JFIFC    $ &%# #"(-90(*6+"#2D26;=@@@&0FKE>J9?@=C  =)#)==================================================iK" }!1AQa"q2#BR$3br %&'()*456789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz w!1AQaq"2B #3Rbr $4%&'()*56789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz ?9`4 (PֆDV,H]($uaR}nj- _ hcW>2PO@=W>"MOKliwo]Y:W^چ1Pxbt¶⺰ֵ:顽*J~N X MUF=zUMBJ^~RO3'ljczTl}gh)UJXgHMԹ Q 2P[=6O) ]c/9UDGsYK,HN+m CF~WźkL)]FøcԊ}UmWW*w:5m.Ͳ,M햝})%{]wne+kNb*xu9p2ԊKAs_BA'\W#zWI-duG3F!5u0erH9/inQ|Aas˫!8&-ita0DB?}k*H@-l2Jr}NY47ӚGrѿY4y6l7lF=cJx7~P߱3:{Ht͏Lk4ofTx!E<<(gpqD7>Uc=Yze\vP7Vq3Y8Pvpd0H5u'/1i۩TZmܤO>f(Η; s%䚪nڒYH܌ V@:[Mo;8@y'+\O?ڥƧJzZwQmVs>='`*>]lˬ[J]nvCڳC5Na^HEAmݞGE ]dVкgoJhH?顕^ِ^M7dͧ~UQIv"^v҂joV:,f!j4W,IH&:#&e(]\ݯ-ѻ^^8$eKLS9XTdZ@e ;qМd{WOI)1^C|sIqLl3v< X, {!bS.>W~1bT0. [9R ktZ7}[Y_Lqvf0%>6!{OΝovV=jt t 7$zTi_=)t F>ƦcJȻH8ϡ*fZ{]0]  ޕ[6p[(@fxq:|\5m21y ,g(6)Jɡm;l++gҷm"~1QpKIk h)ۜCw }BFrԍt{x'N(. @KJ8=H>ٮ2zpPj. ۷OC9A?f#c]p\`(Xr1'cƐxVNZO]XlJn׵`roLQGG+60~UѬpSŤj3v~ߏjЬ@l?V` SAN)lGecRZ閖NmoM!W*0uFʌ})X0?QRr\˃hhd}E,ԩV(BOCE (#X~QIgNnQINZj?J(??ZO>QTZZQ@ ohC?most colleges. Other disadvantages of this system is the hassle of stripping down and submerging yourself in a tank. It is also difficult to administer and takes about 10 minutes to test.<br><br>DEXA is another accurate way to test body fat. I had this done on myself to compare the DEXA results with the hydrostatic method and the new Tanita Analyzer. All three were essentially the same. DEXA s system uses x-rays and is extremely expensive.<br><br>Skin calipers are the most popular method because of the cost. They are inexpensive but not very accurate. Another problem is the difficulty of reproducing results. In other words, there can be a wide variance of results between testers or even the same tester.<br><br>Ultrasonic systems ar