Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
hydrotatic weiging locations (OHIO)
- Thread starter flyingjer
- Start date
LT3
New member
Thats what i thought too, untill recently. it was discovered that the fat calculations and the muscle and what not calculations were made using numbers that were at first thought to be constant among all peopl, when infact they are not. these numbers change among people, and although they might not change by much, the end result of the equation is impacted by them significantly. so thats why it sucks. a lot of profesional athletes call my university to get tested and we have to tell them that we no longer do it, due to the fact that it pretty much sucks.
LT3
New member
guys, i dont mean to sound like a dick. but what part of my post didnt you get. it sucks. i was based on numbers that were thought to be the same among everyone, but thats not the case, the numbers change among individuals. there are other methods that will tell you your bf%, way better.
LT3 said:
Sounds like you're being one to me. What's your reasoning for thinking "I dont get it" show me some proof that this test is just bunk, you're way off base. There are several ways, but this one can be extremely accurate when administered properly.
Forgive me if I sound like a dick, but I "get it"
LT3
New member
bro dont get offended, i was serious in my previous post, i really didnt mean to sound like a dick, but i stated that the reason why its not accurate is because when equating the bf% the numbers used for fat density or muscle density were inaccurate. they were once thought to be the same among everyone, now they discovered that they are not. although the difference may not be huge between the numbers themselves, the outcome is significantly affected by them. that's why its not accurate. for example if you go to get it done and say your bf% turns out to be 12%, chances are the real % is roughly around there, maybe 10%-14%. so as far as the general population goes, this method is fine but for people that need precise measurements, this method is not the best. i never said that it didnt work, i just said that its not what people think it is (the most accurate way to measure bf%). so once again indy, and everyone on this thread, i didnt mean to sound like an asshole and i appologise if i did. but i already stated in my previous posts, the reason why its not accurate (or as accurate as scientists once thought it would be). if you guys wish to ignore the reason, go ahead, im just offering my knowledge.
LT3
New member
thats kool. we agree to disagree.
well one of them is the CPAFLA, it tests your bf% with calipers (using 12 sites) and it uses a state of the art pair of calipers, that have a turgor setting for every level of skin tightness. it also checks BMI and your waist circumfarance in order to determine where the fat is. I really feel as if im doing it injustice, because its a lot more complex than that, but thats a basic idea of it. it was recently developed by a canadian professor.
phatrr
New member
LT3 said:
CPAFLA stands for Canadian Physical Activity, Fitness & Lifestyle Appraisal, not a body composition method.
CPAFLA recognizes that the percentage of error for skinfold measurement of bodyfat is 3.7% and the percentage of error for hydrostatic measurement is 2.7%. Most accurate is MRI, by the way.
The big problem you run into is the moron behind the calipers. The techs/docs running a hydrostatic weighing will be well-trained and experienced. The personal trainer using the CPAFLA protocol may not have near the level of expertise to get to 3.7% accuracy.
The skinfold method is recommended simply b/c it can be done without expensive, large equipment or discomfort to the subject. It's great for field work.
But hydrostatic is more accurate.
Dr. Robert Ross developed the protocol recommended by the CPAFLA for using skinfold measurements, and the current CPAFLA protocol is a five point measurement.
Once again - skinfold is a great choice for work in non-institutional settings.
So, I'm going to continue to disagree with your statements.
LT3
New member
Yes youre right, but the CPAFLA also includes body comp. and youre right in your points, but when i mention the CPAFLA i do not associate it with gyms or personal training, i associate it with the same trained individuals that do the dunk tank. i also agree that the most accurate is the MRI. like i said before, theres nothing wrong with the dunk tank, its just not as accurate as they thought it once was. realisticly speaking, i would be fine with CPAFLA, dunk tank...w/e as long as i get a ballpark range.
my bad flyingjer, we did go off topic.
Similar threads
