Quick Question About Weight Loss

Nery_Tay

I've a scale that is able to read Body Fat %. I've lost 6 pounds and it shows an increase in BF%. Is this normal? Is there a way to decrease BF%?

kommodevaran

You have probably lost the initial water weight along with a small amount of fat. To continue reducing BF%, you have to keep eating less. BF% scales are also pretty inaccurate, so take it with a grain of salt.

Carlos_421

Those BF% scales are ridiculously inaccurate.

To lose body fat, just continue eating at a deficit to lose weight.
If you want to preserve muscle mass (increasing the amount of weight loss that comes from fat), eat sufficient amounts of protein and start a strength training program.

cwolfman13

Kidzfun wrote: »

I've a scale that is able to read Body Fat %. I've lost 6 pounds and it shows an increase in BF%. Is this normal? Is there a way to decrease BF%?

Those scales do not accurately read BF%...they can't tell the difference between BF and water...honestly, I don't even know why they make them...it's about the least accurate of any method for determining BF%.

Need2Exerc1se

cwolfman13 wrote: »

Kidzfun wrote: »

I've a scale that is able to read Body Fat %. I've lost 6 pounds and it shows an increase in BF%. Is this normal? Is there a way to decrease BF%?

Those scales do not accurately read BF%...they can't tell the difference between BF and water...honestly, I don't even know why they make them...it's about the least accurate of any method for determining BF%.

I'm not doubting what you posted, but my scale gives numbers for body fat and water. I wonder how it knows (or pretends to know) the difference.

I've also wondered whether where you carry weight would make a difference in the measurement. For example, I carry most of my weight in my hips/bum. Would I get a higher measurement from a scale (that I stand on) than with of of those things you hold him your hands?

cwolfman13

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

cwolfman13 wrote: »

Kidzfun wrote: »

I've a scale that is able to read Body Fat %. I've lost 6 pounds and it shows an increase in BF%. Is this normal? Is there a way to decrease BF%?

Those scales do not accurately read BF%...they can't tell the difference between BF and water...honestly, I don't even know why they make them...it's about the least accurate of any method for determining BF%.

I'm not doubting what you posted, but my scale gives numbers for body fat and water. I wonder how it knows (or pretends to know) the difference.

I've also wondered whether where you carry weight would make a difference in the measurement. For example, I carry most of my weight in my hips/bum. Would I get a higher measurement from a scale (that I stand on) than with of of those things you hold him your hands?

Here's a decent read on how the scales work and what can throw off the data.

http://healthyeatingforfamilies.com/body-fat-scales-do-they-really-work/

My trainer measures my BF% using calipers and he uses 10 points to do so which reduces the error one could have measuring one point that might carry a bit more fat. Even when I'm pretty lean in the spring and summer I carry a little excess fat around my mid section, but you can hardly pinch anything anywhere else with the calipers.

He uses chest, midaxillary, bicep, abdominal, suprailiac, thigh, calf, subscapular, triceps, and lower back...the data he gets from those points is then put into a formula to estimate overall BF%.

Need2Exerc1se

cwolfman13 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

cwolfman13 wrote: »

Kidzfun wrote: »

I've a scale that is able to read Body Fat %. I've lost 6 pounds and it shows an increase in BF%. Is this normal? Is there a way to decrease BF%?

Those scales do not accurately read BF%...they can't tell the difference between BF and water...honestly, I don't even know why they make them...it's about the least accurate of any method for determining BF%.

I'm not doubting what you posted, but my scale gives numbers for body fat and water. I wonder how it knows (or pretends to know) the difference.

I've also wondered whether where you carry weight would make a difference in the measurement. For example, I carry most of my weight in my hips/bum. Would I get a higher measurement from a scale (that I stand on) than with of of those things you hold him your hands?

Here's a decent read on how the scales work and what can throw off the data.

http://healthyeatingforfamilies.com/body-fat-scales-do-they-really-work/

My trainer measures my BF% using calipers and he uses 10 points to do so which reduces the error one could have measuring one point that might carry a bit more fat. Even when I'm pretty lean in the spring and summer I carry a little excess fat around my mid section, but you can hardly pinch anything anywhere else with the calipers.

