Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
Fast Twitch Fiber
New member
I'm 17% lard. They did a skin fold test first and it had me at 10%. I don't think my body fits the equation used for the calipers. Anyway, the goal is 12% lard by the end of summer.
Just had hydrostatic weighing
- Thread starter Fast Twitch Fiber
- Start date
Fast Twitch Fiber
New member
I've used the bod pod several times before. The underwater weighing results are more consistent with the bod pod than skin fold. I found it difficult to get rid of all my air underwater. I thought I would explode
Mythicalbeing
New member
The dunk is the best fat tester out there...I have to go 2 hours to get tested but well worth it.
psychedout
New member
To determine bf% I just look at the mirror. If its too high, than time to cut. 
Burning_Inside
Elite Mentor
How much are these tests, and for those of you that are doing them, I have questions..
If they are "expensive", like over 100 dollars, why do you feel it's that important to spend that sort of cash to know your actual bodyfat %? Are you entering some bodyfat % contest or something?
Is it not enough to look in the mirror and say hey, I look like I need to lose more fat?
Is it not enough to get a test done by other, cheaper means, on a weekly basis, and while the results may not be accurate, you'd at least know if you're dropping or gaining fat?
Do you use the fact that you get dunked in a tank to find your bodyfat in conversation with other people, and use the results of the test in conversation also, in hopes of amazing the other person, or scoring a lay?
If they are "expensive", like over 100 dollars, why do you feel it's that important to spend that sort of cash to know your actual bodyfat %? Are you entering some bodyfat % contest or something?
Is it not enough to look in the mirror and say hey, I look like I need to lose more fat?
Is it not enough to get a test done by other, cheaper means, on a weekly basis, and while the results may not be accurate, you'd at least know if you're dropping or gaining fat?
Do you use the fact that you get dunked in a tank to find your bodyfat in conversation with other people, and use the results of the test in conversation also, in hopes of amazing the other person, or scoring a lay?
NJjuice22
New member
\psychedout said:To determine bf% I just look at the mirror. If its too high, than time to cut.
word, the scale and bodyfat tests are not needed for me , i can always tell my progress in the mirror. If i am at where i want to be, the number some stupid test gives me doesnt mean shit.
I`ve never done it but if you get dunked once, then you can always determine what bf% you are in the future in comparison of how you looked like when dunked. So you would only have to do it once really to get a very good idea of future bf%.
I hope I made sense.lol
I hope I made sense.lol
psychedout said:To determine bf% I just look at the mirror. If its too high, than time to cut.
Gotta say I pretty much do that. I do have this digital thing which you hold out after entering your details. Works like the weighing scales one, but im not sure how reliable it is, so I tend to use sight. I suppose its fine until you get really cut, then it may be hard to tell visually.(
I'm sure that sounds like bollox)i had my bf tested yestarday.....it was 20 bucks, but coll and accurate a s shit.....theu take this gun with an ultrasound type device.....lay it on an unflexed un pumped bicep..the press a button and you get this whole readout...anyone have that done?
i was happy i went from16-18% bf to 10% in 8 weeks on a var onlycyle and gained weight!: wohooo
i was happy i went from16-18% bf to 10% in 8 weeks on a var onlycyle and gained weight!: wohooo
The bod pod along with dexa scan are pretty inconsistent, hydro and good old skin calipers are great when they are used properly. Hydrostatic weighing is also somewhat dependant on the person who is being weighed, whether or not they are following the protocol properly. IE they dont exhale all they can.
Calipers are crap when it comes to accuracy (even the $1500 ones), with someone who has done it for 15 years. They will give you a ballpark, which is usuless in my opinion. The digital ones are even worse, there are just waaaay to many variables.
Biolectrical Impediance testing is somewhat inaccurate as well. With this method, a low voltage is passed through your body to determine your bf. The slower the signal the more fat you have casue the fat slows down the signal. The signal travels quickly through muscle because muscle is made up of 70% water and water conducts electricity. Fat is only 5-13% water so it slows down the signal. How saturated you are plays a MAJOR role with this method. Caffiene, alchohol, fatigue, exercising, dehydration and supersaturation can scew this reading greatly. Also, if you are really fat or a super skinny ecto, this method is pretty much useless.
The hands down best method is DEXA (Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry). Extreme accuracy, more so than Hydrodensitometry Weighing. I believe that this is what they use to check the Mr. Olympia competetors. Nothing beats it. However it is very expensive. I believe that there is only one machine in western Canada and 1 in Toronto. I was told that the closest one to me is in California, and I am Canadian. Go figure... They are supposedly making their way into health centres now.
Mavy.
btw GoneLifting ... I know exactly what you mean. You do it once, take a pic of yourself, then you have a point of reference to go by for comparison.
Biolectrical Impediance testing is somewhat inaccurate as well. With this method, a low voltage is passed through your body to determine your bf. The slower the signal the more fat you have casue the fat slows down the signal. The signal travels quickly through muscle because muscle is made up of 70% water and water conducts electricity. Fat is only 5-13% water so it slows down the signal. How saturated you are plays a MAJOR role with this method. Caffiene, alchohol, fatigue, exercising, dehydration and supersaturation can scew this reading greatly. Also, if you are really fat or a super skinny ecto, this method is pretty much useless.
