Meet Mark

Let me introduce myself. My name is Mark Sisson. I’m 63 years young. I live and work in Malibu, California. In a past life I was a professional marathoner and triathlete. Now my life goal is to help 100 million people get healthy. I started this blog in 2006 to empower people to take full responsibility for their own health and enjoyment of life by investigating, discussing, and critically rethinking everything we’ve assumed to be true about health and wellness...

Tell Me More
Stay Connected
December 23, 2009

The Value of Lab Values

By Mark Sisson
89 Comments

Yesterday I challenged you to estimate my body fat percentage by looking at a recent picture. To be scientific about this little exercise I chose to reference as the correct answer the results of the “gold standard” hydrostatic weighing I had subjected myself to at the Malibu gym (it was actually a specialized truck that shows up once a year and performs the intricate and expensive underwater weighing tests for $60 each). 317 of you took a stab at guessing from the photo of me. It’s clear to me that many of you are quite good at estimating actual body fat levels (the average guess was 6.7%), but Gwen, anticipating the tenor of today’s post, took the prize with the closest guess at 12.5%… Ironically, that was also the highest guess of all and yet it was still a full 4 percentage points lower than what the actual “gold standard” test demonstrated. That’s right, my test score showed that I am 16.9% body fat. That’s 28 pounds of pure fat – if you believe the lab values. Even my wife Carrie tested lower at 13%. Am I really that fat? Probably not, but I went through this exercise to illustrate a point about which I will write today: that quite often, these so-called “gold standard” lab values are of little actual predictive value. Sometimes these tests are just plain wrong. And sometimes they can create far more problems than they solve. And if they are that far off when something is largely visible, what happens when they are dealing with more intricate hidden body chemistry? In this case, my jeans still fit loosely, so I really don’t care what the lab value was. I know the reality. But if I lived only by the lab values, I’d be inclined to start cutting calories immediately to lose weight.

In my estimation, medicine has become way too reliant on testing for lab values that reflect aggregates, population norms, cohort quintiles from dubious studies, or simple averages to arrive at reference ranges and the calculated risk factors that these numbers appear to represent. Even the term “risk” is deceptive, because an increase in risk for a disease doesn’t guarantee you’ll actually get the disease – even if you show a strong genetic predisposition (another test I wonder about). Sometimes the preventive or prophylactic treatments that follow such tests are useless or even harmful. Nevertheless, doctors often prescribe, biopsy, radiate, excise or otherwise operate based on assumptions they have made regarding your relative risk of disease – and sometimes simply on their relative risk of getting sued if they don’t follow the standard of care – based solely on lab values. We have spoken here often about how medicine is not “black and white” and how there is typically not a right answer to a medical issue so much as an educated opinion (or not) on a course of action. It’s my contention that your own opinion is often the most precise and valid. Certainly, use your doctor, but do your own research to be sure you make an informed decision.

Case in point, I had breakfast with a friend a few weeks ago who wanted my opinion on his recent blood tests and whether or not he should continue taking statins. Right off the bat I told him (as I am telling you now) that I am not an MD and am not allowed to advise anyone on any medical issues whatsoever. So we agreed to have a philosophical discussion (like we are having here now). He showed me the results of two blood lipid panels taken from the same sample (blood drawn in the same collection sitting) but that were sent to two different labs that same day. Of course, as I anticipated, no two lab values were the same from one lab’s test results to the other. Most notably, the total LDL differed by 40% from one test to the other. That’s a little disconcerting in itself. On both of these tests my friend’s total cholesterol was way under 200 and his HDL was over 100, which “philosophically” would put him in the lowest risk category for CHD regardless of which test was the more accurate. But my friend has been running scared his entire life because his father had a fatal heart attack at age 51. As a consequence, he has it in his mind that he needs to get the lowest LDL score he can possibly muster, come hell or high water and regardless of the notion that very low cholesterol levels are associated with an increased risk in overall mortality. He eats well (mostly Primal) and gets a lot of exercise on his road bike (in my opinion maybe too much) but he still lives his life in fear of what the numbers might represent. And he agonizes over which data set is the “real” one. At his doctors urging he has even been taking statins as a “precautionary and preventive” measure (and now complains of fuzzy thinking). We ended the conversation with my telling him, ironically, that his relative risk of death or disability from riding his bike 200 miles a week on those mean streets in an effort to protect his heart is measurably higher than his risk of having a fatal MI that might result from his pure cholesterol numbers. And his increased risk from the stress of worrying probably trumps them both.

