SimplyShredded.com - Body Building Forum
SimplyShredded.com Forum

I thought this was interesting (Durnin & Wo)18883

Dorich private msg quote post Address this user
I was recently criticized for claiming that the Durnin Womersley body fat equation was more accurate / superior to the more popular Jackson Pollock method. Well, today I came across this:

http://www.academia.edu/31237794/Body_fat_measurement_in_elite_sport_climbers_Comparison_of_skinfold_thickness_equations_with_dual_energy_X-ray_absorptiometry

They used elite sport climbers and compared DEXA results with various caliper methods, including Jackson Pollock and Durnin Womersley.

"In conclusion, of the 17 studied equations, Durnin’s equation was the most accurate in estimating percentage body fat in both male and female elite climbers. Therefore, Durnin’s equation could be used to assess percentage body fat in elite sport climbers if more accurate methods are not available. The generalizability of the results is limited by the fact that the sample was not selected at random."

Anyway, just thought it was insightful.
Post 1 • IP   flag post
eknight private msg quote post Address this user
You were actually criticized for saying JP was worthless, and when literature was provided demonstrating its accuracy, I recall you suggesting it was only accurate among elite athletes. You know- like the population used in the above study. So, couldn't the same argument be made against the study you provided? Just a thought. -3X
Post 2 • IP   flag post
Dorich private msg quote post Address this user
To be honest, I think it's a fairly complex issue and it's hard to form a definitive conclusion based on studies alone, as there seems to be conflicting information. I just thought it was interesting that out of 17 studied equations in this particular study, they came to the conclusion that D&W was the most accurate, or closest to DEXA results. It just struck me as being significant.

In my personal experience (and everyone I know who uses calipers), Jackson-Pollock severely underestimates. I'm talking severely underestimates, with like, practically everyone I've ever talked to. And when asking those same people to try D&W, they are surprised to see how close/accurate it seems to be.

Regardless... if JP works for certain people, then that's fine. But I have no use for it. D&W seems spot on, at least for my body "type" I guess.

And when I said JP was useless several weeks ago, I should've clarified that I see it that way in regards to my own body. So your point is valid.
Post 3 • IP   flag post
EagleRare10 private msg quote post Address this user
@Dorich this is somewhat off topic, but does it matter which is the most accurate? I get that having objective measurement criteria is helpful for assessing progress, but it would seem the "absolute" number arrived at is somewhat arbitrary. If someone looks good and one test tells them 8% and another tells them 12% does it really matter which is more accurate? They still subjectively look good. And either such test would still be useful for measuring progress. Just a thought.
Post 4 • IP   flag post
Dorich private msg quote post Address this user
@EagleRare10 Well, of course you're right, it's not necessary for progress. I was just analyzing.

In terms of progress one doesn't need any formula really. All they need is quality calipers and knowing how to use them, as seeing your skin-folds consistently go down is a sign of progress.
Post 5 • IP   flag post
EagleRare10 private msg quote post Address this user
I see. I guess it's just like an academic sort of interest in which method is best -- not that there's anything wrong with having such an interest or curiosity. Doesn't seem like information that will be that practical to the average lifter though, but I can certainly think of exceptions.

My approach is just more . . . holistic maybe? In that if I look good and feel good, I'm not going to be concerned about a rather arbitrary number estimating body fat percentage. Progress is more important than the number itself is all I'm saying. Again, no doubt there are exceptions. But if someone really has to know exact percentage for some reason, it would seem most practical to just get a DEXA scan.
Post 6 • IP   flag post
Dorich private msg quote post Address this user
@EagleRare10 You're right, although DEXA is a tricky subject as well. It measures not only subcutaneous fat but also visceral and intramuscular. If someone has higher amounts of non-subcutaneous fat, it can provide surprising numbers.

There was a case someone told me about a few months ago, where someone contest-ready and clearly shredded at a very low BF% was DEXA'd and determined to be 13%... mainly due to significant amounts of intramuscular fat.

I'll say that proper use of calipers, a mirror, and a scale are all that's needed to track fat loss progress.
Post 7 • IP   flag post
336178 7 7
Log in or sign up to compose a reply.
destitute