Concepts: Meaningful Detail, Meaningful Precision; Accuracy (WAS: Living lean: How we perceive our own bodies (WAS: How to gain weight?))

[Guest guest]

Hi Carla,

 

Yes I understand ... and to my knowledge, no one has ever measured his/her

body fat %, then cut him/herself open to validate the measurement technique.

 

 

And it doesn't matter, for our purposes in this conversation. Let me explain

....

 

Let's consider the idea of meaningfulness. Often nowadays, we express

ourselves in meaningless detail, simply because we have immersed ourselves

in the same.

 

Example: Suppose I ask two people what time it is now. One responds " It's

12:43. " The other responds, " It's about a quarter 'til one. "

 

Question: Which response is more useful? The answer MUST be in the form of a

follow-up question: For what purpose?

 

If we are plotting the trajectory for reentry of a space shuttle into the

Earth's atmosphere, then consider precision is not only useful but

necessary. On the other hand, if I'm thinking about going for a hike soon,

then " quarter 'til one " might be equally or even more useful.

 

Why? The tone, the energy of the communication seems much softer to me;

hearing that " it's about a quarter 'til one, " contraction and all, fits the

energy in which I am experiencing life at the moment. In contrast, hearing

that " it's 12:43 " triggers me into my left brain, where I may really not

wish to go at all just now.

 

How can we apply this to the topic of body fat measurement?

 

If you were a world-class athlete, then indeed we would be interested in

measuring with a high level of accuracy and precision. But you are not. You

are an ordinary mortal seeking better health. To be honest, whether your

body fat % is 23 or 25 or 27 is only of mild consequence, at least given

where you are now. What IS of interest is that ALL these numbers are FAR

above 15%, a healthful range in which to live (for women). So if you were to

go out and collect three measurements, and all three hovered around 25% +/-

a few percentage points, we wouldn't care at all about the apparent " error "

in the measurements. Why? because we would know, based upon ALL of the

measurements, that you have a 10% reduction in body fat ahead of you, give

or take.

 

So if you were to go out and collect a couple of measurements using the

methods I've described here, those measurements would serve your present

purpose just fine.

 

Make sense?

 

Best to all,

Elchanan

 

PS: I publish most of my posts in the PathOfHealth Group.

_____

 

rawfood [rawfood ] On Behalf Of

Carla Alexandra Rose

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 9:58 AM

rawfood

Re: [Raw Food] Living lean: How we perceive our own bodies (WAS:

How to gain weight?)

 

 

From what I heard, both of those methods are highly inaccurate with a huge

margin of error. The hydrostatic is much more accurate but cost money.

 

Carla

 

On 5/22/07, Elchanan <Elchanan@pathofheal

<Elchanan%40pathofhealth.org> th.org> wrote:

>

> Oh, a lot of gyms will do it for you for free, if they think you might

> be

> interested in joining. Also, electronics stores sell these digital scales

> that measure body fat % as well as weight. You could ask a sales person to

> show you how it works, try it out. Use bare feet to get the electrical

> impedance as accurate as possible.

>

> Others may have additional ideas. And over in Path of Health we have some

> formula for this ... I'll look in the archive over there.

>

> Best,

> Elchanan

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

The margin of error I'm talking about is more than just one-three points.

I've seen ranges of over 10% in some people just because they measured 2-3

different ways or by more than one person. Thats too far off to get an

accurate measurement by a machine or an untrained gym salesperson (whose job

is to sell memberships).

 

Carla

 

 

---------------

>

> If you were a world-class athlete, then indeed we would be interested in

> measuring with a high level of accuracy and precision. But you are not.

> You

> are an ordinary mortal seeking better health. To be honest, whether your

> body fat % is 23 or 25 or 27 is only of mild consequence, at least given

> where you are now. What IS of interest is that ALL these numbers are FAR

> above 15%, a healthful range in which to live (for women). So if you were

> to

> go out and collect three measurements, and all three hovered around 25%

> +/-

> a few percentage points, we wouldn't care at all about the apparent

> " error "

> in the measurements. Why? because we would know, based upon ALL of the

> measurements, that you have a 10% reduction in body fat ahead of you, give

> or take.

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

perhaps the errors you have seen were as you mentioned by someone untrained

because we have someone in our office, that teaches our exercise classes, she

has measured and it has always been accurate when also measured at the gym so

you can't assume all measurements are incorrect as a rule.

 

Carla Alexandra Rose <rose.carla wrote: The margin of error

I'm talking about is more than just one-three points.

I've seen ranges of over 10% in some people just because they measured 2-3

different ways or by more than one person. Thats too far off to get an

accurate measurement by a machine or an untrained gym salesperson (whose job

is to sell memberships).

 

Carla

 

---------------

>

> If you were a world-class athlete, then indeed we would be interested in

> measuring with a high level of accuracy and precision. But you are not.

> You

> are an ordinary mortal seeking better health. To be honest, whether your

> body fat % is 23 or 25 or 27 is only of mild consequence, at least given

> where you are now. What IS of interest is that ALL these numbers are FAR

> above 15%, a healthful range in which to live (for women). So if you were

> to

> go out and collect three measurements, and all three hovered around 25%

> +/-

> a few percentage points, we wouldn't care at all about the apparent

> " error "

> in the measurements. Why? because we would know, based upon ALL of the

> measurements, that you have a 10% reduction in body fat ahead of you, give

> or take.

>

>

 

 

[Guest guest]

Yes, I agree. At the same time, when I change machines, I do notice some

variance. The low-end machines are not calibrated for high-precision

measurement.

 

_____

 

rawfood [rawfood ] On Behalf Of

Terry Bakhtiari

Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:53 AM

rawfood

Re: [Raw Food] Concepts: Meaningful Detail, Meaningful Precision;

Accuracy (WAS: Living lean: How we perceive our own bodies (WAS: How to gain

weight?))

 

 

perhaps the errors you have seen were as you mentioned by someone untrained

because we have someone in our office, that teaches our exercise classes,

she has measured and it has always been accurate when also measured at the

gym so you can't assume all measurements are incorrect as a rule.