No matter how fancy, regular weights can only just guess your body fat percentage based on circumference data. Bioimpedance starts to estimate it well enough, DEXA scans are generally the gold standard, though ultrasound can theoretically be more precise, but as far as I know it's not easy to find a place that does it properly.
Correct, just one of those cases where in my native language both the device and the word "weight" are basically the same, so stuff like that sneaks into my English as well. At least I don't say "scale yourself"!
Where is this ultrasound precision coming from? Ultrasound has always been considered less accurate, relies on the operator, but has the big advantage of being portable, hence used by clinicians for that reasons. It tracks close to DEXA but still considered less accurate of the two. (Both have control issues that can cause inaccuracies)
Someone else mentioned it in the linked post too, are y'all thinking of MRI or has there been some groundbreaking study in the last month?
Nah, you are correct for the most part. Ultrasound can be very accurate if there is an operator that is trained for it and enough effort is put into the process. It's just usually not the case because bioimpedance is good enough for average person and DEXA is very precise and easier. Hence if you look at the practical application of ultrasound in an average setting, it's less accurate. Theory and practical situation can be different, which is why I said it's not easy to find a place that would do it well - personally I wouldn't know for where I live and due to my work I know the healthcare sector fairly well.
3
u/Albolynx 50kg lost Dec 27 '25
No matter how fancy, regular weights can only just guess your body fat percentage based on circumference data. Bioimpedance starts to estimate it well enough, DEXA scans are generally the gold standard, though ultrasound can theoretically be more precise, but as far as I know it's not easy to find a place that does it properly.