Actual DEXA Scan results vs Visual estimation

[AlexVZ]

Cheers guys

I've started re-comping some 4 months ago. Yesterday I took DEXA scan, which showed:

BF Percenrage 13,2% overall, but with Android (waist) BFP 6,7% ---> is that even possible?

According to DEXA Scan, I store most of my body-fat in my legs (17,9%) and gynoid-hips (15,2%) --> personally doesn't make sense to me, cause I tend to get fat in the gut and chest and not in the legs??

* could you guys take a look at my photos VS the actual DEXA results and help me interpret the results?

Does the measurement seem right? What kind of body-fat percentage would you visually estimate just by looking at the pictures?

Feedback much appreciated 💪

[SuffolkPunch]

What photos? Upload to your bodyspace profile.

DEXA is likely to be much closer than Android app (which is basically guesswork).

It's easier than you think to store fat in legs - the adjacent muscle means it doesn't look wobbly like the stomach area might.

[Tucane]

I would have said ~14%BF based on visual estimate, so the scan 'seems' pretty accurate this time around. Now there is no way ro really know if it is, as error rates of up to +/–5% are common. Also, I could be wrong despite doing this on a daily basis.

All men store gynoid fat due to reproduction reasons, so you likely do too. As for legs, it's a bit hard to see from the pics, but they are not defined as in 10%BF or below. We are prone to water retention in the abdominal area (due to dietary stress by caloric restriction), so parts of what you percieve as fat might not be.

[spradish]

I think that the android number refers to his fat distribution (android vs gynoid) rather than an app. His results are saying that he has 6.7% bf around his waist.

[SuffolkPunch]

I think that the android number refers to his fat distribution (android vs gynoid) rather than an app. His results are saying that he has 6.7% bf around his waist.

I see, I guess that is 6.7% of the total fat. The legs have a lot more surface area than the waist area so I suppose there is that.

[AlexVZ]

I see, I guess that is 6.7% of the total fat. The legs have a lot more surface area than the waist area so I suppose there is that.

Not 6,7% of total fat, but rather 6,7% bf in this particular section --> i do have some ab tonality (granted my muscles aren't well developed)... and if my abdominal BF percentage would be 13,2% (total BF% according to DEXA) then I wouldn't have visible abs...right?

[SuffolkPunch]

The torso is quite voluminous so that might be a normal number for many people. This is all rather academic. Either you are going to lose fat from all over or not - and you don't need a DEXA to tell you that.

[AlexVZ]

I mean in a way I was surprised with the results

Seeing how I have some visible abs plus decent vascularity, I reckoned the overall BFP would be in the 10% ballpark and not 13,2% as according to DEXA

On the flipside, it seems my mid-section is the leanest part of my body - probly the reason why I have some visible abs, right?

What I find strange is that i accumulate more fat in legs & hips than in upper section --> this is supposed to be a good thing, no?

But before i started working out I'd easily accumulate fat in my chest & stomach... so i never imagined myself have a "good" genetic make-up when it comes to fat storage - but that's what the results suggest, right?

[xsquid99]

Based on your photos I would have said 13% or so...

[Tommy W.]

You don't need to worry about BF% because it's rarely accurate. Worry about what's in the mirror. You don't walk around with your BF number printed on your T shirt however the visual of your appearance is what counts. People stress too much over the BF# and the lean mass number and this is a waste of energy.