The problem of the analysis of muscle mass lies in the fact that, on the one hand, muscle mass is a sort of constant value, and in healthy people approximately fit into one corridor of values.
On the other hand, muscle mass, an increase in it is an increase in body weight. Accordingly, you need to be sure that the person “gets fat” because of the muscles, and not because of fat. And finally, the problem itself with the calculation as such: all the methods at hand are fairly approximate.
Let's talk about it.
When we once again started testing the MGB scales, first of all, as you remember, we again turned to the problem of the accuracy of calculating the mass of body fat. This parameter is really important for all categories of people, while the muscular mass, it seems, should be interested in “jocks” or, at least, regulars of gyms.
And that is true: muscle is strength, endurance, the ability to lift heavy things and the aesthetic component, or appearance. Not everyone is following this and not everyone needs it. However, for example, for those who seek to lose weight, after all, you need to follow the muscle mass! For example, if you sit tight on low-calorie food, low-protein foods, then it is likely that a person will lose weight due to muscle loss, and not fat.What is the trick?
Simply put: the changes in muscle mass, you can, in fact, evaluate only by eye. Seriously! In other words, we again return to the problem of burning fat, rather than a set of muscle mass as such.
If you strive to give your body relief, then you first gain some weight, fill it up, and then the “drying” process takes place, and thus, it turns out that you do not gain muscle mass, but drive away excess fat, therefore the analyzer scales are first of all valuable for us that help control this parameter with sufficient accuracy.
The second trick is that muscle mass is a certain constant value, the range of values for which for a healthy person is approximately the same:
For men: the normal value of muscle mass is about 45% of the total body mass.
For women: the normal value of muscle mass is about 35% of the total body mass.
For those who are engaged in the gym systemically, the rate can increase to 50-55%, and for "permanent" bodybuilders and up to 70%, but there are pills, shots and a lot of money. This is not our method!
On a smart scale, this can be expressed as:On the left, the dimension of a person who systematically visits the gym, on the right is an ordinary office worker.
Is there a system in these dimensions? Yes there is. For example, comparing the indicator of a person who just systematically engages in the gym, pursuing his own interests, with the data of the martial arts coach, the picture will be different:How accurate is that?
And here is just the second trick. There is nothing to compare! More precisely, not even so. The thing is that in most sources from the phrase "Muscle mass" is removed one word, which is the secret. Muscle masses like two: Lean Body Mass
and Skeletal Muscle Mass
It is impossible to compare them, and modern diagnostics, first of all bio-impedance analysis and DEXA analysis, calculate different
values! DEXA shows “Lean”, and bioimpedance “Skeletal”, hence the difference:Three values: biomedance in the clinic, smart scales MGB, DEXA
In other words, on the x-ray you see a complex figure on the content of muscles, water in muscles and cells, which can be a significant proportion, and this also does not characterize the relief of the body!
If you set a goal, then you can, of course, adjust the values, since bioimpedance analysis shows
both extracellular fluid and general fluid that can be divided into muscles, but this is already a so-so story.
In other words, according to this parameter: the skeletal muscle mass bioimpedance can only be compared with bioimpedance, and it is impossible to
calculate the Lean Body Mass at home, despite the muscle mass calculation formulas, which are sufficient in the network.Bioimpedance analysis in the clinic and MGB smart scales
The musculoskeletal mass with which we deal is a conditional indicator of the health of the body, endurance and physical development. Lean Mass is largely “recruited” due to fluid and connective tissues, what exactly is the percentage of musculoskeletal mass in this indicator is difficult to say. As a result, it must be said that none of the two indicators characterize the relief of the body! Although, judging by the data, the “dry muscle mass” is nevertheless closer to the indicator of weights, rather than x-rays.What does the internet say?
The potential of a normal person without drugs and doctors, as noted, is up to 12 kg of muscles per year with uniform sports loads with a decrease from year to year to 6 and 3 kg, respectively. Instant dialing is almost impossible without additional stimulation, but the effect of this is quick and not always useful.
A good example of a quick effect is actors who can afford to quickly gain weight and muscle mass and quickly get rid of it, and then recruit again.
It is expensive and unhealthy, but Hollywood stars have money, and they just can afford it. The majority of ordinary people tend to adjust the shape much more systematically, and the system gives the result, and in our system it is enough to stick to values close to the normal range, and this can be observed in trends with the help of smart weights.
Also, do not forget that myostatin is responsible for muscle growth, and for some people, the ability to grow muscles endlessly is genetically limited.Something else? Yes! Let's try with caliper
When we were just starting to talk about weights as a method of analyzing the body, experts immediately appeared, who (partly and fairly) questioned the bio-impedance method in principle.
A really deep detailed body composition analysis is possible only with the help of X-rays - DEXA. However, mathematics is also suitable for tracking trends: and somewhere a regular calculator.
Do you want to compare the study for 10,000 rubles on average with the centimeter for 10 rubles on average?
|Fat mass in%||sixteen||19.7|
|Fat mass in kg||ten||11.9|
|Lean mass||54||Muscle mass + connective tissue + fluid - 48.6|
For such calculations, it is enough to use this calculator
. Of course, there is a difference, but not so catastrophic, it is clear that a person is thin, everything is within the normal range.
To calculate the musculoskeletal mass, you can also use a calculator
, however, a little more "demanding".
Something like this…Difficult to translate?
The first thing that came to mind: Lean Body Mass can be translated in different ways: as "muscle mass", and as "lean" or "dry" body weight, or - lean. And that would be very logical. Indeed: everything that is not fat must be muscles.
All but one tiny discrepancy speaks in favor of this version: there are two columns in the DEXA study: lean body mass and Lean Body Mass, and there are slightly, but different numbers: it means that it is not the same thing.
|Data||Dexa||DEXA 2 lessons|
|Lean body mass||48.6||60.4|
However, the numbers are still suspiciously close! And this evaluation method, simplified by the formula “ everything that is not fat - muscle
”, can be borne in mind. And here the difference between bioimpedance and DEXA will be insignificant:
|Fat Free Weight 1||49,6||51.4|
|Fat Free 2||66||64|
In general, this indicator - beaver body mass - DEXA is already comparable with bioimpedance measurement.
As a result, it must be admitted that for when referring to “Muscle Mass”, different studies and analyzes imply different data. Secondly, it should be noted that muscles and muscle mass are not equal to the relief, and this term should rather be understood as an indicator of the body’s strength, endurance, and physical fitness: close to athletic or, conversely, to obesity. And here everything is inseparable from the fat mass: how much is it? Weight is gained both due to fat, and due to muscles, and with a weight of 100+ kg, muscle mass can be calculated proportionally, but unfortunately you are not an athlete with a round belly instead of a press.
Also note that analyzer scales, as based on their bioimpedance technology, measure skeletal muscle mass, which has a certain range of norms, which is not so difficult for a healthy person to get.
And, perhaps, to date, this indicator is not calculated in any other way except by hand and caliper. However, in order to calculate this data with a caliper and a centimeter, you still need to know your own weight, and then the circle is closed - it's time to buy scales.
We propose to use the MGB model
: light, compact and comfortable, which passed a series of tests and comparisons on different people, including in comparison with classical clinical studies using a bio-impedance meter and a DEXA device.
In the first place, the scales were tested for the ability to calculate fat mass, and in this respect they were very convincing.
|Fat mass in%||21.4||19.7|
|Fat mass in kg||13.6||11.9|
|Metabolism||1348 Kcal / day||1427 Kcal / day|
And the second dimension with another participant:
|Fat mass in%||37||38.6|
|Fat mass in kg||38.7||37,8|
|Fat Free in kg||66 kg||64 kg|
|Metabolism||1829 Kcal / day||1673 Kcal / day|
In other words, it seems to us that the scales are capable of fairly reliably processing a series of data related to body weight and decomposing it on fat / non-fat / bone-muscle mass. First of all, it will help to better monitor the weight and the dynamics of change with some detail.
With its decent and convenient features, the scales are inexpensive: 2490 rubles
. If you wish, you can purchase them with payment immediately on the site for another 500 rubles cheaper by applying a special coupon: MGBBFS
You can subscribe to the systematic mailing of
coupons to e-mail to buy everything cheaper.