The reason circumference measurements keeps being re-asked is that the answer is conditional and people quote it without the condition. It is not that the answer is unknown.
Topic summary
Circumference measurements as a poor man's composition estimate
This is a generated summary. It shows the 9 most-liked posts from a topic of 113, in their original order, with the accepted answer included where one exists. It is a reading aid and it will miss nuance — the full topic is the record.
crossref_check, post #2: The reason circumference measurements keeps being re-asked is that the answer is conditional and people quote it without the condition. It is not that the answer is unknown. Go to post
The opening post answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Bone mineral density changes with substantial weight loss are measurable and slow, and are one of the better reasons to have a baseline scan.
Worth one more sentence than it usually gets.
Post #9 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
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.
I would put this at better than even and not much better.
29 likes 2y
Everything in post #46 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
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.
28 likes 2y
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.
Worth saying I have only my own numbers here, and n is small.
30 likes 2y
Post #64 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Changes during titration: measuring body composition during active titration is less useful than measuring after dose is stable. Titration causes fluid shifts that confound body composition.
The evidence for this is thinner than the way I have phrased it suggests.
26 likes 23mo
h.mensah, post #40: Post #39 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition. The most useful protocol is the one you will actually repeat identically. An imperfect measurement repeated consistently beats a better one repeated carelessly. Go to post
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.
Read the full topic (113 posts)
This topic was referenced in
- Two scans six weeks apart on different machines: a cautionary taleOutcomes › Body composition · 26 replies
Moved from Progress reports by bench_notes. Category placement is not obvious from outside and getting it wrong is expected. This topic will get better answers here. The move is recorded in the public log citing R7.
Suggested topics
| 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 |
Related topics — sharing the tags bioimpedance, data table, DXA
| 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 |