I have mentioned my skepticism of lab tests in the past (Makes My Blood Boil, Weighing the Evidence: Science and Anecdote in Nutrition Studies). It started when, as anti-doping commissioner for the International Triathlon Union I was obliged to prosecute athletes for doping violations when their tests showed 4 or 5 billionths of a gram of a steroid metabolite at a time when the legal allowable threshold was “only” 3. A billionth of a gram could then be the difference between being labeled for life as a cheater or competing legally. Seeing how imprecise lab tests can be from one lab or one machine to the other, and how these wavy lines on sheets of graph paper could be interpreted so differently from one “expert” to the next, my skepticism grew. At some future date I will get into details regarding the many common diagnostic tests that are now being re-evaluated for their lack of effectiveness (mammograms, colonoscopies, CT scans, etc) but for now, if you want a really scary example of how nebulous lab values can influence serious medical decisions, go here and read what the National Cancer Institute has to say about using PSA values to diagnose prostate cancer and read the answer to question 4. Turns out the gold standard for diagnosing prostate cancer relies on a test for which it is acknowledged there is no “normal” or “abnormal” PSA. And that while the “over/under” lab value for a biopsy has historically been set at 4.0,  65-75% of men who have PSAs of 4.1-9.9 are found NOT to have prostate cancer. More damage is often done by the subsequent invasive test (biopsy) than by leaving things as is. Meanwhile, 15% of men biopsied with PSAs below 4 are shown to have prostate cancer. As many docs say, “it’s not much, but it’s the best we have” in diagnosing this serious condition. True, but little consolation when you risk losing sexual function as a result of an invasive biopsy which is, in turn, a result of a nebulous lab value.

Anyway, back to my personal example. Why was my body fat test so far off (if in fact it was)? Who knows? I can estimate it on website calculators and get closer to what I think it is. Like this one… where I come in at 8.68% (I do like that number better). With some tests like skinfold and hydrostatic weighing, there is an assumption that the exact same data (skinfold thickness or underwater weight) when applied to older people (I’m 56) reflect a naturally higher body fat for some reason. But when I researched how they actually got the original data they use to estimate body fat, I found that it was largely from autopsies performed in the 1860’s and 1870’s. Not many autopsies have been done for that purpose since. Also, the reference data on skinfold tests and hydrostatic weighing still assumes that as you get older, you automatically lose muscle (regardless of how you eat or how much you work out) and that your skinfold thickness decreases so much that the same lab value at 22 years of age represents twice the body fat at 56. Hey, since 50 is the new 30, maybe those lab values are obsolete, too?

By the way, the gal who administered my body fat test, and who has done thousands of these, had guessed me at 8% before she started the test. She was so flustered by my results, she insisted on doing the test again. And then once again. And then simply handed me my $60 back and said, “I have no explanation, but clearly your test is way off.” Frustrating. But this sort of thing happens every minute of every day in doctors’ offices and clinics throughout the country. Except the doctor doesn’t acknowledge it and you don’t get a refund.

TAGS:  Big Pharma

Subscribe to the Newsletter

If you'd like to add an avatar to all of your comments click here!

