Bioimpedance and hydration: why the number moves posts 61–71
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
The arithmetic in post #60 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Neither method is capable of detecting the month-to-month changes that people report detecting month to month.
Adding a source would improve this post and I do not have one to hand.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
If someone has run bioimpedance and hydration properly I would rather read that than my own reconstruction of it. Posting mine only because the thread has gone quiet.
Two people in this thread mean different things by bioimpedance and hydration and are disagreeing about the definition while believing they are disagreeing about the facts. Worth pausing to define it.
Post #64 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Photographs under fixed lighting and posture are a genuine record and are the hardest of these to standardise.
Somebody will have a better source than mine, and I hope they post it.
Adding the measurement that post #64 says would settle it.
Where a facility reports a precision figure for its own machine, that number is more useful than any published average.
It is a small point and it changes the answer, which is an awkward combination.
Bioimpedance is considerably less precise and is strongly affected by hydration state, which is why readings move overnight without anything having changed.
Percentage body fat is a ratio, so it changes when either component changes. A rising percentage during weight loss is arithmetic before it is physiology.
On post #67 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
The version of bioimpedance and hydration that circulates here is a simplification of a simplification. It is not wrong, but it has lost the conditions under which it holds, and those conditions are where the interesting cases live.
Nobody has said the unglamorous part of bioimpedance and hydration yet, so: most of the variation is explained by things that are boring to write about and easy to check.
Standardise the conditions: same time of day, same hydration, same recent training, same machine. Most of the variability is protocol rather than physiology.
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Revisiting: Bioimpedance and hydration: why the number moves
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Revisiting: Bioimpedance and hydration: why the number moves Everything below is what sits behind that. I have spent a fortnight trying to pin Bioimpedance and…
|
2 | 2.8k | 1mo | |
|
Follow-up: Interpreting a composition change that is within the error bars
Interpreting a composition change that is within the error bars Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Asking about Interpreting a composition change directly,…
|
2 | 95 | 24d | |
|
DXA precision and the least significant change for lean mass
Posting this under the heading it deserves: DXA precision and the least significant change for lean mass Everything below is what sits behind that. A question about measurement precision rather than about…
|
+81 | 85 | 2.7k | 7mo |
|
DXA precision and the least significant change for lean mass — what changed since
DXA precision and the least significant change for lean mass — what changed since — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. A question about measurement precision rather than about…
|
2 | 56k | 11mo | |
|
About the Body composition category
DXA, BIA, ultrasound and the precision of each. Lean mass preservation during rapid loss. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is recorded with its…
|
5 | 64k | 15mo |
Related topics — sharing the tags lean mass loss, data table, DXA
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Cleaning a self-reported dataset and what you throw away — what changed since
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Cleaning a self-reported dataset and what you throw away — what changed since Everything below is what sits behind that. What changes if the standard account of…
|
2 | 2k | 1h | |
|
Circumference measurements as a poor man's composition estimate
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Circumference measurements as a poor man's composition estimate Everything below is what sits behind that. Working notes on circumference measurements rather than a…
|
+96 | 112 | 14k | 23mo |
|
DXA precision and the least significant change for lean mass — the long version
On the subject in the title: DXA precision and the least significant change for lean mass — the long version Working notes rather than a conclusion. A question about measurement precision rather than about…
|
+97 | 111 | 22k | 14mo |
|
Oxidation pathways for methionine and tryptophan
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Oxidation pathways for methionine and tryptophan Everything below is what sits behind that. Working notes on oxidation pathways for methionine rather than a…
|
+58 | 63 | 1k | 19mo |
|
Shakes versus food: a pragmatic assessment
Shakes versus food: a pragmatic assessment Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I would like to know what people here actually do about shakes versus food, as…
|
+22 | 26 | 53k | 20h |