This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
Answering the question post #89 raises rather than the one it answers.
Circumference measurements at marked sites, taken consistently, track composition change better than most people expect for the cost.
I disagree with the framing of circumference measurements above, and I think it is a substantive disagreement rather than a terminological one. Setting out why, so it can be checked.
The reasoning depends on an assumption that is doing a lot of work and is never stated. If the assumption holds, the conclusion follows. I do not think it holds generally.
Post #92 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
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.
Post #94 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
The most useful protocol is the one you will actually repeat identically. An imperfect measurement repeated consistently beats a better one repeated carelessly.
Bone mineral density changes with substantial weight loss are measurable and slow, and are one of the better reasons to have a baseline scan.
The step people skip is the one I have spelled out.
Post #97 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Photographs under fixed lighting and posture are a genuine record and are the hardest of these to standardise.
Old habit: I write down the expected answer before I calculate it.
Maintenance phase: tracking body composition during maintenance (weight stable) is different from tracking during active loss. Changes are smaller and precision becomes more important.
Post #101 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
The thing about circumference measurements that took me longest to accept is that a plausible mechanism is not evidence of an effect. It is a reason to look, not a result.
What I want from this circumference measurements thread is the list of things that would need to be true for the claim to hold. If we can write that list, we can check it.
Right, and stated more narrowly than I would have dared to state it.
I had written a reply contradicting post #101 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Neither method is capable of detecting the month-to-month changes that people report detecting month to month.
Posting it because the silence on this was starting to look like agreement.
Confirming post #105 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Report the method with the number, always. A composition figure without the method is not comparable to anything, including your own previous figure.
Second-hand, so weight it accordingly.
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.
DXA (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry): the standard for body composition in research. Precision is roughly ±1 kg for lean mass. Two scans six months apart on the same machine with the same technician give you useful information. Two scans six weeks apart on different machines tell you about the machines.
Resting metabolic rate: body composition affects metabolic rate. As fat mass decreases and lean mass is maintained, metabolic rate is usually maintained better than with simple weight loss alone.
Narrowing post #112, because the general version has more than one answer.
Bone mineral density changes with substantial weight loss are measurable and slow, and are one of the better reasons to have a baseline scan.
Happy to be corrected if someone holds better data than mine.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Lean mass preservation: what the evidence supports
Lean mass preservation: what the evidence supports Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Trying to work out what would count as evidence on lean mass preservation,…
|
+23 | 27 | 347 | 14mo |
|
Interpreting a composition change that is within the error bars
On the subject in the title: Interpreting a composition change that is within the error bars Working notes rather than a conclusion. Asking about interpreting a composition change directly, because I have…
|
+18 | 22 | 5.8k | 12mo |
|
Second pass at: Two scans six weeks apart on different machines: a cautionary tale
Second pass at: Two scans six weeks apart on different machines: a cautionary tale Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. A question about measurement precision…
|
+1 | 5 | 34k | 8mo |
|
Lean mass preservation: what the evidence supports — does this still hold?
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Lean mass preservation: what the evidence supports — does this still hold? What changes if the standard account of Lean mass preservation is wrong?…
|
+112 | 122 | 5.2k | 20h |
|
Second pass at: Circumference measurements as a poor man's composition estimate
Second pass at: Circumference measurements as a poor man's composition estimate — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Two things I would like separated before anyone answers on…
|
+64 | 68 | 13k | 4mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Progressive overload when the scale is falling
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Progressive overload when the scale is falling Everything below is what sits behind that. Trying to establish the boundary conditions on progressive overload. The…
|
+4 | 8 | 14k | 8mo |
|
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 | |
|
A rising related-substance total over six months: degradation or method drift?
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: A rising related-substance total over six months: degradation or method drift? Rising related-substance — I have the observation and I do not trust…
|
+37 | 42 | 37k | 23mo |
|
Carryover and the ghost peak from last week's standard
On the subject in the title: Carryover and the ghost peak from last week's standard Working notes rather than a conclusion. What changes if the standard account of carryover is wrong? I ask because I have…
|
+80 | 92 | 16k | 16mo |
|
Two scans six weeks apart on different machines: a cautionary tale
On the subject in the title: Two scans six weeks apart on different machines: a cautionary tale Working notes rather than a conclusion. A question about measurement precision rather than about physiology. Two…
|
+18 | 26 | 9.4k | 2mo |