Leave a Reply

89 Comments on "The Value of Lab Values"

avatar

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Sterling
6 years 9 months ago

I guess I’m 25% body fat then…

primalman
primalman
6 years 9 months ago
Very interesting Mark. I went through the same skepiticism last summer. Curious what my BF% is I had a seasoned caliper tester meaure me at 14%. I thought that was pretty high. So, I signed on for a “dunk test” in the truck like you did 2 weeks later. Weighing exactly the same they measured me at 4.4%. I was like “c’mon, I am lean, but I don’t think that I am that lean.” My best guess is that I am 7-8%. The guy who tests people for a living thought I would be about 6-7% upon visual inpection alone.… Read more »
Gordon
Gordon
6 years 9 months ago

I believe its Tamita that makes a scale to determine bf, but wait there is one reading for “athletic” people and one for “normal” people. Totally bogus if it could actually measure anything. Many gyms bought theseand then found out how worthless they were. The electrical impedance measures water in the body and the more water the leaner you are..the theory. The mirror is the best judge.

Dave
6 years 9 months ago

I tested at 8% body fat in September, and from the pictures on this site, I’d say we’re pretty close to the same leanness. 16% is ridiculous.

mike
mike
6 years 9 months ago

could they do your measurements and run your numbers as if you were 25? Would that have changed the results since the +50 yrs assumptions would no longer apply?

Dave, RN
Dave, RN
6 years 9 months ago

What about the electronic ones that measure resistance? I though those were the most accurate, since fat has a known resistance. I could never figure out how you can stick someone in a tub of water to measure fat anyway. I always thought displacement was displacement.
It doesn’t matter anyway. It’s how you look and how you feel that counts.

hypnotikk
hypnotikk
6 years 9 months ago

Kaiser uses something like this to measure bodyfat. You stand on a scale and grab the handles and wait for the printout. It had me at 25%!

Uncephalized
Uncephalized
6 years 2 months ago
I’ve always thought those were bullshit, since the largest resistance in your body (by far) is your skin. If the resistance of your skin varies just a little bit from the expected values (which it would, depending on all sorts of factors from how much callous you have, how hydrated you are, etc.), those variations would overwhelm the much smaller variations in resistance due to fat content. Now, I’m a mechanical engineer, not an electrical, and I don’t know if they have ways to mitigate that error, but it just seems like a REALLY unreliable principle to rely on for… Read more »
trackback

[…] Original post by Mark Sisson […]

Greg Carver
6 years 9 months ago

At 50 years old, I my results are around 11-12% bf using a clinical impedance apparatus, and the same when I get my Bio Signature done (calipers, Charles Poliquin method). But looking at myself, I know I’m much lower, thanks to a paleo diet and intense exercise.

Regardless of the accuracy of these tools, I think they can still be valuable. Measurements are useful directionally – to show whether your making progress or not.

Gordon
Gordon
6 years 9 months ago

If you cannot rely on their accuracy how can they be of value?

AlyieCat
AlyieCat
6 years 9 months ago

Internal vs external reliability.

Aaron Fraser
6 years 9 months ago

As long as it’s consistent with its inaccuracy – ALWAYS measuring 4% too high, for example – you can still use it as a guideline.

Johnny at The Lean Saloon
6 years 9 months ago

@Gordon,

Greg said they’re valuable “directionally.” Which I agree. I use these tools to see the trend in bodyfat changes.

Cynthia
Cynthia
6 years 9 months ago
Oh how those numbers can mess with you! I got dunked a few years ago and came out at 24%. I thought that I would be higher, but whatever. Fast forward a couple of years. I got dunked again after eating paleo/primal and doing crossfit for a while. I KNOW my body is different–more muscle, less fat. A lot different! But my second dunk showed 23%. I cried, of course. The lady offered to dunk me again after I gave myself a week to practice the breathing technique needed (that kind of freaked me out!) A week later I showed… Read more »
arthurb999
arthurb999
6 years 9 months ago

Use the mirror 😀

Kishore
Kishore
6 years 9 months ago

At close to 16% BF, you will hardly see your abs, let alone your obliques. Mark, you should be closer to 7% BF range. If you lose some more BF, you should see your pancreas make insulin. That should make an interesting post!!

