3 ms·
Sounds like a DEXA scan would be much more appropriate. Less radiation, cheaper, faster, and specificity tailored for measuring body composition. It’s like 40 b
by fingerlocks 2y ago
Sounds like a DEXA scan would be much more appropriate. Less radiation, cheaper, faster, and specificity tailored for measuring body composition. It’s like 40 bucks and five minutes.
Getting an MRI for body composition is like using industrial high precision equipment to measure the length of a hotdog
- montecarl 2y agoJust in case anyone else reads this and is confused. MRIs only use radio waves. No ionizing (or visible or even IR) radiation is used. The strong magnetic fields are a risk (due to interacting with metallic items embedded in the body). The contrast agents also can cause some undesirable side effects.
- fingerlocks 2y agoHa, I knew this comment was coming. I should left it as “More comfortable” but that was too subjective
- pugio 2y agoI'm a bit wary of regular DEXA due to the ionizing radiation. MRIs have essentially zero health side-effects if you're not using any contrast agents. DEXA is definitely cheaper, but a good amount of my time spent in MRIs was due to assisting in various research and QA projects. Unless you're made of money, I wouldn't recommend that to anyone who has to pay. I wish they were cheaper...