Are % fat machines accurate, and what % is realistic goal?

Haynes

Went to Boots to use there scales and also had it measure my % body fat. You hold some handles and it passes a current through you. Gave me 15% which is quite low, however i think ive got a bit of flab still around my waist that i could do with losing.

Can i realistically lose another 3kgs, ie 5% fat and get down to and maintain 10%?

And are these sort of machines accurate?

colint

In my experience they are not accurate, I have an expensive set of scales, and the fat reading has barely altered even though I've lost over 1.5 stone, mainly of visinle blubber. My reading can vary by as much as 4% over a couple of days. Depending on the type, they measure the fat by sending an electric pulse through the body, the time it takes to return is used to calculate the fat content.

however, if you're dehydrated etc the reading is effected. they're a waste of money in my opinion.

richa

I have found my Tanita scales to be pretty consistant over a period of 6 months and an innteresting reading, allongside weight, to assess myself.

Down the Road

Haynes wrote:

Went to Boots to use there scales and also had it measure my % body fat. You hold some handles and it passes a current through you. Gave me 15% which is quite low, however i think ive got a bit of flab still around my waist that i could do with losing.

Can i realistically lose another 3kgs, ie 5% fat and get down to and maintain 10%?

And are these sort of machines accurate?

Accuracy depends on the price. Pay lots very accurate pay a little...............

Can you maintain 10% of course 10% is not very lean. and is what was once considered healthy and fit Soon we'll think 20% is fit.

dennisn

Remember, the boby fat reading is a percentage of your body weight.
If you weigh 200 pounds and body fat is 20 percent, that body fat weighs 40 pounds.
If you lose 20 pounds and now weigh 180 pounds yet still have 20 percent body fat
that fat weighs 36 pounds. So, you can lose weight and still have the same fat percentage reading.

Dennis Noward

HarryB

These things are not accurate at all. The only accurate way of measuring body fat is with calipers and that must be done by someone who really knows what they are doing

greggT

In the 100 times I've used my US$35 Tanita in the last couple of years, my % varies +/- 1%. So the model I have is perfectly precise (reproducible). Whether or not it's accurate (true) is not important to me, as absolute measures do not indicate fitness, only the change matters.

And READ THE DIRECTIONS, eg, measure yourself at the same time of day, under similiar conditions of food, water, sleep & sweat. Due to my schedule, there's really only 6 hours each week that qualify, but that's OK since the percent varies so slowly that I don't really need to measure more than once/week.

My advice: just ride daily, eat well, drink well & sleep well and your body will take care of itself. The goal is a better body, not a better number -- that's just subtle feedback that tells you that you're doing it right.

skavanagh.bikeradar

I've been passed on hills by larger people, so I don't worry so much about it.

blackhands

HarryB wrote:

These things are not accurate at all. The only accurate way of measuring body fat is with calipers and that must be done by someone who really knows what they are doing

Calipers are not accurate either - although more accutrate than scales. Why are calipers not accurate? Because they only measure surface fat tissue and don't measure the fat around organs. Perhaps the best method is weighing in water (or variations of this).

Jeff Jones

The most accurate method requires you to be dead. It's not that practical and you shouldn't use it too often.

Hydrostatic weighing and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry are considered pretty good. Anthropometric measurement and skinfold testing are not as accurate, ditto bioelectrical impedance (body fat scales). The scales could be useful be able to show you a trend over time, as one of the previous posters said.

andrewgturnbull

Hi there.

Can you pinch an inch?

Probably more accurate and worthwhile.

Cheers, Andy

term1te

The dampness of your feet will also impact the fat reading. I have some cheap scales that measure fat and muscle content, with very dry feet it can’t measure the fat, with just de-socked and slightly ponging feet I get one reading, with wet feet I get another. The wet reading is fairly consistent, and dropped when I lost some weight over the summer. As a relative measure I guess it has some value.

After a race in the summer I was sweating like the proverbial dog, a Herbalife rep was trying to sell bottles of good health, and persuaded me to undergo his health assessment. I didn’t have the energy to say no. His hand-held fat measuring device said I had 22% fat and combined with my height and star sign it proved I was unfit. I didn’t buy any zero calorie energy drink, or tell him I’d just come second in a 75 km off road race. I guess it shows the variability in machines and the conductivity of sweat.

nce21

They aren't that accurate - if you get some of the more fancy pants ones they come with 2 settings, athlete, and adult. If you put that you are an athlete you get a quite different answer. So obviously there are lots of simplicifations going into the model. Your hydration status will also have an effect, and most people are dehydrated most of the time.

nce21

Oh and I've seen plent of people at 4% on those scales. I ha mine done using x-rays on a bone density scanner DEXA, and was about 5%. 4 site skinfold on 15.9 at lowest if you want an idea of what is possible.

dennisn

Another idea to judge body fat is to take a look in a mirror. They are pretty accurate
and seldom lie.

Dennis Noward

Haynes

dennisn wrote:

Another idea to judge body fat is to take a look in a mirror. They are pretty accurate
and seldom lie.

Dennis Noward

That may be, but i wouldnt trust the person recording and interpreting the data.

My only interest in the % fat was being able to assess if i'm losing only fat and not any muscle.

willbevan

I recently changed to a compact

Was running 52/42 on the front, 12-27 on the back

Have switched to 50/34 on the front, sticked with the 12-27 on the back.

Well Only time i would use the 52/12 is if i was going down hill (im unfit) so not missing that yet....

But the difference climbing hills is good for me..

One hill i used to have to get out of the saddle to get up I dont know, my cadence drops to 70 but is managable.

The other main hill I do have to get out of the saddle but only near the top when it is increasing in grade.

I was suprised at the difference to be honest going from 42 to 34 on the front it made.