Body fat % scale accuracy?
Replies
-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21558571?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn
I'm under the impression that if the deficit is low enough, even trained athletes can lose weight while increasing lean body mass.
That said, I'd agree there are ways to increase lifts without gaining muscle, usually either better recruitment, or some level of CNS adaptation.
Also, when you say you've been lifting, do you mean in the long past, or before the recent change in mass?
I can't picture body fat percentage for 6'1" off the top of my head, but at 267, there should be the body fat there that gaining muscle while losing fat is possible.
@25% BF% is it should be possible to put on a small amount of muscle while in a deficit, once BF% gets to the upper teens it would be much less likely to occur.
0 -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21558571?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn
I'm under the impression that if the deficit is low enough, even trained athletes can lose weight while increasing lean body mass.
That said, I'd agree there are ways to increase lifts without gaining muscle, usually either better recruitment, or some level of CNS adaptation.
Also, when you say you've been lifting, do you mean in the long past, or before the recent change in mass?
I can't picture body fat percentage for 6'1" off the top of my head, but at 267, there should be the body fat there that gaining muscle while losing fat is possible.
@25% BF% is it should be possible to put on a small amount of muscle while in a deficit, once BF% gets to the upper teens it would be much less likely to occur.
Yeah, above 25% is about what I've seen claimed, but thinking in terms of weight for a 6'1" person is completely alien to me, unfortunately.0 -
Even if your body fat % doesn't change, that doesn't mean you aren't losing fat. eg a 200lbs man has 23% body fat, he then loses 60lbs (now 140lbs) but his body fat % stays the same. If you do the calculations, before the weight loss he was carrying 46lbs of fat and after the weight loss he now carries 32lbs of fat. That's a difference of 14lbs of pure fat even though his BF% stayed the same.0
-
crazyjerseygirl wrote: »drewlamonte wrote: »Are you new to lifting because you won't really be gaining muscle mass in a defecit
And none if the scales can be believed as absolute numbers ...but you can use them to track relative progress over months
Well done on your progress
Also are you serious that you don't think you can gain muscle when operating under a deficit? That's entirely wrong from what I've read. The main important thing to gaining muscle is eating the correct macro setup, AND just as important, giving your body sufficient recovery time.
Some people think that to gain muscle, you need to basically fatten up while lifting heavy, but that's a very extreme way of going about it in my opinion.
Yes I'm serious, apart from some outliers such as noobs and teenage boys it is very difficult to gain muscle mass in a calorie defecit. You can certainly gain strength though
If you're thinking of recomposition then you would be eating near or close to maintenance as you follow your progressive lifting programme and that again would take a long time
The "some people" you refer to are talking of bulking and cutting cycles which is a very standard way of going about it
Anyway you're clearly on the right path, losing body fat and lifting to preserve LBM whilst eating in a defecit and ensuring you hit your protein and fat macros as minimums
Dumb question, cause I feel like this is happening to me as well.
Could losing weight from being initially very overweight allow you to gain significant muscle mass?
I'm now about 60lbs overweight, it's mostly fat, if I eat at a deficit I'm gonna burn that fat to make up for it, so why wouldn't some of that energy go to building muscle mass as well (assuming you are consuming enough protein).
I can tell my muscles are former, but being female I'm not likely to get bigger. So, hypothesis: solid or blech?
There are a few factors here:
1. As a female, you're probably not looking for the same "bulky" type of muscle mass gains this post is about.
2. Without getting into the science of it, your body would prefer to consume it's own muscles to consuming fat stores, so you're working out while consuming at a deficit is largely just helping you maintain the muscle you have and forcing your body to learn how to burn its fat stores instead of muscle.
3. Don't assume you CAN'T get bigger muscles because you're female. It certainly can be done, but it's probably not your goal and most fitness for women is geared toward being leaner not bulkier.
