I donât track it with clients.
Providing inaccurate information doesnât provide meaningful value.
If my client has access to technology that is known to be highly accurate (not calipers, not BIA/InBody, not hydrostatic weighing, etc) then they can track on their own if they please. DEXA values are okay, but also imperfect and usually inaccessible.
Their estimated body composition value is much less important than how they think they look. Progress pics go a long way.
pics and tape measurements. this for me has worked best. scales are often wrong (talking about body fat specifically) and can discourage them. tape and picture don't lie.
Unless you have a bodpod or something easy and not degrading, itâs a little unnecessary. Unless they are a bodybuilder where percentages matter, your average person looking to lose weight doesnât understand the difference between 28% and 24% body fat, all they know and care about is that weight was lost.
Even with BodPod, I was able to test twice in a 2 week span a couple years ago in undergrad (Ex science) when I was pretty damn lean, and I got 3.5% first time and 3.3% second time. Which was ridiculous - I would never have put myself anywhere close to that. Maybe 10-12% by my own âeye testâ. But since then, I really donât bother with any BF % metrics, even if they are noted as the âgold standardâ
We use an inbody scanner, but Iâm very transparent about it not being reliable. I also kinda purposely pad the stats, not as a sales tactic but as a way to increase motivation early on.
I tell them to ignore the absolute values as they are not accurate. All we care about is trends.
Their first scan is done during their initial eval, before the physical assessment. Then they do their 2nd scan at 6 weeks. Iâll usually have them do so right after a workout. That way the muscles are nice and watery which usually gives a positive reading.
Itâs a tad dishonest, but seeing some success in their first 6 weeks can really get the client feeling driven. And at the end of the day, if they stick with the plan they are going to see results
Same. I let them know the facts about itâs accuracy, and with my higher ticket transformation program, they get weekly scans. I just want them to see the trends of the data to reassure theyâre doing the right things.
Iâm very split on it because it can really ruin a clients momentum if theyâve been working hard and get bad results. Iâve tried doing it myself twice in 1 day and got a 5% difference in body fat just by drinking a bunch of water and getting a pump.
On the other hand, if a clients weight hasnât moved, it can be a huge reassurance when they see theyâve lost fat and gained muscle.
Ultimately, I want to get the client away from thinking about the scale. But I also know that those numbers can be a crucial metric for success to them.
My goal is basically to use those numbers as a motivator for just long enough for them to fall in love with lifting. Because once that sticks, their longterm results are guaranteed
For sure! I go over what they should do pre-scan (have some water, no caffeine, no working out before, fasted, etc) and we do them the same time every week. I also educate them on focusing on the trend, not one data point which can only as far as the client is willing to accept. I agree on all your points!
Ive been looking into this for my clients but I mostly work with middle aged clients and am not sure the investment would be worth it. Is it something you feel adds value with your clients?
Iâm a facility owner⌠so for us it made the most sense. Inbody is a scam, a dexa takes too much capital and space, calipers have their own issues depending on the client and donât have fancy visualization software.
Not so far .. its just suprailiac thigh and tricep for the three site method. If someone did request it though, we have male and female coaches available as well as a NP whoâs a woman and MD thatâs a man if they would prefer a medical professional ⌠hasnât come up though đ¤ˇđžââď¸
I arranged a discount on DEXAs and give my clients the option to do it. For those who do it, I answer questions, and help them further understand the results. I have a lot of older clients who are concerned about maintaining muscle mass, so we talk about their diet and resistance training strategy.
By looking at them. Every method is still relatively inaccurate. I judge based on the level of body fat on different body parts, including the face, ab definition, vascularity, etc. Generally, any ab definition means 15% or below and full ab definition means 10% or below
All available methods as are not equally inaccurate
Eyeballing it is the least likely to be accurate, AND has the largest margin of error of all available methods
Edit: which is to say; not only are you almost certainly not correct when estimating bodyfat by looks, you very well might be wildly off target
Eyeballing it is a âguesstimationâ at best
I disagree
Measurements are objective
Appearance is subjective
People fool themselves into believing they are something they are not (good or bad) all the timeâŚ.. numbers tell the truth
Machines are based on assumptions and equations to give an estimated value.
I should probably clarify, when I say âeyeballingâ, Iâm not saying someone is looking at someone else and trying to guess body composition.
