Open main menu

Changes

Skulpt

594 bytes added, 11:48, 8 December 2019
no edit summary
Skulpt is a small device, a little bigger than a deck of playing cards that estimate body fat and muscle quality. I've found it to be one of the most useful and accurate ways of estimating body fat. It uses a similar principle to [[Body Fat Scales]], sending an imperceptible electrical current through the skin. However, there are a number of key differences between benefits to Skulpt and body fat scales. * Skulpt compares well with the gold standard for measuring body fat, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-energy_X-ray_absorptiometry DEXA]. The , and the results appear to be far better than body fat scalesother approaches. See Validation Research below for details. * Typical Unlike body fat scales which measure overall body fat through 2 or 4 electrodes on your hands and/or feet, where Skulpt uses 12 electrodes close together to measure body fat over an area of about 2" x 3" (5cm x 8cm).
* Skulpt measures up to 24 specific body locations, and it can estimate overall body fat from three measurements on your triceps, abdominals, and quadriceps.
* Unlike body fat scales, Skulpt has to have wet electrodes to function, so you have to spray the electrodes with water before testing each area. (I replaced the tiny spray that comes with Skulpt for a cheap plant sprayer.) * One reason for having so many electrodes is to pass a current along and across the muscle fibers. This allows the Skulpt to estimate "muscle quality", something that I thought was nonsense until I reviewed the available research. This muscle quality gives a measurement that can detect muscular imbalances, something that can result in injury.* The Skulpt has doesn't provide any indication of body weight, but by the same token, its estimate of body fat isn't dependent on body weight as an input. This may be one of the reasons Skulpt is as accurate as it is. (I use a Bluetooth scale to be sprayed with water before give me my weight measurement.) * Skulpt doesn't use, any data about which body part is annoyingbeing measured in its estimate. If So, if you don't spray evenly over all measure your quads, it will give the electrodes, same value even if you tell it you don't get re measuring your triceps. Again, this shows that Skulpt is not tweaking its value based on a muscle specific model or formula.* If Skulpt has a problem getting a reading, though that's the app shows a warning. This is far, far better than getting displaying an incorrect value. There are a bad readingfew caveats to Skulpt. * Unlike body fat scales, Skulpt has to have wet electrodes to function, so you have to spray the electrodes with water before testing each area. I've found replaced the tiny spray that spraying the sensor comes with Skulpt for a cheap plant sprayer, which works better and applying it twice to pre-dampen the skin seems to produce more consistent resultsdoesn't need refilling as often. * Body hair can make it harder to get a reading, requiring a little more water, but this doesn't seem to effect accuracy (see research below). I've found that spraying the sensor and applying it, then repeating to get a measurement is easier. * Unlike scales, where you don't have to worry too much about positioning, Skulpt is quite sensitive to location. Of course, this is because changing the Skulpt position changes how much fat it will be over. Some locations are easier to be consistent than others. For instance, it's easy to be consistent on the abdominals, as the naval can be used as a convenient landmark, where it's far harder on the quadriceps.* Skulpt doesn't provide any indication of body weightIf you enable "real time scanning" you can move the sensor around, but by and the app will take the reading that has the same token, its estimate of body fat isn't dependent on body weight highest muscle quality as an input. I think this makes Skulpt a little more reliable than body fat scalesis the one that's most directly over the muscle and in the correct position.* Skulpt doesn(This isn't use any data about which body part is being measured in its estimate. So, if you measure your quads, obvious; I thought it will give took the same value even if you tell it you're measuring your tricepslast measurement. ) * Like body any fat scalesmeasurement, Skulpt is sensitive to hydration and electrolyte balance. Some of this This is simply because hydration will change body fat percentage directly. If you have 10Kg of body fat and weigh 100 Kg, your fat is 10%. Drink 2 Kg of water and you weigh 102 Kg and have a body fat of 9.8%. I've not noticed any of the problems you get with hydration skewing the body fat measurement more than that. I've been using the Skulpt for about 3 years, and over that time I found it to be quite useful in assessing my body composition. I periodically do a full body scan, but this is too tedious and time-consuming for me to perform frequently. While Given the accuracy shown by the research, I've been using "quick scan" of 3 locations to estimate overall body fat is interesting, . I've found combine that simply measuring my right abdominal body information with weight from a Bluetooth scale to calculate lean and fat gives me the most useful indication for the time spent. My physique tends mass (I created a iPhone shortcut to accumulate fat around my abdomen, with relatively little change on my arms or legs, so knowing my abdominal fat is do the most interesting valuecalculation. )