That being said, just because you may not gain significant muscles mass doesn't mean you cannot gain significant muscle STRENGTH, tone and flexibility. Keep on lifting @crazyjerseygirl!!!0 -
Well, I dunno if my maths are correct but if you weighed 265crazyjerseygirl wrote: »drewlamonte wrote: »Are you new to lifting because you won't really be gaining muscle mass in a defecit
And none if the scales can be believed as absolute numbers ...but you can use them to track relative progress over months
Well done on your progress
Also are you serious that you don't think you can gain muscle when operating under a deficit? That's entirely wrong from what I've read. The main important thing to gaining muscle is eating the correct macro setup, AND just as important, giving your body sufficient recovery time.
Some people think that to gain muscle, you need to basically fatten up while lifting heavy, but that's a very extreme way of going about it in my opinion.
Yes I'm serious, apart from some outliers such as noobs and teenage boys it is very difficult to gain muscle mass in a calorie defecit. You can certainly gain strength though
If you're thinking of recomposition then you would be eating near or close to maintenance as you follow your progressive lifting programme and that again would take a long time
The "some people" you refer to are talking of bulking and cutting cycles which is a very standard way of going about it
Anyway you're clearly on the right path, losing body fat and lifting to preserve LBM whilst eating in a defecit and ensuring you hit your protein and fat macros as minimums
Dumb question, cause I feel like this is happening to me as well.
Could losing weight from being initially very overweight allow you to gain significant muscle mass?
I'm now about 60lbs overweight, it's mostly fat, if I eat at a deficit I'm gonna burn that fat to make up for it, so why wouldn't some of that energy go to building muscle mass as well (assuming you are consuming enough protein).
I can tell my muscles are former, but being female I'm not likely to get bigger. So, hypothesis: solid or blech?
There are a few factors here:
1. As a female, you're probably not looking for the same "bulky" type of muscle mass gains this post is about.
2. Without getting into the science of it, your body would prefer to consume it's own muscles to consuming fat stores, so you're working out while consuming at a deficit is largely just helping you maintain the muscle you have and forcing your body to learn how to burn its fat stores instead of muscle.
3. Don't assume you CAN'T get bigger muscles because you're female. It certainly can be done, but it's probably not your goal and most fitness for women is geared toward being leaner not bulkier.
That being said, just because you may not gain significant muscles mass doesn't mean you cannot gain significant muscle STRENGTH, tone and flexibility. Keep on lifting @crazyjerseygirl!!!
Thanks! You are correct, I'm not aing to bulk up, I was more wondering out loud if muscle could be built under those circumstances (perhaps in a man?)
The lifting is great though. I'm still small lifting but getting there. Strength increases are amazing!0 -
Even if your body fat % doesn't change, that doesn't mean you aren't losing fat. eg a 200lbs man has 23% body fat, he then loses 60lbs (now 140lbs) but his body fat % stays the same. If you do the calculations, before the weight loss he was carrying 46lbs of fat and after the weight loss he now carries 32lbs of fat. That's a difference of 14lbs of pure fat even though his BF% stayed the same.
Hmmm, that's true. I also took middle school math. But it's seems almost impossible to me that the majority of my 25 lbs weight loss has been muscle, due to the visual size of my muscles.
My shirts are tighter probably due to the "pump" or whatever from lifting.
If 18 lbs of the 25 lbs I've lost was muscle, I would assume there would be no way possible that I would be feeling all pumped up, shirts tight and stuff.
Unless the muscle I lost (if I did lose muscle), was only in my thighs for example.
0 -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21558571?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn
I'm under the impression that if the deficit is low enough, even trained athletes can lose weight while increasing lean body mass.
That said, I'd agree there are ways to increase lifts without gaining muscle, usually either better recruitment, or some level of CNS adaptation.
Also, when you say you've been lifting, do you mean in the long past, or before the recent change in mass?
I can't picture body fat percentage for 6'1" off the top of my head, but at 267, there should be the body fat there that gaining muscle while losing fat is possible.
@25% BF% is it should be possible to put on a small amount of muscle while in a deficit, once BF% gets to the upper teens it would be much less likely to occur.
Yeah, above 25% is about what I've seen claimed, but thinking in terms of weight for a 6'1" person is completely alien to me, unfortunately.
That could be possible for me then, in that I was actually building muscle during the first month and a half of my regiment, even while eating under a deficit.
