Body fat % scale accuracy?
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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 -
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
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 997 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions