Bone or muscle or what

"Steve Freides" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I know we have lots of ways to tell how much of our weight is fat and how much is everything else.
Has anyone ever attempted, with any success, to break down the numbers further, e.g., to tell how
non-fat bodyweight is composed?

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Uh - I assume you mean to exclude autopsy?

When I had a body fat "test" done using some type of light that (IIRC -
this was a few years ago) was aimed through a finger tip or finger nail,
they wanted to know how often I exercised. The answer was used as
a proxy for bone density which, apparently, affected the assumptions
behind the equations. If I changed how often I went to the gym, it
changed my body fat percent.

Art

"Art S" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Steve Freides" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I know we have lots of ways to tell how much of our weight is fat and
how much is everything else. Has anyone ever attempted, with any
success, to break down the numbers further, e.g., to tell how non-fat
bodyweight is composed?

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Uh - I assume you mean to exclude autopsy?

When I had a body fat "test" done using some type of light that
(IIRC -
this was a few years ago) was aimed through a finger tip or finger
nail,
they wanted to know how often I exercised. The answer was used as
a proxy for bone density which, apparently, affected the assumptions
behind the equations. If I changed how often I went to the gym, it
changed my body fat percent.

All body fat/composition testing methods I'm aware of depend on things
external to the measurements themselves - age, exercise, sex, etc. We
have discussed in this newsgroup how telling the test you're 20 instead
of 40 will likely lower your bodyfat number 4 percentage points or so.

I read about a "light" type of testing - still doesn't seem to test for
anything other than fat versus non-fat - the best I found was a $1500
gadget that says it can determine fat, water, and other, which might
take hydration out of the equation, but that's easy enough to do by
testing yourself a few times. What I'm curious to know is if, e.g.,
anyone can tell you that of "lean" mass, how much is bone, how much is
muscle, etc. I'm pretty sure it hasn't been done, but I figured I'd
ask.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

In article <[email hidden]>,

Steve Freides said:

"Art S" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Steve Freides" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I know we have lots of ways to tell how much of our weight is fat and
how much is everything else. Has anyone ever attempted, with any
success, to break down the numbers further, e.g., to tell how non-fat
bodyweight is composed?

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Uh - I assume you mean to exclude autopsy?

Short of autopsy, the closest we get is a DEXA scan which is what most
universities are using for looking at different compartments:

DUAL ENERGY X-RAY ABSORPTIOMETRY (DEXA)

"DEXA is a new technology that has been proven to be very accurate. The
DEXA technique uses a full body scanner that shoots X-Rays at different
parts of your body (soft tissue, bone etc.) simultaneously. The scanner
is mounted underneath a reclining table with a detector overhead. The
scanner goes up and down the body collecting data at .5cm intervals.
This technique takes about 10 to 20 minutes to scan. The scanner divides
the body into total body mineral, fat-free soft (lean) mass, and fat
tissue mass. The measurements are based on the assumption that the
amount of photon energy in the bone is directly proportional to the
mineral content of that bone. Many researchers hail this device as the
new ³gold standard² when it comes to accurately measuring body fat.
However, further research needs to be done."

There may be even newer methods, but DEXA has been the gold standard in
recent years.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Steve Freides said:

"Art S" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Steve Freides" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>I know we have lots of ways to tell how much of our weight is fat
>and
>how much is everything else. Has anyone ever attempted, with any
>success, to break down the numbers further, e.g., to tell how
>non-fat
>bodyweight is composed?
>
> -S-
> http://www.kbnj.com
>
>

Uh - I assume you mean to exclude autopsy?