0 -
My scale tells me that my body fat percentage is 34.8. Looking at myself I know that is is terribly inaccurate. Hand held body fat thingy at the gym I go to told me my body fat percentage is 19.8. I am sure that neither one of them are 100% accurate, however I do believe one of them is much closer than the other.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
According to my scale, this is what it looks like to lose 19 pounds of muscle, and 6 pounds of fat (25 lbs total).
Before: 267ish lbs, ~23% body fat shown on scale
After: 242ish lbs, ~22% body fat shown on scale
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
drewlamonte wrote: »According to my scale, this is what it looks like to lose 19 pounds of muscle, and 6 pounds of fat (25 lbs total).
Before: 267ish lbs, ~23% body fat shown on scale
After: 242ish lbs, ~22% body fat shown on scale
For reference, those numbers equate to a Fat Free Mass Index of 27.3 and 25. The usual rule of thumb is no human, even at peak condition, can naturally have an FFMI above 25.
Just to give you perspective on how off the numbers can be.0 -
drewlamonte wrote: »According to my scale, this is what it looks like to lose 19 pounds of muscle, and 6 pounds of fat (25 lbs total).
Before: 267ish lbs, ~23% body fat shown on scale
After: 242ish lbs, ~22% body fat shown on scale
For reference, those numbers equate to a Fat Free Mass Index of 27.3 and 25. The usual rule of thumb is no human, even at peak condition, can naturally have an FFMI above 25.
Just to give you perspective on how off the numbers can be.
Interesting, I have never heard of this before.
I have never taken steroids. I don't even know what they look like. I do consistently take creatine, when lifting weights, and protein shakes.
If my body fat percentage is actually lower than 22%, that would make my FFMI even higher, according to the calculators online, placing me in the "Excellent" or "Superior" category. So, either my FFMI is actually pretty good, or I have more body fat percentage than my scale says, which is opposite of what I want it to be.
It seems that most people are saying that the scales show an over-inflated percentage, not an under-inflated percentage, so that's somewhat promising that my actual body fat percentage is probably (hopefully) not greater than the amounts it's been showing me...0 -
drewlamonte wrote: »drewlamonte wrote: »According to my scale, this is what it looks like to lose 19 pounds of muscle, and 6 pounds of fat (25 lbs total).
Before: 267ish lbs, ~23% body fat shown on scale
After: 242ish lbs, ~22% body fat shown on scale
For reference, those numbers equate to a Fat Free Mass Index of 27.3 and 25. The usual rule of thumb is no human, even at peak condition, can naturally have an FFMI above 25.
Just to give you perspective on how off the numbers can be.
Interesting, I have never heard of this before.
I have never taken steroids. I don't even know what they look like. I do consistently take creatine, when lifting weights, and protein shakes.
If my body fat percentage is actually lower than 22%, that would make my FFMI even higher, according to the calculators online, placing me in the "Excellent" or "Superior" category. So, either my FFMI is actually pretty good, or I have more body fat percentage than my scale says, which is opposite of what I want it to be.
It seems that most people are saying that the scales show an over-inflated percentage, not an under-inflated percentage, so that's somewhat promising that my actual body fat percentage is probably (hopefully) not greater than the amounts it's been showing me...
Your FFMI isn't 25 or close unless you've been training for multiple years (off the cuff guess at least 5, possibly more like 10) straight. The point is to show how off those numbers from the scale have to be at a bare minimum.0 -
drewlamonte wrote: »drewlamonte wrote: »According to my scale, this is what it looks like to lose 19 pounds of muscle, and 6 pounds of fat (25 lbs total).
Before: 267ish lbs, ~23% body fat shown on scale
After: 242ish lbs, ~22% body fat shown on scale
For reference, those numbers equate to a Fat Free Mass Index of 27.3 and 25. The usual rule of thumb is no human, even at peak condition, can naturally have an FFMI above 25.
Just to give you perspective on how off the numbers can be.
Interesting, I have never heard of this before.
I have never taken steroids. I don't even know what they look like. I do consistently take creatine, when lifting weights, and protein shakes.
