![]() |
|
|||
|
The most accurate method is supposed to be hydrostatic. I had this done on Monday.
I've had calipers, electronic impedance scale and now hydro. The calipers waaaaay underestimated my BF% compared to the hydro and the scale. They were within 1% of each other. The hydro test was $25. Honestly it sucked, I got in this tank and sat on this plastic "chair" and then blew out all my air and went underwater. When all your air is out you immediatly need to surface and get air but you can't. You have to be perfectly still so she can read the weight. She tapped on the rail to let me know I can come up which is 1 second after I began to absolutely panic that I was going to drown. lol I did it 4 times. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Don't worry it's not that big of a deal though. I'm going to do it again in May or June to track my progress. Calipers aren't a bad way. They are as accurate as the person doing to testing though. |
|
|||
|
I'd say the best way are the Biodynamics Body Composition Analyzers (I did this in my kines class). You hook up these electrodes - two on your hand/wrist, and 2 on your ankle/foot - and you enter your age, height, and weight. It measures your body's resistance to the electricity, so the more resistance, the more fat. With this method, I tested 13.9%, which I believe to be accurate according to some pictures I've seen on this site.
For comparative purposes, we also used calipers along with 6 different equations. With the calipers and equations, I got different answers ranging from 11.4-20.6%. In sum, it's hard to know which equation is right, because there are so many. This coupled with human error when doing the measurements/calculations makes me believe calipers to be an inferior method. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|