondering why this method is never mentioned by SparkPeople and not in this article. Getting a DEXA scan can be covered by insurance.
I've been using a combo of DXA scans every six months and a home body composition scale that's consistently off by the same % (or at least according to the 3 scans I've had done).
My BMI is normal, now to get the fat down too.
11/15/2009 10:51:55 PM
Here is link for the DXA body composition mentioned by DEXARED. They don't mention the X-ray dose you surely must get with such a scan. Its the cumulative dose that matters so add many DXA scans and some normal X-rays and high community exposure and it would have a significant risk of cancer effect.
You can do an easy test in the pool. It is a measurement done for scuba diving and I found it really interesting. Go to the deep end in the water. Take a deep breath and then keep your body upright. A "neutral" body will float with the water at eye level. A body with a lot of fat will float with the water below eye level (for me at my mouth). A body with a lot of muscle will float (or not) below eye level. Of course there are lots of factors like water density that can change the results but I was amazed in my class how quickly they decided what weights people needed to be "neutral" in the water. Cost - admission to a pool.
7/1/2008 3:28:45 PM
I am disappointed that you made no mention of DXA (dual energy x-ray absorptiometry) in your analysis of the various body composition methods. This is a very easy, quick and precise way to determine fat and lean mass. The person is measured from head to toe and is a very good way to follow weight loss from one time to another visually showing the entire person. None of the other methods show you an image. This is used by many of the most prestigeous universities and research studies in the country. You missed a very important piece to an otherwise very thurough article.
I had been wondering why the hand held bioimpedance machine that we use at worked shows my body fat as 15% or more less than what my scales at home say. I certainly have more fat in the lower half of my body, so if that is all my scales are measuring, of course it would be higher, than a machine that is only testing the fat in my arms. So do I average the two to get a more accurate number of my body fat?!lol
SparkPeople, SparkCoach, SparkPages, SparkPoints, SparkTeams, SparkDiet, SparkAmerica, SparkRecipes, DailySpark, and other marks are trademarks of SparkPeople, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
SPARKPEOPLE is a registered trademark of SparkPeople, Inc. in the United States, European Union, Canada, and Australia. All rights reserved.