BestSelf
6 years 9 months ago

LOL on your comment – funny! 🙂

iisierra
iisierra
6 years 9 months ago

Good one!! 😉

Jeff P (P stands for Primal!)
6 years 9 months ago

If I use a one caliper approach which measures at by the navel, where my fat is the last to come off, then I’m projected in the 20’s, but various websites put me in a 3-site measurement at 10-15%. Go figure! It’s all so subjective, even with instruments apparently. I like arthurb999’s recommendation – use the mirror or verbage. “Damn he looks fine” out ranks any scale I’ll ever use!

jeff
jeff
6 years 9 months ago

Another case in point:

The blood test for celiac disease.

Icarus
Icarus
6 years 8 months ago

Yeah, don’t you have to eat a lot of wheat for several weeks for the test to be workable? That’s what really scares me away from taking it; I know wheat makes me feel cruddy and I don’t want to damage my body with all that starch, let alone gluten. So I just eliminate wheat and forget about the test entirely. Of course, the doctor chides me because there are apparently some mysterious wheat-exclusive nutrients that I’m missing out on. Oh well, time for a new GP, I s’pose.

Uncephalized
Uncephalized
6 years 2 months ago

Plus, you know, it doesn’t really matter if you have celiac if you don’t eat grains anyway!

Ray
Ray
6 years 9 months ago

Very interesting! Did the test use your age in any part of the calculations?

Mark
6 years 9 months ago

Kudos to the technician for giving your money back.

TSH is another less than predictive test IMO. Unfortunately, my fiance was diagnosed with fibromyalgia over a decade ago. Despite the overlap of symptoms with thyroid disorders she has had only TSH, T3, T4 and ultrasounds of her thyroid. Since her TSH is in range that ends their curiosity, despite her thyroid being larger on one side.

Gordon
Gordon
6 years 9 months ago

You are right. Thyroid disease is often a sign of too little iodine and resulting symptoms. Research a product called iodoral for iodine and incidentally its a potent antifungal. In addition vitamin D levels are now routinely checked and most people need to supplement at least 5,000 IUs a day to keep autoimmune diseases away. UCTV has a lecture series on vitamin d and the best is Vitamin D and chronic illness. I truly believe that an adequate intake of vitamin D and cutting out sugar in all forms would heal the world of most modern disease.

Ben
Ben
6 years 9 months ago

There’s also ‘Lugol’s Solution’ for iodine. It’s been around for a loooong time 🙂 If you Google it you’ll get a bunch of info.

Hope it helps.

Frank
Frank
6 years 9 months ago
You raise an excellent point about how having too much confidence on numbers and medical tests can be misleading and can actually cause us harm if we place too much reliance on them. This idea is discussed at length in a relatively new book called “Dances with Chance” (no, I have no connection with it — I just want to give credit because its not my original thought). One of the more interesting findings was that a doctor’s prediction using medical tests and records about how long someone would live was less accurate that simply asking the patient to rate… Read more »
Jim Purdy
6 years 9 months ago

Astonishing!

Christian
Christian
6 years 9 months ago
I did not get a chance to guess yesterday, but with your clearly visible abs at all times (and not just flexing to make them come out), you are obviously 7-9%. Now my guess is based on a guide that I saw somewhere once and saved to a Word doc that relates what a man looks like at certain bodyfat percentages. I am 18% myself and yup, I am exactly as described in this guide, ie “15-19%, visible muscular definition in the shoulder and arm areas, but absolutely no abs”. Interestingly, I use no skinfold calipers, hydrostatic tests, impedance or… Read more »
Christian
Christian
6 years 9 months ago
Just to add to my previous reply, here is that equation I use: The percentage body fat is calculated for males as 100*(-98.42 + 4.15*waist – 0.082*weight)/weight and for females as 100*(-76.76 + 4.15*waist – 0.082*weight)/weight. The argument made in favor of this (as I recall the author making) is that it allows for a more accurate measurement of the loss of visceral fat. Skinfold measurements are just estimates of visceral fat levels and even they, again according to the author, are subject to hydration levels (possibly skewing results)and the usual accuracy errors relating to skill or lack of on… Read more »
Colleen
Colleen
6 years 9 months ago

Just for the fun of it Mark go and get a body fat test done with the DEXA, supposedly more of a gold standard than underwater weighing. Might be interesting. For that matter do it all ways possible and post the scores you get. Dexa, hydrostatic, calipers, electrical mpedence, bod pod, etc. That would be interesting.