If my body fat percentage is actually lower than 22%, that would make my FFMI even higher, according to the calculators online, placing me in the "Excellent" or "Superior" category. So, either my FFMI is actually pretty good, or I have more body fat percentage than my scale says, which is opposite of what I want it to be.
It seems that most people are saying that the scales show an over-inflated percentage, not an under-inflated percentage, so that's somewhat promising that my actual body fat percentage is probably (hopefully) not greater than the amounts it's been showing me...
Your FFMI isn't 25 or close unless you've been training for multiple years (off the cuff guess at least 5, possibly more like 10) straight. The point is to show how off those numbers from the scale have to be at a bare minimum.
Well, I am 30 years old, and have been athletic since I was about 10 years old, but only have been lifting for the last 10 years or so, but took a break for a few years within that time range. And, the lifts I had been doing have just been base lifts like bench, squat, shoulders, biceps and triceps.
Even if I enter that I have 35% body fat (which I don't think I have when looking at my before/after photos do you?), when entering into that calculator along with my height and weight, I still have over 20% FFMI, which is considered quite good.
Am I missing something?0 -
drewlamonte wrote: »drewlamonte wrote: »According to my scale, this is what it looks like to lose 19 pounds of muscle, and 6 pounds of fat (25 lbs total).
Before: 267ish lbs, ~23% body fat shown on scale
After: 242ish lbs, ~22% body fat shown on scale
For reference, those numbers equate to a Fat Free Mass Index of 27.3 and 25. The usual rule of thumb is no human, even at peak condition, can naturally have an FFMI above 25.
Just to give you perspective on how off the numbers can be.
Interesting, I have never heard of this before.
I have never taken steroids. I don't even know what they look like. I do consistently take creatine, when lifting weights, and protein shakes.
If my body fat percentage is actually lower than 22%, that would make my FFMI even higher, according to the calculators online, placing me in the "Excellent" or "Superior" category. So, either my FFMI is actually pretty good, or I have more body fat percentage than my scale says, which is opposite of what I want it to be.
It seems that most people are saying that the scales show an over-inflated percentage, not an under-inflated percentage, so that's somewhat promising that my actual body fat percentage is probably (hopefully) not greater than the amounts it's been showing me...
Your FFMI isn't 25 or close unless you've been training for multiple years (off the cuff guess at least 5, possibly more like 10) straight. The point is to show how off those numbers from the scale have to be at a bare minimum.
Then again, someone that weighs 300lbs, who is only 6'2", can have 40% body fat and still have an FFMI of 21%.....not sure how good this calculator is.0 -
FFMI isn't a percentage. It is like BMI, but instead of total mass, it only uses Lean Body Mass / height^2.
The basic point is there is something of a natural upper limit to how much non-fat mass the body will ever accumulate, no matter how hard one trains, or even nor matter how elite the genetics.0 -
FFMI isn't a percentage. It is like BMI, but instead of total mass, it only uses Lean Body Mass / height^2.
The basic point is there is something of a natural upper limit to how much non-fat mass the body will ever accumulate, no matter how hard one trains, or even nor matter how elite the genetics.
Ok. Then it appears my body has the ability/currently is able to carry a high non-fat amount, at least according to the categories of ranges listed. Supposedly, that is "good" for body building, naturally.0 -
FFMI isn't a percentage. It is like BMI, but instead of total mass, it only uses Lean Body Mass / height^2.
The basic point is there is something of a natural upper limit to how much non-fat mass the body will ever accumulate, no matter how hard one trains, or even nor matter how elite the genetics.
Ok. Then it appears my body has the ability/currently is able to carry a high non-fat amount, at least according to the categories of ranges listed. Supposedly, that is "good" for body building, naturally.0 -
My scale seems pretty accurate. Like it says 30% and when I look at those example images I think I look around the 30% example.
But I am starting to doubt it more and more. It's too consistent.
Say I lose 1kg in a week, according to the scale that loss is 30% muscle 70% fat.