Short of autopsy, the closest we get is a DEXA scan which is what most
universities are using for looking at different compartments:

DUAL ENERGY X-RAY ABSORPTIOMETRY (DEXA)

"DEXA is a new technology that has been proven to be very accurate.
The
DEXA technique uses a full body scanner that shoots X-Rays at
different
parts of your body (soft tissue, bone etc.) simultaneously. The
scanner
is mounted underneath a reclining table with a detector overhead. The
scanner goes up and down the body collecting data at .5cm intervals.
This technique takes about 10 to 20 minutes to scan. The scanner
divides
the body into total body mineral, fat-free soft (lean) mass, and fat
tissue mass. The measurements are based on the assumption that the
amount of photon energy in the bone is directly proportional to the
mineral content of that bone. Many researchers hail this device as the
new ³gold standard² when it comes to accurately measuring body fat.
However, further research needs to be done."

There may be even newer methods, but DEXA has been the gold standard
in
recent years.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Very good, Will - thanks for that. Any idea how widespread the use of
this machine is and what it costs to have yourself scanned?

I imagine that one downside to be considered it the exposure to a fairly
large, compared to a single typical x-ray, amount of radiation - is that
true?

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

In article <[email hidden]>,

Steve Freides said:

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Steve Freides said:

"Art S" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> "Steve Freides" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>>I know we have lots of ways to tell how much of our weight is fat
>>and
>>how much is everything else. Has anyone ever attempted, with any
>>success, to break down the numbers further, e.g., to tell how
>>non-fat
>>bodyweight is composed?
>>
>> -S-
>> http://www.kbnj.com
>>
>>
>
> Uh - I assume you mean to exclude autopsy?

Short of autopsy, the closest we get is a DEXA scan which is what most
universities are using for looking at different compartments:

DUAL ENERGY X-RAY ABSORPTIOMETRY (DEXA)

"DEXA is a new technology that has been proven to be very accurate.
The
DEXA technique uses a full body scanner that shoots X-Rays at
different
parts of your body (soft tissue, bone etc.) simultaneously. The
scanner
is mounted underneath a reclining table with a detector overhead. The
scanner goes up and down the body collecting data at .5cm intervals.
This technique takes about 10 to 20 minutes to scan. The scanner
divides
the body into total body mineral, fat-free soft (lean) mass, and fat
tissue mass. The measurements are based on the assumption that the
amount of photon energy in the bone is directly proportional to the
mineral content of that bone. Many researchers hail this device as the
new ³gold standard² when it comes to accurately measuring body fat.
However, further research needs to be done."

There may be even newer methods, but DEXA has been the gold standard
in
recent years.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Very good, Will - thanks for that. Any idea how widespread the use of
this machine is and what it costs to have yourself scanned?

It's a fairly common machine in hosptals and schools with large enough
exercise phys depts to justify cost, so I don't think it should be too
hard to find. No idea of costs.

Quoted message said:

I imagine that one downside to be considered it the exposure to a fairly
large, compared to a single typical x-ray, amount of radiation - is that
true?

I read it was about equal to the additional radiation you get flying
from LA to NY, or something to that effect. Pretty small, but less X
rays the better they say...actual increased risk from DEXA is tiny if it
exists at all.

Quoted message said:

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Steve Freides said:

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Steve Freides" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> "Art S" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
> >
> > "Steve Freides" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> > news:[email hidden]...
> >>I know we have lots of ways to tell how much of our weight is fat
> >>and
> >>how much is everything else. Has anyone ever attempted, with any
> >>success, to break down the numbers further, e.g., to tell how
> >>non-fat
> >>bodyweight is composed?
> >>
> >> -S-
> >> http://www.kbnj.com
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Uh - I assume you mean to exclude autopsy?

Short of autopsy, the closest we get is a DEXA scan which is what most
universities are using for looking at different compartments:

DUAL ENERGY X-RAY ABSORPTIOMETRY (DEXA)

"DEXA is a new technology that has been proven to be very accurate.
The
DEXA technique uses a full body scanner that shoots X-Rays at
different
parts of your body (soft tissue, bone etc.) simultaneously. The
scanner
is mounted underneath a reclining table with a detector overhead. The
scanner goes up and down the body collecting data at .5cm intervals.
This technique takes about 10 to 20 minutes to scan. The scanner
divides
the body into total body mineral, fat-free soft (lean) mass, and fat
tissue mass. The measurements are based on the assumption that the
amount of photon energy in the bone is directly proportional to the
mineral content of that bone. Many researchers hail this device as the
new ³gold standard² when it comes to accurately measuring body fat.
However, further research needs to be done."