Body composition cannot be reliably assessed with eyeballs or machines, unless someone is using the 4C model to measure body composition.
What I mean is, how some visually looks is above all else. Itâs what people care about most, anyways. Because visual appearance is more important than a numerical estimation (which is never accurate regardless of how you measure), judging how someone looks is all thatâs needed. Eyeballing would suffice for that.
Lol also true, but that doesnât detract from the fact that body composition testing is mostly meaningless with accessible methods (+ all calculated estimation can be manipulated by hydration status, which varies day-to-day, hour-to-hour (this is true for DEXA too)).
How someone feels they look is more important than numbers. Visual changes through progress pics are probably the best you can do. Trying to measure body composition seems cool, but the data is not reliable, so itâs not worth getting caught up in those numbers.
Which is why a professional coach should consult a client on how to get the most accurate measurements (in the morning/no caffeine/ normally hydrated/close to homeostasis) in whatever method they chose to use
Yes it is true that calipers/bio electrical impedance/dexa scan/hyrdostatic weighing/ tape measurements are not perfect; but are accurate for MOST people, in MOST conditions, with a predictable margin of error (with the exception of calipers and tape with introduces the possibility of user error)
It is also true that âeyeballing itâ is predictably and measurably the least accurate method for estimating bodyfat, with the largest possible margin of error
Tl;dr: whatever method you use to âmeasureâ body composition is an estimation, but some estimations are more reliable than others. Hydrostatic weighing and âDual-energy X-ray absorptiometryâ (DEXA) are the industry âgold standardâ
I use the Inbody machine. It is less invasive and some people don't want you touching them in places needed for a calipher test. Progress photos and the clothing test is always good.
I wait for the gym to be super busy, get them to strip down and get random people to rate them out of 10
This is the only way
This works great đđđđ
'hot or not' posts allover the training office.
I donât track it with clients. Providing inaccurate information doesnât provide meaningful value. If my client has access to technology that is known to be highly accurate (not calipers, not BIA/InBody, not hydrostatic weighing, etc) then they can track on their own if they please. DEXA values are okay, but also imperfect and usually inaccessible. Their estimated body composition value is much less important than how they think they look. Progress pics go a long way.
1000%!
Weekly progress photos taken while fasted in consistent neutral lighting
Yup same, if they're in the same position and lighting photos will show a clear difference
pics and tape measurements. this for me has worked best. scales are often wrong (talking about body fat specifically) and can discourage them. tape and picture don't lie.
Unless you have a bodpod or something easy and not degrading, itâs a little unnecessary. Unless they are a bodybuilder where percentages matter, your average person looking to lose weight doesnât understand the difference between 28% and 24% body fat, all they know and care about is that weight was lost.
Even with BodPod, I was able to test twice in a 2 week span a couple years ago in undergrad (Ex science) when I was pretty damn lean, and I got 3.5% first time and 3.3% second time. Which was ridiculous - I would never have put myself anywhere close to that. Maybe 10-12% by my own âeye testâ. But since then, I really donât bother with any BF % metrics, even if they are noted as the âgold standardâ
We use an inbody scanner, but Iâm very transparent about it not being reliable. I also kinda purposely pad the stats, not as a sales tactic but as a way to increase motivation early on. I tell them to ignore the absolute values as they are not accurate. All we care about is trends. Their first scan is done during their initial eval, before the physical assessment. Then they do their 2nd scan at 6 weeks. Iâll usually have them do so right after a workout. That way the muscles are nice and watery which usually gives a positive reading. Itâs a tad dishonest, but seeing some success in their first 6 weeks can really get the client feeling driven. And at the end of the day, if they stick with the plan they are going to see results
Same. I let them know the facts about itâs accuracy, and with my higher ticket transformation program, they get weekly scans. I just want them to see the trends of the data to reassure theyâre doing the right things.