The hands down best method is DEXA (Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry). Extreme accuracy, more so than Hydrodensitometry Weighing. I believe that this is what they use to check the Mr. Olympia competetors. Nothing beats it. However it is very expensive. I believe that there is only one machine in western Canada and 1 in Toronto. I was told that the closest one to me is in California, and I am Canadian. Go figure... They are supposedly making their way into health centres now.
Mavy.
btw GoneLifting ... I know exactly what you mean. You do it once, take a pic of yourself, then you have a point of reference to go by for comparison.
Good read on BF testing methods besides the conventional ones (hydro and skinfold).
DEXA (Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry) - A relatively new technology that is very accurate and precise, DEXA is based on a three-compartment model that divides the body into total body mineral, fat-free soft (lean) mass, and fat tissue mass. This technique is based on the assumption that bone mineral content is directly proportional to the amount of photon energy absorbed by the bone being studied.
DEXA uses a whole body scanner that has two low dose x-rays at different sources that read bone and soft tissue mass simultaneously. The sources are mounted beneath a table with a detector overhead. The scanner passes across a person's reclining body with data collected at 0.5 cm intervals. A scan takes between 10-20 minutes. It is safe and noninvasive with little burden to the individual, although a person must lie still throughout the procedure.
DEXA is fast becoming the new "gold standard" because it provides a higher degree of precision in only one measurement and has the ability to show exactly where fat is distributed throughout the body. It is very reliable and its results extremely repeatable; in addition, the method is safe and presents little burden to the subject. Although this method is not as accurate in measuring the extremely obese and the cost of equipment is high, DEXA is quickly moving from the laboratory setting into clinical studies.
NIR (Near Infrared Interactance) - A fiber optic probe is connected to a digital analyzer that indirectly measures the tissue composition (fat and water) at various sites on the body. This method is based on studies that show optical densities are linearly related to subcutaneous and total body fat. The biceps is the most often used single site for estimating body fat using the NIR method. The NIR light penetrates the tissues and is reflected off the bone back to the detector. The NIR data is entered into a prediction equation with the person's height, weight, frame size, and level of activity to estimate the percent body fat.
This method has become popular outside of the laboratory because it is simple, fast, noninvasive, and the equipment is relatively inexpensive. However, the amount of pressure applied to the fiber optic probe during measurement may affect the values of optical densities, and skin color and hydration level may be potential sources of error. To date, studies conducted with this method have produced mixed results; a high degree of error has occurred with very lean and very obese people; and the validity of a single-site measurement at the biceps is questionable. Numerous sources report that more research is needed to substantiate the validity, accuracy and applicability of this method.
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) - An x-ray based method in which a magnetic field "excites" water and fat molecules in the body, producing a measurable signal. A person lies within the magnet as a computer scans the body. High-quality images show the amount of fat and where it is distributed. MRI takes about 30 minutes and is very safe as it uses no ionizing radiation, but use is limited due to the high cost of equipment and analysis.
Total Body Electrical Conductivity (TOBEC) - This method is based on lean tissue being a better conductor of electricity than fat. A person lies in a cylinder that generates a very weak electromagnetic field. The strength of the field depends on the electrolytes found in the person's body water. In about 10 seconds, TOBEC makes 10 conductivity readings that estimate lean body mass. Although very accurate, its use is limited due to the high cost of the equipment.
Computed Tomography (CT) - CT produces cross-sectional scans of the body. An x-ray tube sends a beam of photons toward a detector. As the beam rotates around a person, data is collected, stored, and applied to complex algorithms to build images that determine body composition. CT is particularly useful in giving a ratio of intra-abdominal fat to extra-abdominal fat. It is noninvasive, but potential is limited by exposure to radiation and high equipment cost.
BOD POD (Air Displacement) - Based on the same principle as underwater weighing, the BOD POD used computerized sensors to measure how much air is displaced while a person sits for 20 seconds in a capsule. It uses a calculation to determine body density, then estimated body fat. The equipment is very expensive and limited in availability.
BIA (Bioelectrical Impedance) - The only method that is based on measuring something, not estimating anything, is Bio-Impedance measurement. Bio-Impedance is a means of measuring electrical signals as they pass through the fat, lean mass, and water in the body. Through laboratory research we know the actual impedance or conductivity of various tissues in the body, and we know that by measuring current between two electrodes and applying this information to complex proven scientific formulas accurate body composition can be determined. The fact that the measurement is based on a reading of lean mass and not an estimate of fat mass, lends to a much more comprehensive testing method and results.
DEXA (Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry) - A relatively new technology that is very accurate and precise, DEXA is based on a three-compartment model that divides the body into total body mineral, fat-free soft (lean) mass, and fat tissue mass. This technique is based on the assumption that bone mineral content is directly proportional to the amount of photon energy absorbed by the bone being studied.
