Search results

  1. J

    Dexa Results: 29 | 6'1"| 170lbs | 35.5% BF

    @demetria Your current plan seems good. Recomp progress is very slow so you can't see any changes in 3 weeks. Since your lean mass is low I think recomping is a good idea. I wouldn't be too optimistic about cutting and making lean gains since many people lose a bit of lean mass on cuts and its...
  2. J

    Dexa Results: 29 | 6'1"| 170lbs | 35.5% BF

    @janellb I found this article on the topic. http://www.measureup.com.au/the-devil-is-always-in-the-detail/ It should be their job to calibrate the machine so that’s not a fair comparison, but I assumed there were standard qualifications to operate it but apparently that depends on your location...
  3. J

    Dexa Results: 29 | 6'1"| 170lbs | 35.5% BF

    @janellb I sent them a message
  4. J

    Dexa Results: 29 | 6'1"| 170lbs | 35.5% BF

    @janellb Yeah I saw that reference. I wonder if it would be good for the mods to mention this in the FAQ for people always asking about DEXA scans. That way people can ask about calibration when looking at places or decide on a different method. If they don’t calibrate the machine it doesn’t...
  5. J

    Dexa Results: 29 | 6'1"| 170lbs | 35.5% BF

    @janellb DEXA technicians are licensed and know how to calibrate the machine. That’s not the main source of error. The error is in the equations used and both methods use equations. Hydrostatic weighing is prone to more errors with things like residual lung volume. People don’t have the same...
  6. J

    Dexa Results: 29 | 6'1"| 170lbs | 35.5% BF

    @janellb Yeah this stuff is most useful to track changes but if you think DEXA is prone to machine error why would you think hydrostatic weighing doesn’t have that as well? Both have variance in results by the machine and technicians skill, and use formulas to estimate based on some assumptions...
Back
Top