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

[demetria]

I had a dexa scan done today and thought I would share my results with you all. I've been lurking on here for a while and always find it interesting to see others results so here are mine!. And here are some (deleted) (sports bra and shorts) for additional reference. My measurements are 37-29-39 and I have breast implants.



Background:I don't think that I look like my body fat % is that high, but I can't say I'm too surprised. I've had some injuries and depressing life events (a divorce about a year ago) that had left me moderately sedentary and my diet was very heavy in carbs--I consumed MAYBE 40g of protein a day. But I was still hiking once or twice a month and could run a 5k without feeling like I was going to die. I began a serious routine about 3 weeks ago and decided I wanted to do a dexa scan to use as a baseline as I start this journey.



Training:For these past 3 weeks i've been doing bootyful beginnings from strong curves 4 days/week with some cardio afterwards, plus an additional 2 days/week of just cardio (run/walk, hike, stairmaster) and stretching. I burn 400-600 calories/workout according to my apple watch. I've been consuming 1700-2000 calories a day and my macros are roughly 175c/144p/62f.



Surprisingly, my weight has not changed at all the past 3 weeks. Ideally, I'd like to gain muscle while I lose fat (recomp) but I doubt that's what's currently happening and I worry I'm going about this the wrong way. I'm worried that I'm not in a deficit at all since my body fat % is so high and that I should instead focus on cutting in order to get my body fat % down while achieving some lean gains. Should I drop my calories and/or up my cardio a bit?



Would love to know your thoughts!

 

[janellb]

@demetria As more and more people post their results, I'm seriously beginning to question the validity of dexa scans. I think, in theory, on a perfectly calibrated machine, dexa scans are probably pretty reliable. However, the likelihood of a machine not in a lab being perfectly calibrated is probably pretty low. I'm thinking that the reality of dexa scans is more in line with a bioimpedence scale, and useless for objectively measuring bodyfat, and only actually useful for determining progress relative to oneself or others who have been measured on the very same machine running the very same software.

This is a long way to saying that if you were hydrostatically weighed, I think it would say you're probably nowhere near 35% body fat.

 

[torontostreet]

@janellb I've been thinking the same thing. It seems like the body scans are just another club for people to beat themselves up with. Yet another way to tell beautiful young women, "no, no, don't you dare feel good about yourself. You have THIS wrong with you!"

 

[jasono]

@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. Hydrostatic weighing makes more assumptions so it has more room for error.

DEXA numbers are often higher than other methods but that doesn’t mean it overestimates. DEXA is considered the most accurate because it uses a 3 compartment model instead of 2. So unlike other body composition test it differentiates bone tissue from fat and the rest of your lean mass.

Low lean mass makes for more surprising results as you’ll have a higher body fat percentage than average people your size. And remember that 25-32% is considered average.

Here’s an example with 2 5’4’’ women, one is 117 lbs and 32.5% body fat while the other is 134 lbs 28.3% bodyfat. Both women actually have the same volume of fat. That fat volume is considered to be well into the normal range. I noticed some DEXA results include a chart with FMI like BMI to show how high or low your volume of fat is. I think it’s more useful to see that for people with low lean mass.

 

[janellb]

@jasono Not saying I think it's inaccurate solely because the numbers are higher than I would expect. I'm saying it primarily because I've seen a few (very few) that are higher than I would expect and a lot that I'm pretty sure are at least 3-5% LOWER than they realistically should be.

Because hydrostatic weighting relies on weight vs water displacement, as long as you have a properly calibrated scale (which is far easier to test) and a way to measure water displacement, it's easy to say this is properly calibrated. How do you test the calibration of the average dexa scanner as it specifically relates to body composition, particularly when it's not in a lab environment? As far as I know, there's no standarized dummy you can plop on there and say, "Yup, we're getting the right results." And you can't just have Sally or Joe hop up there and say, "Yup. Calibration is accurate."

 

[jasono]

@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 lung capacity but hydrostatic weighing uses a formula to estimate how much air is left in your lungs during the test that introduces more error. And it doesn’t know how dense your bones are while DEXA is primarily used for measuring bone mass. If you think DEXA is too inaccurate you can’t say hydrostatic weighing is more reliable.

 

[janellb]

@jasono Upon further research I found this: "a position paper published by the International Society for Clinical Densitometry in 2013 stated that GE and Norland have not altered their calibration of fat and lean mass in the past 20 years and few details exist on what these systems are calibrated to. Unfortunately comparisons of these densitometers with other imaging methods are no more useful in attaining accuracy because these other methods have not been calibrated to absolute standards either."

