Here is an article I am writing..probably controversial..but I thought I'd share to get opinions:


Peoples' comprehension of body fat % and LBM is flawed. I am sorry to break it to you, but you are worse off than you think, and maybe much worse off.

Recently I had my body fat level measured using the BodPod. Two certified trainers calipered me around 16%, but the darn BodPod indicated 22.9%
5 months ago, prior to heavy intense workouts, the discrepancy was even greater - caliper was still around 16% (indicating I have made virtually no change since), but BodPod showed 27.3%

NFL teams are using the BodPod as a standard, and by everything I read on their website www.bodpod.com (http://www.bodpod.com), I am convinced there is no better way of determining what is really going on in your body.

During my google research, I discovered posts on forums, including a pro bodybuilder, confused why their caliper reading is so low, yet BodPod reads so high. Naturally, denial discounts their discovery, assuming the $40 calipers to be more precise, and the $20,000+ apparatus to be flat out wrong. Who is at fault? Is it the person who calipered them or the BodPod operator, who MUST have made a grave mistake? Brace yourself...

The caliper is partially right and The BodPod is virtually 100% right. Other than hydrostatic weighing (which I automatically discount because of the bells & whistles and fasting period making it anti-bodybuilding), the only more precise way to know your body fat level would be an autopsy; discounted also.

When it comes to the efficiency of accurately assessing body composition, the BodPod reigns King. Not to say that the caliper is useless - it simply measures a different area of body fat. The fitness industry has done a very poor job educating us as to what body fat % truly means. Thanks to all the advertising campaigns, slogans, ignorance, trainers, whatever, the term body fat % has become a misnomer. The true concept of body fat has been disguised to the point that it is buried deep, like that fat buried deep within you. Calipers measure subcutaneous fat (fat between muscles and skin), while BodPod measures that and visceral fat (fat between organs and underneath muscles). Lean body mass is made up of structural and functional elements in cells, body water, muscle, bones, and other body organs such as the heart, liver and kidneys. That does not include the visceral fat, which the caliper is unable to determine.

Which reading should you be more concerned with? If you have a meathead mentality, be satisfied with monitoring subcutaneous fat alone. Who really cares about the blob of fat your heart may be engulfed in as long as them bicep veins will pop out? Bitter pill to swallow, but the 25 lbs of fat you think you have is not all you have. Try more like 30 or 40 or more. And yes, that implies significantly less "muscle" than you fancied.

It can be said that calipers are a good measure from a bodybuilding point of view, while the BodPod from a health point of view. Face reality. It is better you learn the truth today and start improving your overall body fat level.
Ok, the answer to the big question..cost me $20, but I hear it is goes as high as $45 depending on where you get it. Definitely worth every penny. Get it done periodically. You might also want to purchase an Omron handheld monitor for $40, which measures your body fat via BIA technology. This device will give you a body fat level higher than the caliper, but less than the BodPod. That is because it takes into account part of the visceral fat. So it is a convenient at home means of monitoring the decrease of overall body fat.

Time to wake up & smell the coffee and come to terms with your true numbers.

I don't get what the big deal is. :nope:

Does it matter to you what the number is, or how you look and feel? I like to see my scale number going down, because of the progress the movement indicates, not because the number in itself has an inherent value. It doesn't. It has the value which I ascribe.

Your bodyfat number are indicators of trends. I know how I want to look and I know I will not sacrifice healthy living and eating to achieve that look. What matters is that image in my mind, not a number. So, if you hit your ideal at a caliper-measured 10%, why does it matter what the Pod number would be?

Your bodyfat number are indicators of trends. I know how I want to look and I know I will not sacrifice healthy living and eating to achieve that look. What matters is that image in my mind, not a number. So, if you hit your ideal at a caliper-measured 10%, why does it matter what the Pod number would be?
It's only a big deal if you've set a particular body fat percentage target as the best for optimum health. but that's not usually the case; at least not on these forums, where most people are aiming for a certain look to reach an aesthetic ideal, not a certain number to reach a doctor's recommendation or anything like that. Also keep in mind that a healthy body fat percentage for a woman is quite broad, between about 15 and 25 %, and the more aesthetically pleasing "fitness model" body fat percentage is about 12-18%. Similar with men, but about 5 percentage points lower.

I think a younger person typically has less visceral fat than an older person has. Which means that a 35 year old person who's measured at 15% body fat with calipers could have a significantly higher body fat percentage than a 15 year old person with the exact same caliper readings. This was mentioned briefly in the bikini thread.

In my opinion, it doesn't really matter if what we have been calling 9% BF is in reality 18% - it still looks the same. From a health standpoint it's obviously helpful to know if you've got a lot of visceral fat "hiding" in your body, but from an aesthetic standpoint it's irrelevant.

I am convinced there is no better way of determining what is really going on in your body.

Actually, Bodpod is not even close to as accurate as DEXA or MRI. Whole body MRI is a little over the top, but people are using DEXA a lot for both bone density and body composition.

