E-bod scale says I'm "Overfat" at 138 pounds, 5,4 tall

molnardrea

I bought a scale today, which measures body fat, muscle mass, etc. *I know these are never accurate, BUT*:

I am a girl, 19 yrs.

When I set that I'm a man, it says 18%, "Healthy", gives me 1596 kcals. And when I set that I'm a woman, it says 32% "Overfat", 1272 kcals. WHAT? I'd die on those kcals, I easily maintain on 2200 kcals.

Why is there such a huge difference? Is it better if I set it that I'm a man?

Notes: I'm fairly okay with my body, legs, arms lean, muscled (I ride, cycle, lift heavy), but I have some fat around my core, can pinch it, but it's not visible in clothes.

What is your opinion on these stats and the concept of the scale? (No wonder we have lots of eating disorders.)

usmcmp

I have a similar scale and if I don't change the fitness setting on it the body fat will be wrong. Next to the woman icon should be a number, 1-5. 1 refers to a normal person and 5 is a professional athlete. You'd probably fall somewhere around a 3.

Francl27

I think those scales are junk. It's one of those scales (at a dietitian!) that convinced me when I was your age that my metabolism sucked and that the only way to lose weight for me was to starve myself, and that then I'd have to starve myself to maintain my weight. Took me 15 years to figure out that it was wrong.

Don't believe it. Stick to MFP!

molnardrea

usmcmp wrote: »

I have a similar scale and if I don't change the fitness setting on it the body fat will be wrong. Next to the woman icon should be a number, 1-5. 1 refers to a normal person and 5 is a professional athlete. You'd probably fall somewhere around a 3.

Sadly it doesn't come with any 1 to 5 scale But I kind of get what you say. The manual says that the percentages do differ from person to person according to how sporty they are.

usmcmp

molnardrea wrote: »

usmcmp wrote: »

I have a similar scale and if I don't change the fitness setting on it the body fat will be wrong. Next to the woman icon should be a number, 1-5. 1 refers to a normal person and 5 is a professional athlete. You'd probably fall somewhere around a 3.

Sadly it doesn't come with any 1 to 5 scale But I kind of get what you say. The manual says that the percentages do differ from person to person according to how sporty they are.

I stopped using the body fat reading on mine. Go by the mirror.

molnardrea

usmcmp wrote: »

molnardrea wrote: »

usmcmp wrote: »

I have a similar scale and if I don't change the fitness setting on it the body fat will be wrong. Next to the woman icon should be a number, 1-5. 1 refers to a normal person and 5 is a professional athlete. You'd probably fall somewhere around a 3.

Sadly it doesn't come with any 1 to 5 scale But I kind of get what you say. The manual says that the percentages do differ from person to person according to how sporty they are.

I stopped using the body fat reading on mine. Go by the mirror.

That's what I'm trying to focus on. Mirror, clothes, a belt that I use often, progress pictures.

beachhouse758

I don't pay any attention to the body composition part of my scale.
I am about 5' 3" and have a very small and narrow frame -- when I've been 138, I was pretty big and "rolly". I don't need a scale to tell me that I was unfit, lol.

I am not sporty, I don't build muscle easily...my point is: we both could be nearly identical in height and weight and be in opposite ends of the fitness and body composition scale.

I think I look best around 115, one of my good friends (same height) look fab (not too thin) at 105, and yet another friend looks great at 135.

Do not fret about the scale. Go by how you feel, how your clothes fit, what your fitness progress is like...

molnardrea

beachhouse758 wrote: »

I don't pay any attention to the body composition part of my scale.
I am about 5' 3" and have a very small and narrow frame -- when I've been 138, I was pretty big and "rolly". I don't need a scale to tell me that I was unfit, lol.

I am not sporty, I don't build muscle easily...my point is: we both could be nearly identical in height and weight and be in opposite ends of the fitness and body composition scale.

I think I look best around 115, one of my good friends (same height) look fab (not too thin) at 105, and yet another friend looks great at 135.

Do not fret about the scale. Go by how you feel, how your clothes fit, what your fitness progress is like...

I understand your point and appreciate what you said. Thank you very much! I was just curious about these scales cause I never tried one.

zoeysasha37

I don't even bother with the body fat reading on mine. Its never accurate so its useless.

You sound like your in fairly good shape so IMO, I wouldn't stress about this scale .

SLLRunner

molnardrea wrote: »

I bought a scale today, which measures body fat, muscle mass, etc. *I know these are never accurate, BUT*:

I am a girl, 19 yrs.

When I set that I'm a man, it says 18%, "Healthy", gives me 1596 kcals. And when I set that I'm a woman, it says 32% "Overfat", 1272 kcals. WHAT? I'd die on those kcals, I easily maintain on 2200 kcals.

Why is there such a huge difference? Is it better if I set it that I'm a man?