That's the ratio week after week. Lose .7kg scale says .49 was fat or 70%
Unless my body is really consistent I find it odd that 9/10 of the past weeks with varying weight loss and gains, 70-75% of the loss or gain was fat and 25-30% was muscles.
I would have thought it would vary more.0 -
Be aware the scale is only looking at FM (Fat Mass) and LBM (Lean Body Mass).
LBM is NOT just muscle, it is everything in your body that is NOT fat. Muscle obviously part of it, along with blood volume, bones, organs, ect - but huge amount of water weight too, about 70% of human body is water.
As you lose fat - you should lose LBM - you need less blood volume to supply fat that is now gone.
Unless doing resistance training, you will lose muscle too in a diet, but not that great.
And throw some ranges of 10% accuracy in there, and you'll find the potential differences not that great.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
StrongAsFuarkBear wrote: »People dont use it correctly
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3036537/
bioimpedance is within 97% accuracy to dexa scan
just use it correctly, under right conditions.
That study compares a Tanita bioimpedance scale that was designed for clinical settings and sells for several thousand dollars.
Consumer grade scales for < $100 are considerably less accurate.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
So which scale do you use? The OPs Taylor scale seems to be faulty.0
-
Also, since most are only feet based, path of measurement is up one leg and right down the other.
Electricity and path of least resistance, right. Rest of your body is unknown. Tables are built for the stats it has, what it does see, and assumptions are made.
Hence the reason you'll find scales that have athlete mode.
Or have feet and hand sensors to get a 3 way cross look.
Are the statistics split by gender, or are they averaged across genders? I'm thinking that women might get higher percentages than if the whole body were measured, given that for many of us, our body fat tends to be mostly located in the lower body.0 -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21558571?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn
I'm under the impression that if the deficit is low enough, even trained athletes can lose weight while increasing lean body mass.
That said, I'd agree there are ways to increase lifts without gaining muscle, usually either better recruitment, or some level of CNS adaptation.
Also, when you say you've been lifting, do you mean in the long past, or before the recent change in mass?
I can't picture body fat percentage for 6'1" off the top of my head, but at 267, there should be the body fat there that gaining muscle while losing fat is possible.
Yeah... I mean people are down on "recomposition" because it's supposed to take too long/be impossible, but as someone else here once pointed out, 20 (or whatever) years ago, people did just get stronger and leaner when they wanted to by eating less and moving more. Ie before the whole bulk/cut thing made its way into the mainstream.0 -
Also, since most are only feet based, path of measurement is up one leg and right down the other.
Electricity and path of least resistance, right. Rest of your body is unknown. Tables are built for the stats it has, what it does see, and assumptions are made.
Hence the reason you'll find scales that have athlete mode.
Or have feet and hand sensors to get a 3 way cross look.
Are the statistics split by gender, or are they averaged across genders? I'm thinking that women might get higher percentages than if the whole body were measured, given that for many of us, our body fat tends to be mostly located in the lower body.
The Get Fit scale that I use has a setting for gender in the profile setup. It would make sense that it has separate internal lookup tables for male and female.0 -
Also, since most are only feet based, path of measurement is up one leg and right down the other.
Electricity and path of least resistance, right. Rest of your body is unknown. Tables are built for the stats it has, what it does see, and assumptions are made.
Hence the reason you'll find scales that have athlete mode.
Or have feet and hand sensors to get a 3 way cross look.
Are the statistics split by gender, or are they averaged across genders? I'm thinking that women might get higher percentages than if the whole body were measured, given that for many of us, our body fat tends to be mostly located in the lower body.
The Get Fit scale that I use has a setting for gender in the profile setup. It would make sense that it has separate internal lookup tables for male and female.
That's good, then! The one at my brother's house doesn't. I'm hoping it's lying to me in that way, too. Tape measure does seem more reliable.0 -
Most I have seen have like a guest mode, that doesn't ask for details, and you get rougher results. But normal mode is using a profile with gender, age and height, not only for the BMI value it spits out, but also for the tables or formula that help with better estimate of impedance shown.
The scales that show more than BF%, like water weight, or muscle weight, ect, use those tables too - that's why those extra values are a real shot in the dark.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions