Ultrasound and skinfolds: operator dependence in practice — what changed since

Posting this under the heading it deserves: Ultrasound and skinfolds: operator dependence in practice — what changed since Everything below is what sits behind that.

Longitudinal report with the method stated, because a number without a method is not a measurement.

Same scale, same time of day, same conditions, 83 weeks. I have also recorded protein intake and resistance-training sessions, both self-reported and both therefore optimistic.

The reason I am posting is a pattern in the middle of the series that I cannot explain and that I suspect is measurement rather than signal.

Changes during titration: measuring body composition during active titration is less useful than measuring after dose is stable. Titration causes fluid shifts that confound body composition.

post #17 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.

The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.

Visceral fat: DXA does not distinguish visceral (organ-associated) fat from subcutaneous fat. That distinction might matter but requires different imaging to measure.

Bioelectric impedance analysis: less precise than DXA and strongly affected by hydration state. Not reliable for detecting month-to-month changes. Useful for trend over years if done consistently.