He uses chest, midaxillary, bicep, abdominal, suprailiac, thigh, calf, subscapular, triceps, and lower back...the data he gets from those points is then put into a formula to estimate overall BF%.

Thanks!

I knew the basics (from the article: Most of these types of scales use bioelectrical impedance. That is to say, they send a safe and very low electrical current through the lower half of the body. Since the electrical current flows more quickly through water and muscle than bone or fat, the scale measures the speed of the current.).

That's what makes me wonder if using a scale, which send the pulse through the lower body where most of my fat is, would give a higher reading then the handheld, which I assume sends a pulse through the upper body, where I am pretty lean.

Maybe it would be most accurate to do both and take the average.

sullus

Body fat scales just measure electrical impedance. They should really be called "hydration meters". Electricity flows faster through water and muscle than it does though fat, and from there a little calculation gets you an ok esttimate of body fat. Changes in your hydration state will change that number.

@Need2Exerc1se .. the water measurement on your scale is not a measurement, but a calculation. Scales that do water measurements usually have you enter a profile, and take a baseline weight at setup time. From there it's just assumptions and math.

stanmann571

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

cwolfman13 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

cwolfman13 wrote: »

Kidzfun wrote: »

I've a scale that is able to read Body Fat %. I've lost 6 pounds and it shows an increase in BF%. Is this normal? Is there a way to decrease BF%?

Those scales do not accurately read BF%...they can't tell the difference between BF and water...honestly, I don't even know why they make them...it's about the least accurate of any method for determining BF%.

I'm not doubting what you posted, but my scale gives numbers for body fat and water. I wonder how it knows (or pretends to know) the difference.

I've also wondered whether where you carry weight would make a difference in the measurement. For example, I carry most of my weight in my hips/bum. Would I get a higher measurement from a scale (that I stand on) than with of of those things you hold him your hands?

Here's a decent read on how the scales work and what can throw off the data.

http://healthyeatingforfamilies.com/body-fat-scales-do-they-really-work/

My trainer measures my BF% using calipers and he uses 10 points to do so which reduces the error one could have measuring one point that might carry a bit more fat. Even when I'm pretty lean in the spring and summer I carry a little excess fat around my mid section, but you can hardly pinch anything anywhere else with the calipers.

He uses chest, midaxillary, bicep, abdominal, suprailiac, thigh, calf, subscapular, triceps, and lower back...the data he gets from those points is then put into a formula to estimate overall BF%.

Thanks!

I knew the basics (from the article: Most of these types of scales use bioelectrical impedance. That is to say, they send a safe and very low electrical current through the lower half of the body. Since the electrical current flows more quickly through water and muscle than bone or fat, the scale measures the speed of the current.).

That's what makes me wonder if using a scale, which send the pulse through the lower body where most of my fat is, would give a higher reading then the handheld, which I assume sends a pulse through the upper body, where I am pretty lean.

Maybe it would be most accurate to do both and take the average.

Which is why the 4/8 point BIA scales with handles and foot pads can be nearly as accurate as DEXA for certain demographics.

AnvilHead

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

cwolfman13 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

cwolfman13 wrote: »

Kidzfun wrote: »

I've a scale that is able to read Body Fat %. I've lost 6 pounds and it shows an increase in BF%. Is this normal? Is there a way to decrease BF%?

Those scales do not accurately read BF%...they can't tell the difference between BF and water...honestly, I don't even know why they make them...it's about the least accurate of any method for determining BF%.

I'm not doubting what you posted, but my scale gives numbers for body fat and water. I wonder how it knows (or pretends to know) the difference.

I've also wondered whether where you carry weight would make a difference in the measurement. For example, I carry most of my weight in my hips/bum. Would I get a higher measurement from a scale (that I stand on) than with of of those things you hold him your hands?

