Body Composition: DXA vs. Hume Pod vs. InBody
I've been tracking body composition through various methods since shortly after I started CrossFit. That was in April 2024. Prior to that, I weighed probably 177-178 on average, with a training regimen of moderate cardio (running and biking) and basic weight training at home. My diet was probably most accurately described as paleo, relatively low carb.
My first InBody was in July of 2024 and reported 11.2% at 178. Shortly after, I bought a Hume Pod, which is the same technology (BIA). Numbers fluctuated but the average over the next year was somewhere between 11 and 13%. The Hume eventually became very unreliable and wouldn't connect. It was replaced in 2025, and has since been very reliable (less fluctuation in readings, and much faster).
Over the two years in CrossFit I increased my carb intake and generally got a little less restrictive on my diet. I wanted to gain muscle and get stronger and have considerably from the start (+100 on back squat, +90 on deadlift, +35 on strict press). It's not clear on weight since I don't weigh myself much but I would say my average weight is up between 8-10 pounds since then. Visually and by readings, body fat probably went up slightly, so the median range of the Hume is probably low to mid 12s (not mid to high 11s).
We got an InBody at the gym a year ago, which I didn't start using until this year. But those readings are in the 10s, which I most certainly am not. Weight is fairly accurate but the estimation of fat mass is very low. Obviously this isn't the same machine as the first one I used, but I think InBody in general is low.
I did a DXA scan earlier this week and came in at 13.6%, dehydrated (not following the directions they give you not to work out and generally be hydrated). But what is interesting is that I immediately did a scan at home, which was at 13.2% after eating lunch. Fat mass was almost identical. The InBody at the gym told me 10.8% with a fat mass of over 5 pounds less. I found out that people like the scale because it's "nicer" than others.
Moral of the story here is that a good BIA scale, even a consumer grade one like the Hume, is apparently quite close to DXA. But that seems to be a gamble because I've used four (two Humes, and two InBodys) and of those four I can say one was very variable (the first Hume), one is very inaccurate (the current InBody), one is accurate (my second Hume), and while I have lower confidence I think the first InBody was reasonably accurate. But with the accurate scale I have at home, I can apparently track pretty well (not just trends, but numbers) without having to pay for DXA.
Just interesting data, that's all.