Mary
Mary
6 years 9 months ago

Ok now i’m depressed, i must be then 28%
-_-!

Grok
6 years 9 months ago

16.9%! LMAO!

If you’re 16.9%… then I’m 30%. At least the number is so far out there that you should be getting a good laugh out of it.

I guess it wasn’t a lab, but I’m surprised you didn’t mention your caddywhompus blood pressure testing numbers from a while back.

You’re just a weird, fat, sickly man Mark! Get over it 😉

Brad Reid
Brad Reid
6 years 9 months ago

Mark,

You have at least two factors that argue against a successful test of the sort you participated in:

1. Practical age based on your actual body composition versus chronological age;

2. and, muscle weight.

I didn’t realize such tests were age-graded as you imply, but these tests do a miserable job of measuring muscular atheltes.

Brad

Alex
Alex
6 years 9 months ago

How much of the fat percentage determined by hydrostatic weighing is internal fat as opposed to subcutaneous fat?

Since muscle contains more water than does fat (which makes fat more buoyant than lean tissue in water) then the difference in bodyweight measured in air and then in water should give the total body fat (via computation). But having any air in the lungs (or maybe being over/under hydrated) would affect the accuracy of the readings.

fixed gear
6 years 9 months ago
I can’t believe the “Gold standard” could be that far off. Unreal. You don’t even BEGIN to see any hint of the OUTLINE of ab muscles until about 12% bf. You have a full 6 pack going, and extreme definition in the obliques. I think anyone who understands what different bodyfat levels look like, anyone knowledgeable about it would peg you in the 6%-7% range. Don’t let that stupid test mess with your head. You KNOW it’s bogus. It’s insulting. I have a tanita bodyfat scale at home. And for 6 weeks, I went DOWN in weight, and UP in… Read more »
Elizabeth @ The Nourished Life
6 years 9 months ago

Pictures are a great idea. I think sometimes the mirror can be unreliable because even our mood can alter our perception of what we really look like. Seeing a month-to-month picture can help bring that body image back to a realistic range.

dr. pierre debs
dr. pierre debs
6 years 9 months ago

I didn´t read the responses, but I am guessing that no one thought about visceral and sub-cutaneous fat. Marks subcutaneous fat is probably around 7% and the rest is visceral, which is not noticed as it surrounds his organs, in his brain a various other places besides under his skin which are not measured with calipers.

Icarus
Icarus
6 years 8 months ago

Visceral fat surrounds the abdominal organs and is especially noticeable when it hangs around the kidneys. It is responsible for the beer belly look that men often have. Subcutaneous fat mostly hangs around the thighs and buttocks, and is responsible for the pear shape that many women tend to have.

Obviously, as demonstrated in the above picture, Mark does not have a beer belly.

Hilary
Hilary
6 years 9 months ago

So weird. Using the calculation above, submitted by Christian, I’m 21-22%. Yet, my BMI is 29 and I’m nearly obese by those standards. My Body Fat scale has read all the way up to 39%. Bad day. Stopped using it after that. Weighing in at 185 lbs., female, 5’7″, it sounds like I’d be hugely overfat. I’m surprised at the calculation that’s for sure.

Roberto
Roberto
6 years 9 months ago

Hmmmm … well then that may put me at about 110% BF.

Ted Durant
Ted Durant
6 years 9 months ago

Over the past couple of years I’ve been measured, using the hand-held resistance devices, between 25-35% body fat.