Also, I found out there are dummies that can be used as a constant, but they don't represent an absolute standard, so even when using them you can't say this proves our machine is properly calibrated, but you can say this proves our machine is constant unto itself. However, it sounds like most non-medical/non-lab places that offer dexa scans do not use them. So I stand by what I said in regards to questioning the validity of dexa body composition scans.

Hangartner et al. The Official Positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry: Acquisition of Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry Body Composition and Considerations Regarding Analysis and Repeatability of Measures. Journal of Clinical Densitometry: Assessment & Management of Musculoskeletal Health, vol. 16, no. 4, 520-536, 2013.

 

[jasono]

@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 seem worth the cost so I wish more people were aware of that.

People get too fixated on body fat percentage when it is still an estimate and can’t be reliable measured in a convenient way.

 

[janellb]

@jasono Not a bad idea.

 

[jasono]

@janellb I sent them a message

 

[janellb]

@jasono My understanding is that technicians tend to only be licensed when the tests are being used for medical purposes. Body composition scans are typically not done for medical purposes.

And you can't just say they know how to calibrate them (I'm pretty sure that's not accurate anyway. That's like saying a bank teller knows how to calibrate the ATM located in their branch--they don't.) without specifying how that's done. What metric are they using (again, outside of lab conditions) to do this? How often are they doing this? If they don't have a standard to test against, they categorically can not say the machine is properly calibrated.

 

[jasono]

@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 and varies by state in the US so I see why you have a concern about it. So if you asked the technician and they don’t know how to calibrate it that seems like a bad place to get tested. They must be using old equipment and haven’t undergone any training. But places like the one that wrote the article that give body composition results are trying to be as accurate as possible.

 

[raika]

@demetria Seconding all the comments that your current plan seems solid, and that recomping is slow.

Even if you’re not seeing super visible effects, a sure way to know if it’s working is your strength. Able to lift more? Better stamina? Improvements in athletic performance are a good indication your muscles are improving. Since it’s resistance training, you can be confident they’re growing too. If you’re the same weight on the scale but getting stronger, you’re definitely losing fat and gaining muscle.

Strong curves and it’s relatives are GREAT programs that have worked really well for a lot of people. Stick to it, eat healthy, and the recomp WILL work. Have faith in that and enjoy the process along the way!

 

[johannammmm]

@demetria 35%?! I mean that in a good way because you look a lot leaner! You have such a nice figure. Benefit of being tall maybe!

 

[demetria]

@johannammmm Thanks, I've always said that my favorite part of being tall was being able to gain 10 lbs without anyone noticing, haha

 

[painti01r]

@demetria Looking at your arms and upper body I would not have guessed 35.5% BF.

Banging your details into a TDEE calculator brings up:

Basal Metabolic Rate: 1,453 calories per day

Sedentary: 1,743 calories per day

Light Exercise: 1,997 calories per day

Moderate Exercise 2,252 calories per day

So you may want to look at your calorie targets.

If you're really concerned with your BF% you could do a short cut before beginning your recomp. You are within the normal weight range though, and you may lose some lean mass on a cut, keeping your protein targets high and still working the muscle may help somewhat with that. Recomp is more where you're going, but it is personal choice of course.

Recomposition is a slow progress. But it is good to check in at the 3-4 week mark in case you've drastically underestimated or overestimated calories. Track your measurements, track your lifting numbers, track your overall sense of energy/well-being for more ways to keep an eye on your progress (rather than just weight alone).

You might want to look at trying to get your protein higher, to around 170g (1g/lb) per day, focussing on lean sources.

If I was your position, and doing 3 days moderate, 1 day light, and 3 days sedentary, I'd be eating 1997 calories per day. This is just my opinion if it was me.

You could also look at calorie cycling if you feel you don't have enough energy on lifting days, and eat over 2000 those days and 1700-1800 on lighter or rest days.

 

[demetria]

@painti01r I used some of these calculators after I had my BF% since I read they're more accurate with that figure. I'm assuming my calories are ok but I REALLY struggle to get enough protein and since my goal is to gain muscle I think you might be on to something with 170g a day. I haven't been doing any sort of protein supplements since I'm pretty strictly dairy-free but I picked up an egg-white protein powder that I finally tried last night and I'm in lovvvveeee. I think this will help out for sure.

 

[robert2]

@demetria The whey protein powder was causing me grief, so I switched to a vegan pea protein powder that is super awesome if you're ever looking for more options!

 

[demetria]

@robert2 Yeah I'd love more options- do you have a specific one you recommend?

I tried this one and like it so far. Pretty expensive but the taste is great.

 

[robert2]

@demetria I use the vanilla Trader Joe's brand mixed with vanilla almond milk and a tablespoon of cocoa powder (~170 calories, 20g protein). It's my post-run meal every time, seems to be doing fine.

You could probably also mix it in some oatmeal, but I haven't tried that yet.