<gallery widths=300px heights=300px class="center"><gallery>
File:Skulpt.jpg| The Skulpt device
* A comparison of 91 participants (50 female) with the BodPod system found a good correlation between the two for body fat (0.904). However, they found a significant difference in the average body fat, with Skulpt reading 27.4% and BodPod reading 21.8%<ref name="WilliamsCook2019"/>. This study is only available as a "board" rather than a published study, which limits the details. Note that BodPod is not considered a "gold standard" and in some studies the BodPod read lower than DEXA<ref name="WagnerHeyward2000"/>, though not by such a large amount.
=Is Skulpt Worth It? =
I think for the price, Skulpt is a worthwhile purchase. I've found its estimate of body fat is credible , allowing me to track changes over time and actionable, especially as I doncheck if weight loss is from fat or muscle. It't put on s also good to know where the body fat evenlyis, but like many people accumulated in specific areasthought that's less actionable.The display {{BuyAmazonSpecificProductTemplate:BuyAmazon|AZID=B01DDX0B2W|AZN=Skulpt}}
=Compared with DEXA=
I recently had a DEXA scan, and I compared the values with Skulpt. DEXA estimated overall body fat at 17.6% and Skulpt at 15.8%, which is reasonably close. The values for my legs are rather more believable with Skulpt than DEXA. As you'd expect from a runner, I have extremely lean, muscular legs, so the Skulpt estimate of 8-10% seems more credible than the DEXA estimate of 17.8%.
=Muscle Quality=
While the idea of measuring muscle quality seems like pseudo-science, there's quite a bit of research supporting the approach. This technique, known as "Electrical Impedance Myography", was developed for the evaluation of degenerative diseases. I won't attempt to summarize the research, but if you're interested I would recommend doing searching on Google scholar for "Electrical Impedance Myography". There is a 2009 review is a reasonable starting point<ref name="Rutkove2009"/>. The usefulness of muscle quality information is a little harder to evaluate. Not surprisingly, I found my legs had great muscle quality where my arms were rather poor, something that persuaded me to do a little bit of upper body strengthening. So far, I haven't found any correlation between [[Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness]] (DOMS) and the indicated muscle quality. I've done enough [[Treadmill Descent]] training to reach 2/5 on my DOMS Scale and 3/6 on the Likert Scale Muscle Soreness, and there was no change in the Skulpt Muscle Quality. However, I'm probably close to the top of the range for Muscle Quality in my quads, with absolute values of 145-160 and percentages just under 100%. (I've found no research on Electrical impedance myography and delayed onset muscle soreness.)
==ReferenceReferences==<referencereferences>
<ref name="GraybealMoore2018">Austin J. Graybeal, Michael Lane Moore, Megan R. Cruz, Grant M. Tinsley, Body Composition Assessment in Male and Female Bodybuilders, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2018, pages 1, ISSN [http://www.worldcat.org/issn/1064-8011 1064-8011], doi [http://dx.doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002831 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002831]</ref>
<ref name="Rutkove2009">Seward B. Rutkove, Electrical impedance myography: Background, current state, and future directions, Muscle & Nerve, volume 40, issue 6, 2009, pages 936–946, ISSN [http://www.worldcat.org/issn/0148639X 0148639X], doi [http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mus.21362 10.1002/mus.21362]</ref>
<ref name="CzeckRaymond‐Pope2019">Madeline A. Czeck, Christiana J. Raymond‐Pope, Elyse Prescott, Katie L. Bisch, Donald R. Dengel, Body fat percent assessment between electrical impedance myography and dual X‐ray absorptiometry, American Journal of Human Biology, 2019, ISSN [http://www.worldcat.org/issn/1042-0533 1042-0533], doi [http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.23330 10.1002/ajhb.23330]</ref>
<ref name="McLesterDewitt2018">Cherilyn N. McLester, Alex D. Dewitt, Rasmus Rooks, John R. McLester, An investigation of the accuracy and reliability of body composition assessed with a handheld electrical impedance myography device, European Journal of Sport Science, volume 18, issue 6, 2018, pages 763–771, ISSN [http://www.worldcat.org/issn/1746-1391 1746-1391], doi [http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2018.1448458 10.1080/17461391.2018.1448458]</ref>
</referencereferences>
[[Category:Beginners]]
[[Category:Training]]
Retrieved from "http://fellrnr.com/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/12232"