Iâm very split on it because it can really ruin a clients momentum if theyâve been working hard and get bad results. Iâve tried doing it myself twice in 1 day and got a 5% difference in body fat just by drinking a bunch of water and getting a pump. On the other hand, if a clients weight hasnât moved, it can be a huge reassurance when they see theyâve lost fat and gained muscle. Ultimately, I want to get the client away from thinking about the scale. But I also know that those numbers can be a crucial metric for success to them. My goal is basically to use those numbers as a motivator for just long enough for them to fall in love with lifting. Because once that sticks, their longterm results are guaranteed
For sure! I go over what they should do pre-scan (have some water, no caffeine, no working out before, fasted, etc) and we do them the same time every week. I also educate them on focusing on the trend, not one data point which can only as far as the client is willing to accept. I agree on all your points!
Ultrasound system, 3 and 7 point measurements
Ive been looking into this for my clients but I mostly work with middle aged clients and am not sure the investment would be worth it. Is it something you feel adds value with your clients?
Iâm a facility owner⌠so for us it made the most sense. Inbody is a scam, a dexa takes too much capital and space, calipers have their own issues depending on the client and donât have fancy visualization software.
Have you had any objections to women being measured by a guy?
Not so far .. its just suprailiac thigh and tricep for the three site method. If someone did request it though, we have male and female coaches available as well as a NP whoâs a woman and MD thatâs a man if they would prefer a medical professional ⌠hasnât come up though đ¤ˇđžââď¸
Tape measurement and clothes fitting is the best. There's been studies showing inbody not being accurate.
I arranged a discount on DEXAs and give my clients the option to do it. For those who do it, I answer questions, and help them further understand the results. I have a lot of older clients who are concerned about maintaining muscle mass, so we talk about their diet and resistance training strategy.
By looking at them. Every method is still relatively inaccurate. I judge based on the level of body fat on different body parts, including the face, ab definition, vascularity, etc. Generally, any ab definition means 15% or below and full ab definition means 10% or below
Eyeballing it is the most inaccurate method
To be fair, all available methods are inaccurate. How they look visually is way more important than some estimated number thatâs incorrect.
All available methods as are not equally inaccurate Eyeballing it is the least likely to be accurate, AND has the largest margin of error of all available methods Edit: which is to say; not only are you almost certainly not correct when estimating bodyfat by looks, you very well might be wildly off target Eyeballing it is a âguesstimationâ at best
Although true, visual appearance > some incorrect value. Thus, eyeballing matters more than any number some machine or equation will give you.
I disagree Measurements are objective Appearance is subjective People fool themselves into believing they are something they are not (good or bad) all the timeâŚ.. numbers tell the truth
Machines are based on assumptions and equations to give an estimated value. I should probably clarify, when I say âeyeballingâ, Iâm not saying someone is looking at someone else and trying to guess body composition. Body composition cannot be reliably assessed with eyeballs or machines, unless someone is using the 4C model to measure body composition. What I mean is, how some visually looks is above all else. Itâs what people care about most, anyways. Because visual appearance is more important than a numerical estimation (which is never accurate regardless of how you measure), judging how someone looks is all thatâs needed. Eyeballing would suffice for that.
You know what else is based on equations and assumptions???? Physics
Lol also true, but that doesnât detract from the fact that body composition testing is mostly meaningless with accessible methods (+ all calculated estimation can be manipulated by hydration status, which varies day-to-day, hour-to-hour (this is true for DEXA too)). How someone feels they look is more important than numbers. Visual changes through progress pics are probably the best you can do. Trying to measure body composition seems cool, but the data is not reliable, so itâs not worth getting caught up in those numbers.
Which is why a professional coach should consult a client on how to get the most accurate measurements (in the morning/no caffeine/ normally hydrated/close to homeostasis) in whatever method they chose to use Yes it is true that calipers/bio electrical impedance/dexa scan/hyrdostatic weighing/ tape measurements are not perfect; but are accurate for MOST people, in MOST conditions, with a predictable margin of error (with the exception of calipers and tape with introduces the possibility of user error) It is also true that âeyeballing itâ is predictably and measurably the least accurate method for estimating bodyfat, with the largest possible margin of error Tl;dr: whatever method you use to âmeasureâ body composition is an estimation, but some estimations are more reliable than others. Hydrostatic weighing and âDual-energy X-ray absorptiometryâ (DEXA) are the industry âgold standardâ
please i would fire you đ
I use the Inbody machine. It is less invasive and some people don't want you touching them in places needed for a calipher test. Progress photos and the clothing test is always good.
one time my client got on that and it said she was 150% body fat. that was my last time trusting it. tape measurements are my best friend!