Obes Res. 2005 May;13(5):845-54.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of body composition measurements by air displacement plethysmography and bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) compared with DXA during weight loss. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Fifty-six healthy but overweight participants, 34 women and 22 men (age, 52 +/- 8.6 years; weight, 92.2 +/- 11.6 kg; BMI, 33.3 +/- 2.9 kg/m(2)) were studied in an outpatient setting before and after 6 months of weight loss (weight loss, 5.6 +/- 5.5 kg). Subjects were excluded if they had initiated a new drug therapy within 30 days of randomization, were in a weight loss program, or took a weight loss drug within 90 days of randomization. Subjects were randomly assigned either to a self-help program, consisting of two 20-minute sessions with a nutritionist and provision of printed materials and other self-help resources, or to attendance at meetings of a commercial program (Weight Watchers). Body composition was examined by each of the methods before and after weight loss. RESULTS: BIA (42.4 +/- 5.8%) underestimated percentage fat, whereas the BodPod (Siri = 51.7 +/- 6.9%; Brozek = 48.5 +/- 6.5%) overestimated percentage fat compared with DXA (46.1 +/- 7.9%) before weight loss. Correlation coefficients for detecting changes in body composition between DXA and the other methods were relatively high, with Brozek Deltafat mass (FM; r(2) = 0.63), Siri FM (r(2) = 0.65), tetrapolar BIA percentage fat (r(2) = 0.57), and Tanita FM (r(2) = 0.61) being the highest. DISCUSSION: In conclusion, all of the methods were relatively accurate for assessing body composition compared with DXA, although there were biases. Furthermore, each of the methods was sensitive enough to detect changes with weight loss.

RESULTS: BIA (42.4 +/- 5.8%) underestimated percentage fat, whereas the BodPod (Siri = 51.7 +/- 6.9%; Brozek = 48.5 +/- 6.5%) overestimated percentage fat compared with DXA (46.1 +/- 7.9%) before weight loss.Are those the body fat percentage measurements? 42-51% body fat???I have a feeling that you might get a different error range through the lower body fat percentage levels. In fact, it might be so small as to be close to zero.

Chopaholic, it is a big deal if:

1) You think you are at a safe body fat %, when in reality you are much higher putting you at serious health risks

1) You are particular about your numbers, but misinformed by the calipers. With all due respect, someone like Mr Stone, who is very particular with his numbers, may find the BodPod very helpful so as to get more accurate readings

2) You are a professional and misinform your client


zenpharaohs, the accuracy of the BodPod, albeit not as accurate as DEXA/MRI, is more than good enough. Thus, NFL teams are switching to it as the method of choice. The reason I said it reigns king as a measurement rechnique is because of its simplicity and preciseness.

guava, it will never be close to zero.

I never rely on fat calipers until <= 10 % bf. If you reach that level they become very accurate....
BTW I think you give too much focus on numbers. As other suggested bf measurements are mainly for progress control.

Actually, Bodpod is not even close to as accurate as DEXA or MRI. Whole body MRI is a little over the top, but people are using DEXA a lot for both bone density and body composition.

Actually, I think the BodPod is just as accurate if not more so than DEXA. The difference between BodPod and DEXA is that DEXA shows you where the fat is deposited whereas BodPod simply gives you a percent. Not sure about MRI. I've never read an article that used it which means one of two things: 1) it's far too expensive a procedure to use for studies, or 2) its too expensive given it's SEM. I have seen DEXA used a lot, but I think it's because it is a multi-use tool. It allows doctors to observe bone tissue integrity and diagnose osteoporosis, and it gives a picture of where fat is located. BodPod will only give your body density. I believe there are more DEXAs in use than BodPods. One can then logically deduce that DEXAs will be used more and be more prominent in studies. Of course, many studies are now looking at where fat loss occurs. To do this one would need a device like DEXA.

Actually, I think the BodPod is just as accurate if not more so than DEXA.

No, it's not. This is because the BodPod has to guess about bone density, but DEXA measures bone density as well.

The BodPod is not really bad though, it's as good as anything that isn't DEXA or MRI.

If you go by calibration/validation studies, you're going to get results that show that in the hands of trained practitioners, things like hydrostatic weighing and even skinfold calipers (heavy on the training there) are pretty accurate. With the correct protocol to control hydration, four contact BIA is pretty good too. Everyone who is pushing their device has a study which shows that it's "good" by qualifying it on some population.

But the thing you get with DEXA and MRI that you don't get with the others is that these radiological methods are more direct. Take a cleaned bone, and a boneless steak. Put them together in DEXA and MRI, and then just the boneless steak. You will get the same amount of fat and muscle in both trials. That will not happen with BodPod, BIA, and hydrostatic weighing. And skinfold calipers run into the problem of not being able to assess intramuscular fat (which is obviously there if you look at the steak). The DEXA and MRI do not have to assume a certain amount of bone mass in a person, but the other methods normally do have to make that assumption.

"DXA has been suggested as a replacement to densitometry (hydrostatic weighing and BodPod) as the gold standard for the measurement of body composition. It relies on fewer assumptions about human tissue characteristics, and most importantly, comparisons of the method with autopsy in animals have demonstrated the validity of the technique.
The accuracy of DXA varies with different parts of the body and with the software used to make the analysis. The method works best in young healthy subjects but is less accurate in osteoporotic and obese subjects. Thus because of limitations in the hydrostatic weighing and DXA, the is currently no gold standard for the measurement of body composition."

-One of the authors is Dr. George A. Brooks.

Emily Barrosse. Exercise Physiology: Human Bioenergetics and Its Applications 4th Ed. McGraw-Hill. New York.

I don't get what the big deal is. :nope:

Does it matter to you what the number is, or how you look and feel? I like to see my scale number going down, because of the progress the movement indicates, not because the number in itself has an inherent value. It doesn't. It has the value which I ascribe.

Your bodyfat number are indicators of trends. I know how I want to look and I know I will not sacrifice healthy living and eating to achieve that look. What matters is that image in my mind, not a number. So, if you hit your ideal at a caliper-measured 10%, why does it matter what the Pod number would be?

+1

I couldn't agree with you more Chopaholic, so what if one sais 100 or 1000 its like programming, all were doing is assigning a number to a variable to represent it, it doesn't have to mean anything aslong as it goes up or down when you want it to, who cares. say i get put at 30% bf if i drop thats good weither i started at 10% or 30%, its just a number let the mirror gauge progress not the 'bodpod'