Notes: I'm fairly okay with my body, legs, arms lean, muscled (I ride, cycle, lift heavy), but I have some fat around my core, can pinch it, but it's not visible in clothes.

What is your opinion on these stats and the concept of the scale? (No wonder we have lots of eating disorders.)

Please do not rely on the body fat scales for accurate information. A lot of those readings are based on hydration.

It's doubtful you have 32% body fat at 138 pounds.

molnardrea

SLLRunner wrote: »

molnardrea wrote: »

I bought a scale today, which measures body fat, muscle mass, etc. *I know these are never accurate, BUT*:

I am a girl, 19 yrs.

When I set that I'm a man, it says 18%, "Healthy", gives me 1596 kcals. And when I set that I'm a woman, it says 32% "Overfat", 1272 kcals. WHAT? I'd die on those kcals, I easily maintain on 2200 kcals.

Why is there such a huge difference? Is it better if I set it that I'm a man?

Notes: I'm fairly okay with my body, legs, arms lean, muscled (I ride, cycle, lift heavy), but I have some fat around my core, can pinch it, but it's not visible in clothes.

What is your opinion on these stats and the concept of the scale? (No wonder we have lots of eating disorders.)

Please do not rely on the body fat scales for accurate information. A lot of those readings are based on hydration.

It's doubtful you have 32% body fat at 138 pounds.

That's it! If I look at body fat pictures of women, I would put myself somewhere between 22-25%.

rankinsect

Do you have somewhere nearby that has a bodpod or another fairly reliable body composition analysis? Many universities will have one and will rent you time.

molnardrea

rankinsect wrote: »

Do you have somewhere nearby that has a bodpod or another fairly reliable body composition analysis? Many universities will have one and will rent you time.

Well I'm in my country's second biggest city so I'm sure somewhere is one. It is not vital for me to know, but one day if I feel like that I'd like to find out my stats.

JustMissTracy

Why give yourself another number to stress over...you know you're doing well maintaining, and you know you're pretty happy with where your body is, other than the belly (I'd say 95% of women complain about the same bodypart)....keep judging using your mirror, and by the way your clothes fit and how you FEEL...Sounds like you're on the right track! xo

molnardrea

JustMissTracy wrote: »

Why give yourself another number to stress over...you know you're doing well maintaining, and you know you're pretty happy with where your body is, other than the belly (I'd say 95% of women complain about the same bodypart)....keep judging using your mirror, and by the way your clothes fit and how you FEEL...Sounds like you're on the right track! xo

Thanks a lot! Everyone is so supportive here I just love the forums and the whole community !!

zoeysasha37

When I first started, I got myself a new scale. I was all excited to see what it said my bf% was. I jumped on and it said 38% . I knew something was off but I still let it get me down. I thought what the heck is wrong with me then I got on again that night and it said 41% . the next morning 30%. ( you get my point lol !),
I started to catch on that something was a miss with its calculations. Lol ! But I felt upset at first, I really thought it was me. Lol !, after joining mfp and reading countless threads on the topic, I finally knew it wasn't me at all. It was my scale !
After a while, my trainer started using calipers ( not 100% accurate either but IMO, its better then the scales guesses. ) and I would see the downward trend with my numbers, unlike the scale readings that would be all crazy depending on how much water I had drank.
If your really curious you could get a bodpod reading, but I never even looked into it. For me, now I just pay attention to how I look in the mirror and try to forget about the numbers.
So don't fret. These scales are notoriously wrong . l

molnardrea

thorsmom01 wrote: »

When I first started, I got myself a new scale. I was all excited to see what it said my bf% was. I jumped on and it said 38% . I knew something was off but I still let it get me down. I thought what the heck is wrong with me then I got on again that night and it said 41% . the next morning 30%. ( you get my point lol !),
I started to catch on that something was a miss with its calculations. Lol ! But I felt upset at first, I really thought it was me. Lol !, after joining mfp and reading countless threads on the topic, I finally knew it wasn't me at all. It was my scale !
After a while, my trainer started using calipers ( not 100% accurate either but IMO, its better then the scales guesses. ) and I would see the downward trend with my numbers, unlike the scale readings that would be all crazy depending on how much water I had drank.
If your really curious you could get a bodpod reading, but I never even looked into it. For me, now I just pay attention to how I look in the mirror and try to forget about the numbers.
So don't fret. These scales are notoriously wrong . l

Thanks for sharing your experience Helps a lot!

SingRunTing

Obviously getting measured is the best way to tell. But looking a pictorial guide can just give you a gut check if you are in the right ballpark.

molnardrea

SingRunTing wrote: »

Obviously getting measured is the best way to tell. But looking a pictorial guide can just give you a gut check if you are in the right ballpark.

25-ish is my guess if I look at these women, no way above 30 (as that dumb scale says). Thank you! 20-22 goals though!