Do "Fat" scales work?

Quoted message said:

From: "Pat Fleming"

Quoted message said:

To all of us who are "fat content conscience", do those scales that claim to measure fat content
really work?

They aren't all that accurate, but they are fairly consistent. Hydration level has a large effect
on the readings, but if you use the scales at a consistent time, within a constant fluid intake
they will give you a good reading of the change in BF%, not your true BF. Calipers are more
accurate for most people. If you really must know Hydrostatic weighing is the way to go. Bill C

They were talking about them on the Today Show. Consumer Reports thinks they suck if that means
anything to you.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Pat Fleming
To all of us who are "fat content conscience", do those scales that claim to measure fat content
really work?

No, definitely not a good measure for absolute fat %. I stepped on one the other day and it said I had 26.6% fat - but when measure with calipers I weigh in at 18%. I'm 5'4 and 116 lbs! There's no way I am 26.6% even with all the Krispy Kremes.

Pat Fleming said:

To all of us who are "fat content conscience", do those scales that claim to measure fat content
really work?

I hope you meant "fat content conscious," because thinking about fat content and one's conscience
makes me think of a scene from Fight Club. Yes: they are quite sensitive, in fact, since I can drink
two beers and lower my BF by 4%. After a six pack of Sierra Nevada, I would be in good enough shape
to ride the Tour de France, if it wasn't for having to pee so damn bad. They work in a relative
sense, but if you want to boast on rbr about your BF%, get it tested professionally.

Please don't post the same question separately to all the rec.bicycles.* groups, it is annoying and
repetitive. Choose the most appropriate group and post there.

I have one of the Tanita athlete mode models and it is fairly accurate, but varies by
hydration levels.

I have a friend at the University lab and we tested the scale with a full body scan and water test
and the scale was 2% low on body fat readings. We did this last december and again this june and the
results were the same. 2% difference.

I use the scale as a reference, not an absolute reading of body fat.

jason

"pedalchick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Pat Fleming said:

To all of us who are "fat content conscience", do those scales that claim to measure fat
content really work?

No, definitely not a good measure for absolute fat %. I stepped on one the other day and it said I
had 26.6% fat - but when measure with calipers I weigh in at 18%. I'm 5'4 and 116 lbs! There's no
way I am
26.6% even with all the Krispy Kremes.

Dumbass -

Did you select athlete mode?

Did you try and put your head on there? Just kidding......I need some news Jason!!!

soon, soon...

"Jason Waddell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I have one of the Tanita athlete mode models and it is fairly

accurate, but

Quoted message said:

varies by hydration levels.

I have a friend at the University lab and we tested the scale with a

full body

Quoted message said:

scan and water test and the scale was 2% low on body fat readings.

We did this

Quoted message said:

last december and again this june and the results were the same. 2% difference.

I use the scale as a reference, not an absolute reading of body fat.

musssst, resisttttttt commmmmennnnntttttingggg......

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Kurgan Gringion
"pedalchick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Pat Fleming said:

To all of us who are "fat content conscience", do those scales that claim to measure fat
content really work?

No, definitely not a good measure for absolute fat %. I stepped on one the other day and it said I
had 26.6% fat - but when measure with calipers I weigh in at 18%. I'm 5'4 and 116 lbs! There's no
way I am
26.6% even with all the Krispy Kremes.

Dumbass -

Did you select athlete mode?

Asswipe -
This particular model didn't have athlete mode, but it did ask for age. I guess women my age are supposed to be really fat. The scale belongs to my in-laws, and they were overjoyed when I told them that it was off.

Is there any truly accurate way to measure body fat? IMO, the caliper test seems like the most primitive but logical way to measure - the old "pinch an inch" test. Submersion is dependent on how much air you can push out of your lungs, these scales are dependent on hydration (what do they measure? capacitance?), and I had some other kind of test done with an arm cuff that came with all of these questions about the frequency and intensity of my workouts.
Maybe Coggan can answer this one...

"pedalchick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Is there any truly accurate way to measure body fat? IMO, the caliper test seems like the most
primitive but logical way to measure - the old "pinch an inch" test. Submersion is dependent on
how much air you can push out of your lungs, these scales are dependent on hydration (what do
they measure? capacitance?), and I had some other kind of test done with an arm cuff that came
with all of these questions about the frequency and intensity of my workouts. Maybe Coggan can
answer this one...

Hydrostatic (or underwater) weighing has long been considered the gold standard, although as you
indicate even it has its limitations. In the clinical realm, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)
is what is now most commonly used (for research purposes), although like skinfold testing and
underwater weighing it, too, is based upon assumptions that if not correct can lead to errors.
Perhaps the primary advantage of DXA over these other two techniques is that, in addition to being
very precise (if not accurate), it requires limited training/knowledge on the part of the technician
and very little effort on the part of the subject.

Andy ("does anybody really know what time it is?"😉 Coggan

"Andy Coggan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"pedalchick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Is there any truly accurate way to measure body fat? IMO, the caliper test seems like the most
primitive but logical way to measure - the old "pinch an inch" test. Submersion is dependent on
how much air you can push out of your lungs, these scales are dependent on hydration (what do
they measure? capacitance?), and I had some other kind of test done with an arm cuff that came
with all of these questions about the frequency and intensity of my workouts. Maybe Coggan can
answer this one...

Hydrostatic (or underwater) weighing has long been considered the gold standard,

Dumbass -

The gold standard of body fat measuring is autopsy.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Kurgan Gringion

Dumbass -

The gold standard of body fat measuring is autopsy.

Are you volunteering?

Is it possible to remove some of the inaccuracies and assumptions with hydrostatic testing by adding
in lung volume measurements?

--
Mike Murray "Andy Coggan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"pedalchick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Is there any truly accurate way to measure body fat? IMO, the caliper test seems like the most
primitive but logical way to measure - the old "pinch an inch" test. Submersion is dependent on
how much air you can push out of your lungs, these scales are dependent on hydration (what do
they measure? capacitance?), and I had some other kind of test done with an arm cuff that came
with all of these questions about the frequency and intensity of my workouts. Maybe Coggan can
answer this one...

Hydrostatic (or underwater) weighing has long been considered the gold standard, although as you
indicate even it has its limitations. In the clinical realm, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry
(DXA) is what is now most commonly used (for research purposes), although like skinfold testing
and underwater weighing it, too, is based upon assumptions that if not correct can lead to errors.
Perhaps the primary advantage of DXA over these other two techniques is that, in addition to being
very precise (if not

accurate),

Quoted message said:

it requires limited training/knowledge on the part of the technician and very little effort on the
part of the subject.

Andy ("does anybody really know what time it is?"😉 Coggan

"Mike Murray" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:U_0Eb.136693$_M.694800@attbi_s54...

Quoted message said:

Is it possible to remove some of the inaccuracies and assumptions with hydrostatic testing by
adding in lung volume measurements?

Some, but not all...even if you measure residual volume inside the tank (as many people do), you
still have to make assumptions about the amount of gas stored in the digestive tract, and more
importantly the actual density of non-fat and fat tissue. Using a three-component (fat, lean, bone)
model that combines DXA measurements of bone density helps some, but there are also variations in
non-fat tissue density that are not due to differences in bone density.

Andy Coggan

"Mike Murray" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:U_0Eb.136693$_M.694800@attbi_s54...

Quoted message said:

Is it possible to remove some of the inaccuracies and assumptions

with

Quoted message said:

hydrostatic testing by adding in lung volume measurements?

Only if you scream loud enough.

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"pedalchick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Pat Fleming said:

To all of us who are "fat content conscience", do those scales that claim to measure fat
content really work?

No, definitely not a good measure for absolute fat %. I stepped on one the other day and it said
I had 26.6% fat - but when measure with calipers I weigh in at 18%. I'm 5'4 and 116 lbs! There's
no way I am
26.6% even with all the Krispy Kremes.

Dumbass -

Did you select athlete mode?

Asswipe -

Dont kid yourself with athlete mode. Even if you think you're an athlethe unless you have no
discernable fat on your body stick to normal Fred mode. Asswipes like you stick to normal Fred mode
regardless.

"mr60percent" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in

message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"pedalchick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Pat Fleming wrote:
> To all of us who are "fat content conscience", do those scales that claim to measure fat
> content really work?

No, definitely not a good measure for absolute fat %. I stepped on one the other day and it
said I had 26.6% fat - but when measure with calipers I weigh in at 18%. I'm 5'4 and 116 lbs!
There's no way I am
26.6% even with all the Krispy Kremes.

Dumbass -

Did you select athlete mode?

Asswipe -

Dont kid yourself with athlete mode. Even if you think you're an athlethe unless you have no
discernable fat on your body stick to normal Fred mode. Asswipes like you stick to normal Fred
mode regardless.

Dumbass -

I've been tested w/ calipers as low as 6.5%. For me, the scale actually reads higher, even in
athlete mode.

Other than that, yes, currently I am a Fred.

Kurgan Gringion said:

Quoted message said:

Dumbass - The gold standard of body fat measuring is autopsy.

pedalchick said:

Are you volunteering?

I bet there would be lots of volunteers from rbr willing to DO the autopsy in case he does volunteer
himself for the cause of science.