There may be even newer methods, but DEXA has been the gold standard
in
recent years.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Very good, Will - thanks for that. Any idea how widespread the use of
this machine is and what it costs to have yourself scanned?

It's a fairly common machine in hosptals and schools with large enough
exercise phys depts to justify cost, so I don't think it should be too
hard to find. No idea of costs.

They are also used to diagnose Osteoporosis. Call an Endocrinologist and
get the names of some reputable facilities that have them. (There is a company
in Las Vegas that has them, but takes as few scans as possible and apparently
has a tendency to interpret the results based on whatever result they want.)

Art

"Art S" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

They are also used to diagnose Osteoporosis. Call an Endocrinologist and
get the names of some reputable facilities that have them. (There is a
company
in Las Vegas that has them, but takes as few scans as possible and
apparently
has a tendency to interpret the results based on whatever result they
want.)

If you pay extra, can you get the results that you want?

"Lee Michaels" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Art S" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

They are also used to diagnose Osteoporosis. Call an Endocrinologist and
get the names of some reputable facilities that have them. (There is a company
in Las Vegas that has them, but takes as few scans as possible and apparently
has a tendency to interpret the results based on whatever result they want.)

If you pay extra, can you get the results that you want?

What?

And interrupt their long-term revenue stream?

You've got to be kidding!

Art

Steve Freides said:

"Art S" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Steve Freides" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I know we have lots of ways to tell how much of our weight is fat and
how much is everything else. Has anyone ever attempted, with any
success, to break down the numbers further, e.g., to tell how non-fat
bodyweight is composed?

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Uh - I assume you mean to exclude autopsy?

When I had a body fat "test" done using some type of light that
(IIRC -
this was a few years ago) was aimed through a finger tip or finger
nail,
they wanted to know how often I exercised. The answer was used as
a proxy for bone density which, apparently, affected the assumptions
behind the equations. If I changed how often I went to the gym, it
changed my body fat percent.

All body fat/composition testing methods I'm aware of depend on things
external to the measurements themselves - age, exercise, sex, etc. We
have discussed in this newsgroup how telling the test you're 20 instead
of 40 will likely lower your bodyfat number 4 percentage points or so.

I read about a "light" type of testing - still doesn't seem to test for
anything other than fat versus non-fat - the best I found was a $1500
gadget that says it can determine fat, water, and other, which might
take hydration out of the equation, but that's easy enough to do by
testing yourself a few times. What I'm curious to know is if, e.g.,
anyone can tell you that of "lean" mass, how much is bone, how much is
muscle, etc. I'm pretty sure it hasn't been done, but I figured I'd
ask.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

I did this "research" recently for bone. From what I could understand,
for males of average size and age (eg. not 70+ years) bones make up
11-13% of body weight. For me, I am about 75KG, 165# with a body fat of
about 14% so my bf is about 24lb which means of the 141# left, about
16# should be bone. A crude but reasonable method.

--
Bob Volkmer
rev@IRC

"rev" <[email hidden]*an*> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Steve Freides said:

"Art S" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Steve Freides" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

>I know we have lots of ways to tell how much of our weight is fat
>and how much is everything else. Has anyone ever attempted, with any
>success, to break down the numbers further, e.g., to tell how
>non-fat bodyweight is composed?
>
>-S-
>http://www.kbnj.com
>
>

Uh - I assume you mean to exclude autopsy?