I’m 5’6″ and weigh 120 pounds.

It would be comical, except that my employer determines how much I pay for health insurance in part on my my measured body fat pct.

Kiran
Kiran
6 years 9 months ago

Perhaps you should get a DEXA scan and show them proof of a better BF%

http://exercise.about.com/cs/weightloss/a/bodyfat.htm

Christian
Christian
6 years 9 months ago
Fixed Gear, Right on. I agree 100% with what you are saying. Now further to my earlier replies, I did find that guide (this applies to men only) about what you look like at certain bodyfat percentages. As I now recall, this came from a bodybuidling type forum: 1. Full House = No visible muscle definition. Bodyfat level = over 20%. 2. Hard = Some muscle separation appears between delts and upper arm. Abs are still not visible. Approx. bodyfat level = 15-19% 3. Cut = More muscle separation appears particularly in the chest and back, outline of the abs… Read more »
Gina
6 years 9 months ago

Bravo! I am so glad you wrote this post…not that you tested higher than you anticipated but that you are bringing light to the inconsistency of medical testing 🙂
I work with women who have eating disorders, testing and numbers can control the lives of people who have distorted the importance and actually the validity of these tests. Living by the numbers is a drab and inaccurate way of leading ones life.
The more we can show how the medical values are not absolutes the sooner we can help people move beyond black and white thinking.
Love your site and dedication Mark!
Aloha~

Mike Prevost
Mike Prevost
6 years 9 months ago
Mark They probably did not calculate the residual volume in your lungs correctly. Any air left in your lungs will increase your buoyancy and will register as fat. In order to get an accurate hydrostatic weighing measurement, residual volume has to be measured. THis is done with some type of gas dillution technique. My guess is that they estimated your residual volume from a table, based on your lung vital capacity (which is easy to measure). Then they look it up in a table. Sometimes there can be a big error in that estimate, over or underestimating your bodyfat. Sometimes… Read more »
Dave
Dave
6 years 9 months ago
Mark, Have you ever had a dexa scan to determine your body fat vs lean muscle composition (it also calculates bone density. It does require the subject to be irradiated and is only reccomeded once every 6 months by the MD’s who own the practice (and the machine) where I work. It was only $40 per scan. My research found it was supposedly more accurate than the under water testing. We recently had a “biggest loser” contest at our crossfit affiliate and used this method to determine numbers. There were a couple of results that didn’t seem to fit, but… Read more »
Licarrit
Licarrit
6 years 9 months ago

As a diabetic I live and die by my lab results either my every 3 months A1c or my every morning (noon and night!) finger stick. I have also started watching something else though -How do I feel? Fuzzy Headed? Tired? Depressed? Clear? Energized? Moving Forward? I know that lower blood sugars mean a longer healthier life but short-term, if I feel like crap I need to look at what I have eaten lately and how it makes me feel.

David Marcon, DC
David Marcon, DC
6 years 9 months ago

Mark,
Besides the most obvious rational for the high BF, the parameters utilized to assess the raw data, what about internal fat deposits. With your diet and activity level it seems remote but many individuals are not fat outside but carry large amounts of fat internally which puts them in even greater risk of dis-ease and mortality.
Love your Blog.

mike
6 years 9 months ago

I don’t believe that someone who so obviously has little externally visible fat would have dangerous amounts of internal fat deposits. The very premise of Mark’s Primal Blueprint is that this fat would be stripped away just like the rest of it. Why would that fat stay? Does the body pick and choose? I doubt it. Sounds like CW spot reduction theory to me.

anne
6 years 9 months ago
I have been using the Tanita body fat measurer and if I am dehydrated (if I weight in after a run) I weigh less but my body fat goes up. When I drink 16 oz within 5 minutes and reweigh, my weight goes up and body fat goes down. I dont even think these can be used consistently even though they are off, particularly for women. I simply use my jeans, and use strength increases to determine if I are getting leaner/building lean muscle mass. Ihave weighed the same since 1989, but I started doing sprint-IM tris in 2000, and… Read more »
LittleNappingLion
LittleNappingLion
6 years 9 months ago

Weird. My home scale calculates me at 24%, but the Tanita hand held at the gym says I’m 16%…I’m a woman and I think I’m closer to the 24% but seriously, why the huge difference?