Here's a decent read on how the scales work and what can throw off the data.

http://healthyeatingforfamilies.com/body-fat-scales-do-they-really-work/

My trainer measures my BF% using calipers and he uses 10 points to do so which reduces the error one could have measuring one point that might carry a bit more fat. Even when I'm pretty lean in the spring and summer I carry a little excess fat around my mid section, but you can hardly pinch anything anywhere else with the calipers.

He uses chest, midaxillary, bicep, abdominal, suprailiac, thigh, calf, subscapular, triceps, and lower back...the data he gets from those points is then put into a formula to estimate overall BF%.

Thanks!

I knew the basics (from the article: Most of these types of scales use bioelectrical impedance. That is to say, they send a safe and very low electrical current through the lower half of the body. Since the electrical current flows more quickly through water and muscle than bone or fat, the scale measures the speed of the current.).

That's what makes me wonder if using a scale, which send the pulse through the lower body where most of my fat is, would give a higher reading then the handheld, which I assume sends a pulse through the upper body, where I am pretty lean.

Maybe it would be most accurate to do both and take the average.

From https://weightology.net/the-pitfalls-of-bodyfat-measurement-part-4-bioelectrical-impedance-bia/

...Third, many BIA devices will miss entire sections of your body. For example, some devices, like Tanita scales, send the current through one leg and out the other, which means your entire torso is missed. Some hand-held devices will send the current through one arm and out the other, missing the rest of your body. And while there is now one device that is able to send the current through every section of your body, it is still limited by all of the other problems associated with BIA....

There's also a lot more detailed discussion there about the various factors inherent to the inaccuracy of BIA measurement.

stanmann571

AnvilHead wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

cwolfman13 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

cwolfman13 wrote: »

Kidzfun wrote: »

I've a scale that is able to read Body Fat %. I've lost 6 pounds and it shows an increase in BF%. Is this normal? Is there a way to decrease BF%?

Those scales do not accurately read BF%...they can't tell the difference between BF and water...honestly, I don't even know why they make them...it's about the least accurate of any method for determining BF%.

I'm not doubting what you posted, but my scale gives numbers for body fat and water. I wonder how it knows (or pretends to know) the difference.

I've also wondered whether where you carry weight would make a difference in the measurement. For example, I carry most of my weight in my hips/bum. Would I get a higher measurement from a scale (that I stand on) than with of of those things you hold him your hands?

Here's a decent read on how the scales work and what can throw off the data.

http://healthyeatingforfamilies.com/body-fat-scales-do-they-really-work/

My trainer measures my BF% using calipers and he uses 10 points to do so which reduces the error one could have measuring one point that might carry a bit more fat. Even when I'm pretty lean in the spring and summer I carry a little excess fat around my mid section, but you can hardly pinch anything anywhere else with the calipers.

He uses chest, midaxillary, bicep, abdominal, suprailiac, thigh, calf, subscapular, triceps, and lower back...the data he gets from those points is then put into a formula to estimate overall BF%.

Thanks!

I knew the basics (from the article: Most of these types of scales use bioelectrical impedance. That is to say, they send a safe and very low electrical current through the lower half of the body. Since the electrical current flows more quickly through water and muscle than bone or fat, the scale measures the speed of the current.).

That's what makes me wonder if using a scale, which send the pulse through the lower body where most of my fat is, would give a higher reading then the handheld, which I assume sends a pulse through the upper body, where I am pretty lean.

Maybe it would be most accurate to do both and take the average.

From https://weightology.net/the-pitfalls-of-bodyfat-measurement-part-4-bioelectrical-impedance-bia/

...Third, many BIA devices will miss entire sections of your body. For example, some devices, like Tanita scales, send the current through one leg and out the other, which means your entire torso is missed. Some hand-held devices will send the current through one arm and out the other, missing the rest of your body. And while there is now one device that is able to send the current through every section of your body, it is still limited by all of the other problems associated with BIA....

There's also a lot more detailed discussion there about the various factors inherent to the inaccuracy of BIA measurement.

Which might be meaningful if it had been updated in the 10 years since it was written.