When I had a body fat "test" done using some type of light that
(IIRC -
this was a few years ago) was aimed through a finger tip or finger
nail,
they wanted to know how often I exercised. The answer was used as
a proxy for bone density which, apparently, affected the assumptions
behind the equations. If I changed how often I went to the gym, it
changed my body fat percent.

All body fat/composition testing methods I'm aware of depend on
things external to the measurements themselves - age, exercise, sex,
etc. We have discussed in this newsgroup how telling the test you're
20 instead of 40 will likely lower your bodyfat number 4 percentage
points or so.

I read about a "light" type of testing - still doesn't seem to test
for anything other than fat versus non-fat - the best I found was a
$1500 gadget that says it can determine fat, water, and other, which
might take hydration out of the equation, but that's easy enough to
do by testing yourself a few times. What I'm curious to know is if,
e.g., anyone can tell you that of "lean" mass, how much is bone, how
much is muscle, etc. I'm pretty sure it hasn't been done, but I
figured I'd ask.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

I did this "research" recently for bone. From what I could understand,
for males of average size and age (eg. not 70+ years) bones make up
11-13% of body weight. For me, I am about 75KG, 165# with a body fat
of about 14% so my bf is about 24lb which means of the 141# left,
about 16# should be bone. A crude but reasonable method.

Interesting. My main curiosity is in knowing if one can determine how
much of a person is muscle.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Quoted message said:

--
Bob Volkmer
rev@IRC

In article <[email hidden]>,

Art S said:

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Steve Freides said:

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> In article <[email hidden]>,
> "Steve Freides" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>> "Art S" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>> news:[email hidden]...
>> >
>> > "Steve Freides" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email hidden]...
>> >>I know we have lots of ways to tell how much of our weight is fat
>> >>and
>> >>how much is everything else. Has anyone ever attempted, with any
>> >>success, to break down the numbers further, e.g., to tell how
>> >>non-fat
>> >>bodyweight is composed?
>> >>
>> >> -S-
>> >> http://www.kbnj.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Uh - I assume you mean to exclude autopsy?
>
>
> Short of autopsy, the closest we get is a DEXA scan which is what most
> universities are using for looking at different compartments:
>
> DUAL ENERGY X-RAY ABSORPTIOMETRY (DEXA)
>
> "DEXA is a new technology that has been proven to be very accurate.
> The
> DEXA technique uses a full body scanner that shoots X-Rays at
> different
> parts of your body (soft tissue, bone etc.) simultaneously. The
> scanner
> is mounted underneath a reclining table with a detector overhead. The
> scanner goes up and down the body collecting data at .5cm intervals.
> This technique takes about 10 to 20 minutes to scan. The scanner
> divides
> the body into total body mineral, fat-free soft (lean) mass, and fat
> tissue mass. The measurements are based on the assumption that the
> amount of photon energy in the bone is directly proportional to the
> mineral content of that bone. Many researchers hail this device as the
> new ³gold standard² when it comes to accurately measuring body fat.
> However, further research needs to be done."
>
> There may be even newer methods, but DEXA has been the gold standard
> in
> recent years.
>
> --
> Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Very good, Will - thanks for that. Any idea how widespread the use of
this machine is and what it costs to have yourself scanned?

It's a fairly common machine in hosptals and schools with large enough
exercise phys depts to justify cost, so I don't think it should be too
hard to find. No idea of costs.

They are also used to diagnose Osteoporosis.

That's what they were actualy designed for.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Steve Freides said:

I know we have lots of ways to tell how much of our weight is fat and
how much is everything else. Has anyone ever attempted, with any
success, to break down the numbers further, e.g., to tell how non-fat
bodyweight is composed?

The only accurate method would be an assay using high-resolution
tomography (NMR, MRI, CAT, PET, whatever).

Everything else is a statistical guess that places you somewhere
in a cloud of uncertainty around an average value determined by
the measurements.

And the only answer that counts is, "what do you look like,
and what did you look like last month?"

--Blair
"It ain't that complicated."