DEXA uses a whole body scanner that has two low dose x-rays at different sources that read bone and soft tissue mass simultaneously. The sources are mounted beneath a table with a detector overhead. The scanner passes across a person's reclining body with data collected at 0.5 cm intervals. A scan takes between 10-20 minutes. It is safe and noninvasive with little burden to the individual, although a person must lie still throughout the procedure.
DEXA is fast becoming the new "gold standard" because it provides a higher degree of precision in only one measurement and has the ability to show exactly where fat is distributed throughout the body. It is very reliable and its results extremely repeatable; in addition, the method is safe and presents little burden to the subject. Although this method is not as accurate in measuring the extremely obese and the cost of equipment is high, DEXA is quickly moving from the laboratory setting into clinical studies.
NIR (Near Infrared Interactance) - A fiber optic probe is connected to a digital analyzer that indirectly measures the tissue composition (fat and water) at various sites on the body. This method is based on studies that show optical densities are linearly related to subcutaneous and total body fat. The biceps is the most often used single site for estimating body fat using the NIR method. The NIR light penetrates the tissues and is reflected off the bone back to the detector. The NIR data is entered into a prediction equation with the person's height, weight, frame size, and level of activity to estimate the percent body fat.
This method has become popular outside of the laboratory because it is simple, fast, noninvasive, and the equipment is relatively inexpensive. However, the amount of pressure applied to the fiber optic probe during measurement may affect the values of optical densities, and skin color and hydration level may be potential sources of error. To date, studies conducted with this method have produced mixed results; a high degree of error has occurred with very lean and very obese people; and the validity of a single-site measurement at the biceps is questionable. Numerous sources report that more research is needed to substantiate the validity, accuracy and applicability of this method.
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) - An x-ray based method in which a magnetic field "excites" water and fat molecules in the body, producing a measurable signal. A person lies within the magnet as a computer scans the body. High-quality images show the amount of fat and where it is distributed. MRI takes about 30 minutes and is very safe as it uses no ionizing radiation, but use is limited due to the high cost of equipment and analysis.
Total Body Electrical Conductivity (TOBEC) - This method is based on lean tissue being a better conductor of electricity than fat. A person lies in a cylinder that generates a very weak electromagnetic field. The strength of the field depends on the electrolytes found in the person's body water. In about 10 seconds, TOBEC makes 10 conductivity readings that estimate lean body mass. Although very accurate, its use is limited due to the high cost of the equipment.
Computed Tomography (CT) - CT produces cross-sectional scans of the body. An x-ray tube sends a beam of photons toward a detector. As the beam rotates around a person, data is collected, stored, and applied to complex algorithms to build images that determine body composition. CT is particularly useful in giving a ratio of intra-abdominal fat to extra-abdominal fat. It is noninvasive, but potential is limited by exposure to radiation and high equipment cost.
BOD POD (Air Displacement) - Based on the same principle as underwater weighing, the BOD POD used computerized sensors to measure how much air is displaced while a person sits for 20 seconds in a capsule. It uses a calculation to determine body density, then estimated body fat. The equipment is very expensive and limited in availability.
BIA (Bioelectrical Impedance) - The only method that is based on measuring something, not estimating anything, is Bio-Impedance measurement. Bio-Impedance is a means of measuring electrical signals as they pass through the fat, lean mass, and water in the body. Through laboratory research we know the actual impedance or conductivity of various tissues in the body, and we know that by measuring current between two electrodes and applying this information to complex proven scientific formulas accurate body composition can be determined. The fact that the measurement is based on a reading of lean mass and not an estimate of fat mass, lends to a much more comprehensive testing method and results.
bigp3 said:
I believe it bro. I agree with Dialtone. I think that a lot of people who guestimate their BF on this site are completely wrong. Based on peoples pics and what they claim to have for thier BF, I thought that my bf would around 12% (on Jan 1st). I tested out to be 17% lard too (with calipers). I have since then went from weighing at 215 to 204 (today). My abs are just starting to play peek-a-boo with me now. I would have originall thought that I would be at about 9% now (based on others guestimations), when really I am probably only getting close to my original 12% I had estimated the first time around.
Mavy
I just don't think anyone gets much under 10% without going on a serious contest-level diet, unless you're just a thin guy in the first place. I've only been dunked once and I was 14.3% and I was in decent condition; not ripped but fair off-season shape. When I was in contest shape I didn't think I was under 7-8% and I starved to get there.
thelegacy again
New member
how much are these tests?
Fast Twitch Fiber
New member
I'm mostly looking for a repeatable method to track progress. It can be difficult to judge whether you lost 2% fat with the naked eye. I do try to notice my level of vascularity (mostly, the vein in my bicep) at each level of BF. Maybe I'm too anal retentive, but I want to know if my BF goes up even 1% so I'll know to make changes in diet and workouts.
For what purpose? If you're lean you're lean. I can't say I'd care one way or another if there was 1% in it.
Mirror don't lie, with BF your either there or your not the mirror means more than numbers
Sent from my SM-S727VL using EliteFitness mobile app
Sent from my SM-S727VL using EliteFitness mobile app
I doubt anybody's bodyfat is the same. This thread is over 15 years old