Richard Nikoley
6 years 9 months ago

Don’t know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but my trainer at the gym is very lean and he always tests high too. Someone told him that unless you can completely expel every bit of air from your lungs that it can make a huge difference. And just because it feels like your lungs are devoid of air doesn’t mean they are.

Obviously, some people would be better at doing that then others.

Judymac
6 years 9 months ago
When you write that article, I’d be happy to proof read it for you. I’m a Biomedical Service Engineer, so I know those machines very well indeed. You are quite correct, they work within tolerances and may I say that a moving van would screw the calibration on that machine. Each time a hospital unit is moved they need real calibration, not just the software calibration… Tanita scales and Garmin (+ other HR monitors) are also very suspect, all you have to do is compare the price of these cheap and nasty items with plus/minus 10-20% tolerance, with real medical… Read more »
Gordon
Gordon
6 years 9 months ago
Most people are quibbling over the BF test without addressing the issue of lab values. Probably because we just accept them as scientific rather than questioning. The best advice is to stay AWAY from the doctor unless its an emergency. Solve all your problems through diet and alternative medicine and be your own medical expert. I personally think bodyfat percentages are inaccurate in the main and a false measure of health. They have no correlation to athletic performance either. They just became a fad because of bodybuilders who look great at low bodyfat…the caveat is they are very unhealthy at… Read more »
OPT
6 years 9 months ago
like any measurement, it depends on the tester, norms and standards, where you store the body fat, what kind of fat it is…and some other factors…this is also more important than the # itself that many get caught up on. i’ve tested over 5000 people using skin calipers and 4, 8 and 12 point site measurements (and still think there are flaws to it, but if done by same person many times it gets more valid)…these results have been correlated with other diagnostics to have some intersting parallels with overall endocrine health and fitness ability…so the # should not be… Read more »
tommy
tommy
6 years 9 months ago

Great post and thanks for the information, Mark.

Has anyone ever tried the “BodPod”? At my old gym in Washington, D.C. they had this egg-shaped apparatus that is supposedly the most accurate measurement of bodyfat.

Orcuttman
Orcuttman
6 years 8 months ago

Yeah there’s a BodPod here at Cal State Long Beach. I was measured at 7.6%, but my friend, who is also very athletic was over 22%! we were really confused at his result. Hydrostatic is supposed to be better actually, but from Mark’s results it can clearly be way off.

For reference here’s a pic from around when I was tested;
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/photo/showphoto.php?photo=107078323&ppuser=109191823

Viranth
Viranth
6 years 8 months ago

A friend of mine turned 31 just the other day, according to the chart, he gained 1% bodyfat overnight.

Just because there is some magical border you cross when you go from 30 to 31…

park
park
6 years 8 months ago

A correct thyroid panel is this
TSH, Total T3, Total t4, Free T3, Free t4, Reverse t3 and thyroid antibodies.

trackback

[…] and weighed.  While considered the gold standard for measuring BF%, it is not without it flaws (see Mark Session’s experience), but it does provide another base line or starting point for helping one measure fat loss progress […]

trackback

[…] absolutely need objective records of your progress, get a body fat percentage test (although these might not even tell the whole story) or try measuring your […]

trackback
6 years 3 months ago

[…] absolutely need objective records of your progress, get a body fat percentage test (although these might not even tell the whole story) or try measuring your […]

trackback

[…] Find out who won the contest and learn the value of lab values by clicking here. […]

trackback

[…] are more accurate just because they’re more expensive. In fact, some have reported wildly inaccurate results even with this method, which is often considered the gold standard of body fat […]

wpDiscuz