JFIFC    $ &%# #"(-90(*6+"#2D26;=@@@&0FKE>J9?@=C  =)#)==================================================vK" }!1AQa"q2#BR$3br %&'()*456789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz w!1AQaq"2B #3Rbr $4%&'()*56789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz ?0è?Jx\Ux<=? kmjp?:.e·a K;_}hhqoOҼW*_12A]E2}Tbn飒whb!< $ ux_ rq EY)$[*G?en?*F >xOJcVNvh-nGݜ0t BW[4{Ph<ҎH׾(iɥt78d;Xw=lys *Qct-ej͵\iH: %7heqѾ\/VR FWl[̲: S%I$8;1jwc˕qԫ}jݷ.tEr-͜ 0o)1,"s Ku cvqbJNI^ī. Õ?Oq;YZ| VL'6<\_M˸dz3-L5%{؛] qoWO'Ivgx$ٌJO !z77~-xcOA\*` cY+t5lpʶ1{V|Rc~BHFDB0Xe5xhEzZöj穬%]@m[+\/nfB S3(!嫦#&- EFnVm, |ŒX\ a(EM@a~gpoһn9s(zbKƚ>jfT$zxs^%o/bVAL𽖓ǫZJ@TeH+ՂǜC 4mUAWss|\JWSJ 3]ti|1|Z#Ы7cu>E#9lE4%,ps-'Mڦ8*KGUȮJMyΤpHI5hWm;eut*d$OJ؃V߽Idʉ<⺩<wiG 1n)uT-1Gk׷zrX ``O9V&ͽ]bDݪ`LE=tHq:r !XJR|5|3eilh9>m6)< ^3kjpCer|Z=y"Ց PLPa GA法Ti֌~%ܓW"}2/4|5~CU[}N-oOƨ kֶk'J28\nKBk Qv8kNhc+I[[!4SZXy+}*Cy:714K[0z2W {ٙ;M-;-74U\cY1{:̸=|.GsM.|-9e;]ҔIw6UsR-߲6+z`⳦7s|'ar&N:W,A=k04%]"pݎaW6W\#K-$M@)5D|L+cJ%oGHب 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 are accurate and priced right but there is some burden to the subject and moderately difficult to operate. Also, testing cannot be done in unde a minute like the new Tanita Scales. The IRI or infrared method has a lower price but has an accuracy problem. BIA or Bio-electrical Impedance Analysis is accurate bu has a medium price and cannot be tested in under a minute.<br><br>The Tanita Analyzer uses the BI