Go find a spot that does hydrostatic BF testing and get dunked. Its the only way to get accurate results.

I would think that hydrostatic weighing would be best.

...thanks for bringing that method up. Have never heard of that before. Sounds like it's quite expensive to get the measurement done.
Uli

It's not too expensive. There is a spot near me that has a package deal for 2 dunks for $80. I suppose it depends where you are located.

like other said dunk test. It can be $100. that said

3 and 7 site skin folders are close enough. what is 1% off

As well as waist and wrist size. if they go down or up fat go's down or up even if weight maybe up from muscle gains etc.

The electrical impedance can be way off day to day or hour to hour. 23 markers that can change quick including water levels. so if you are dehydrated like most endurance athletes it measures low.

---

Technique will always last longer then energy production. Improve biomechanics, improve performance.
http://Www.anthonytoth.ca, triathletetoth@twitter

From what I've read, impedance measurements are pretty much worthless. My bathroom scale shows me body fat% and the number as well as the day to day variation is laughably bad. Calipers *can* be more accurate but the accuracy and repeatability take a lot of skill and multiple measurement points. Hydrostatic measurement *can* be more accurate, but is reliant on you being able to completely empty your lungs of air before going in the water - not an easy thing to do. Potentially as accurate as hydrostatic measument, and far easier and more repeatable, is a DXA scan. I've done them twice now, and you literally just lay on a table and they take a quick head-to-toe scan and you have your results in a few minutes. You also get bone density, BMR estimate and some other cool info like L/R muscle mass imbalances, etc. Around me there's a company called BodySpec that has a mobile van that does the scans, so I can usually find them somewhere local to me. Not sure how readily available DXA scans are in other parts of the country/world.

Slow down there Skippy. Hydrostatic body fat measurements can be very accurate, but have caveats of their own. Skinfold measurements with a good clinician and a larger sample of sites can be very accurate, as can ultrasound scans and electrical impedance.
Electrical Impedance seems like it should be accurate, but hydration, caffeine and some medications throw the numbers a curve ball. There is no failsafe, you hook em up and it gives you a number. It or the operator doesn't get a feel for the accuracy. I have had a bunch of people come way high or low that I know were wrong, but the difference between a 10% and 12% is hard to eyeball a difference. Very easy to do and you need not be undressed.
.
I quit doing 100s of tests a year well before ultrasound was available on the mass market so I can't evaluate them.

Skinfold testing is very easy to duplicate and with a skilled technician and a 7-12 skin fold table, I feel is pretty accurate and for measuring composition changes over training sessions a great tool. If the technician has done just a few measurements and only uses 3 sites, grain of salt time at the test factory. What I liked about skin fold measuring is that we could retest a subject in a couple minutes every six weeks or so, no problem.

Hydrostatic testing seems like the gold standard but does have caveats. Older people with osteoporosis get a high score thrown in there cause they float better than they should. Blowing out as much air as you possibly can and sitting still for a few seconds isn't as easy as you would think. Testing a non swimmer or a weak swimmer is a joke. I have had folks come in a bit different in sequential testing enough to raise an eyebrow about. Can you blow out just a tad more this time? All the funny at work stories about college teams of non swimmers getting hydrostatic testing I could tell. Oh my.

Bottom line using comparative testing in two or three ways is a nice luxury to have. You scored 10.5 % on under weighing and a 10% flat on skin folds, or saying your electrical impedance was 13% and we got you on 12% skin fold is easier to swallow for you or for me to sell than just one test result.

My wife didn't like me eyeballing people and knowing within a point or two their % body fat score. After you do thousands of tests you just know. Body fat % is a nice thing to know but unless you are a bodybuilder pre show a couple few % points one way or the other "don't mean nothin". As a model of one I do know that 7-10% in me was sustainable over time and healthy. Much under 8% got me sniffles and colds any time any where. Now that I am retired and over 25% that seemed like and was in another lifetime ago.

Can't tell you the number of 5 foot nothing tall 100lb young ladies I pissed off. They don't want to hear those 25% numbers when they come in at all. Short women in my experience are very difficult to predict on just an eyeball test. Unless they are rail jobs they often come in higher than they think they should. Trust me on that one.

Agree women difficult to predict, on so many levels

Get a DEXA scan.
DEXA is more precise than hydrostatic weighing, and less uncomfortable while testing is performed.

---

no sponsors | no races | nothing to see here

I did DEXA this year for a comparison to my $31 scale from Amazon. I think I came in at 13% and my scale ready 12.1% that same day. The person at the business told me the DEXA usually comes in higher due to fat in your brain...no clue if that was just BS.

---

Blog: https://davidkoppeltriathlon.blogspot.com/
Coaching: https://dkendurance.com/

learn something new everyday...when I read your post I immediately called it BS on the brain fat thing, seriously who would like to have a ton of fat in his brain....but then I googled and was astonished:

http://www.rehabchicago.org/the-human-brain/

don't burn me on the source, it was the first hit that popped up...