Anyone Heard of the BodPod?

[grnmchn]

http://www.bodpod.com/index.php

A new gym where I live has one and I went and got my bodyfat measured using it. Curious to see if anyone else has used it and what their opinions are. It calculated my bf at 16%, which seems to be realistic.

[Bouncer]

Must be a true warrior gym you go to. :D

[FitnessBrat]

Haha - that thing looks funny! Wonder why they do all they can to get away from simple calipers??

[coffee-guy]

Had one of those at the gym on a cruise I went on a while back - you must go to a "pretty people" gym :P...

[FitnessBrat]

Had one of those at the gym on a cruise I went on a while back - you must go to a "pretty people" gym :P...

A while back huh :rolleyes:....

[coffee-guy]

A while back huh :rolleyes:....

WTH - it was 2001 I think???

[Bouncer]

do i smell some drama in the nest? :D

[grnmchn]

Ahaha, everybody's got jokes! No it's actually a wellness center that specializes in rehab. Not technically a gym. Next time I'll make sure to find a gym where I can lift using nothing but cinder blocks;)

[blm]

do i smell some drama in the nest? :D

damn kids, lol

[FitnessBrat]

damn kids, lol

Wait - what did you say about kids blm? ;)

[Curls4dGirls]

Let me tell you my experience with this thing. Back about 2 years ago, my friend and I had a bet on who could get the leanest. We decided to go to Georgia Tech to get measured to settle the bet, figuring that they would have hydrostatic bf analysis. Anyway, they have this freakin' bod pod. I was fairly ripped. First time I stepped in .... 9.7%. That can't be right. I stepped in less than 1 minute after the first reading ... 12.5%. Back to back readings ... 30% variance. The specialist performed a 5 point skinfold test, and it read 6.7%.

Do a google search on the bod pod. crap.

[blm]

Wait - what did you say about kids blm? ;)

lol...I knew as soon as I typed my reply that you would chime in w/something of the sort ;)

[grnmchn]

Let me tell you my experience with this thing. Back about 2 years ago, my friend and I had a bet on who could get the leanest. We decided to go to Georgia Tech to get measured to settle the bet, figuring that they would have hydrostatic bf analysis. Anyway, they have this freakin' bod pod. I was fairly ripped. First time I stepped in .... 9.7%. That can't be right. I stepped in less than 1 minute after the first reading ... 12.5%. Back to back readings ... 30% variance. The specialist performed a 5 point skinfold test, and it read 6.7%.

Do a google search on the bod pod. crap.

So do you think the machine measures high consistantly, or does it vary?

[Curls4dGirls]

Evaluation of the BOD POD for assessing body fat in collegiate football players.Collins MA, Millard-Stafford ML, Sparling PB, Snow TK, Rosskopf LB, Webb SA, Omer J.
Exercise Research Laboratory, Department of Health and Performance Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta 30332-0110, USA. [email protected]

PURPOSE: The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the accuracy of a new air displacement plethysmograph, BOD POD Body Composition System, for determining %fat in collegiate football players. METHODS: Body fatness was estimated from body density (Db), which was measured on the same day using the BOD POD and hydrostatic weighing (HW) in 69 Division IA football players. In addition, 20 subjects were whole body scanned using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, DXA (Lunar DPX-L) to assess total body mineral content and %fat. Mineral content and HW determined Db were used to compute %fat from a three-component model (3C; fat, mineral, and residual). RESULTS: Test-retest reliability for assessing %fat using the BOD POD (N = 15) was 0.994 with a technical error of measurement of 0.448%. Mean (+/- SEM) Db measured with the BOD POD (1.064 +/- 0.002 g x cc(-1) was significantly greater (P < 0.05) than HW (1.060 +/- 0.002 g x cc(-1)), thus resulting in a lower %fat for the BOD POD (15.1 +/- 0.8%) compared with HW (17.0 +/- 0.8%). Similar results (N = 20) were found for DXA (12.9 +/- 1.2%) and the 3C (12.7 +/- 0.8%) where %fat scores were significantly higher (P < 0.05) than scores determined using the BOD POD (10.9 +/- 1.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Db measured with the BOD POD was higher than the criterion HW, thus yielding lower %fat scores for the BOD POD. In addition, BOD POD determined %fat was lower than DXA and 3C determined values in a subgroup of subjects. Assessment of %fat using the BOD POD is reliable and requires minimal technical expertise; however, in this study of collegiate football players, %fat values were underpredicted when compared to HW, DXA, and the 3C model

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

[Curls4dGirls]

this one is a lot more directed at your question

Evaluation of the BOD POD for estimating percent fat in female college athletes.Vescovi JD, Hildebrandt L, Miller W, Hammer R, Spiller A.
Exercise Science Programs, The George Washington University Medical Center, Washington, D.C. 20052, USA. [email protected]

The purpose of this investigation was to examine the accuracy of percent body fat (%BF) estimates obtained by air displacement plethysmography (ADP) using the BOD POD Body Composition System compared with hydrostatic weighing (HW) in a group of female college athletes (n = 80). In addition, %BF estimates by skinfold measures (SF) were also obtained for comparison. A lean subset (n = 39) of the sample was also examined. Mean %BF estimated for the entire sample by ADP (21.2 +/- 5.9%) was significantly greater than that determined by HW (19.4 +/- 6.4%) and SF (18.8 +/- 5.5%). Results from the lean subset also revealed that %BF determined by ADP (17.1 +/- 3.7%) was significantly higher than %BF estimates by HW (14.3 +/- 2.8%) and SF (15.2 +/- 3.2%). The regression equation for the entire sample (%BF HW = 0.937%BF ADP - 0.452, r(2) = 0.73, standard error of estimates (SEE) = 3.34) did not differ from the line of identity. In contrast, the line of identity differed significantly from the regression equation for the lean subset of female athletes (%BF HW = 0.48%BF ADP + 6.115, r(2) = 0.41, SEE = 2.18). The results of this investigation indicate that ADP significantly overestimated %BF by 8% in female athletes and by 16% for a leaner subset of the sample compared with HW. It appears that %BF estimates by SF may be more accurate than those obtained by ADP for female college athletes, regardless of body composition. Coaches and trainers evaluating body composition should consider the use of SF before ADP when measuring %BF in female college athletes. Sports scientists should continue to examine the possible gender and body composition bias for ADP.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract


I would be more concerned with the fact that, when I took the test, it gave two totally different readings in under 1 minute. Completely invalid, esp give the above article.