Johnnny

I was just wondering if those scales that measure body fat % accurate at all?

My buddies Mom bought one last week. My buddy is 5ft10 & weighs about 213lbs with good shape (never taken drugs) & he has a 4 pack of abs showing through.

He tried out the scale & it said he had %40 body fat. How the hell is that possible?

In my opinion these scales aren't well adapted to a body buidler or an athelete of some sort with some size. The scale requires you to enter you're height. I think the scale just assumes that everybody at a certain height should be a certain weight to have low body fat% & if you're say between 5ft8-6ft tall & you weigh 200lbs, it assumes that you're carrying a lot of body fat%. I think the scale thinks that someone who's 5ft10 should be 170lbs or something to have low body fat.


How can someone who has his body fat low enough to have a 4 pack of abs showing through at around 213lbs at a height of 5ft10?

I Are Baboon

Those scales suck ass, technically speaking.

Dale Mabry

As IAM so articulately pointed out, they are not accurate. They work on sound theory that does not always hold true. They work on how quickly a current goes through your body and have an algorithm inside that figures out what your BF is based on amount of water.

One time Aquaman got on the scale and it said he was -47% BF while Tron stepped on and it said he was -46%. Come on now, Tron would have far less BF than Aquaman, that is bullshit.

If sense were common, everyone would have it.

4/2007-Current 75th Ranked most popular image 1 spot behind Prince's bulge...

Johnnny

Yeah I tried my buddies Mom's scale to & it said I had 30%BF which is just impossible. All my abs are almost showing at my 5ft9 207lbs now.

Like I've said I uncontrolably gained some by fat from my thyroid treatment last August. The doc said it would happen no matter what but said if I was training I wouldn't gain as much as if I was doing nothing.

Basically I count on the size portion of my carbs of my 4 servings a day. I've also cut out Ketchup, I've been told it has sugar in it. Instead of using mayo on a grilled chicken sub I use Mustard & I don't use too many creamy sauces except if I may be out to dinner one night. I've actually gained more strength to.

Back to the point of the thread, when I saw 30% BF, I knew that this thing was f#cked up & totally inaccurate. I just wanted some opinions on these pieces of crap.

Vieope

FURtherness

austinite

I have a hand-held one which I seldom use with those I train. It reads at least 2-3 points higher than other methods, and sometimes much higher.

I think the algorithm over-compensates for height and especially age.

It is handy and quick though, and I use it for myself. It is good to use on a daily basis to pickup bodyfat trends (going up or going down after good workouts, diet, etc.)

Johnnny

Yeah I guess they are somewhat useful, but overall I think they suck ass.

Little Wing

Holy shit . Excuse the language but I think it could be dangerous for someone concerned w bodyfat ratio to believe those stupid things. The people that buy them are probably overly concerned with it to begin with... not a good combination at all.

Johnnny

Well my buddy's Mom wasn't overly concerned with body fat as she looks pretty damn good for her age. She got it as she thought it would help her & let her know if she was gaining fat.

Like I said my buddy at 5ft10 213lbs is lean enough to have a 4 pack & it said he had %45 BF. & my abs are starting to show through at 210lbs or so & it said I have %30 BF.

Just nuts.

Little Wing

Hopefully when people get an impossible reading like that they'll reaize it's wrong not destroy their bodies.

Johnnny

Well at first my buddies Mom freaked & thought she was going to have to train even harder & diet even more.

That's when my buddy, her son stepped on & said he had %45 BF & then she realized these scales suck ass.

Little Wing

good they shouldn't be on the market

Johnnny

I hear you rockgazer69. Thre's nothing wrong with a digital scale that tells your weight. But it's insanity when a scale says they have a certain amount of body fat when it's no where near that amount. It could lead ppl who don't know any better to do drastic things & hurt their body.

LAM

for me mine is off by maybe 2% from what a 7-point caliper reading gives me.

IMO...they work better for those who have always had low subcutaneous fat vs those with a decent amount of viscerlar and subcutaneous fat

Dumbest statement made in the Anabolic Zone for Nov

TBD

-----------------------------------------------------

What you talking about Willis ?

austinite

Well I think it's a good thing that folks are concerned about their BF moreso than their weight. Most women just care about the lbs.

Johnnny

austinite yeah that's true. But whether you're a man or a woman & you're that heavy, the most important thing is to lose pounds. At the same time they'll be losing BF.

But if you're just a man or woman who is 10-30lbs overweight, it can be easier to lose the fat & not lose that much weight as muscle will replace the weight.

austinite

I disagree, the important thing is to lose the BF, regardless of how it affects your overrall weight, which may increase if you're adding muscle.

NickB

Electronic scales are nearly as bad as the body fat measurements that go by height/weight only. Man. I know some people who got ahold of one of those free ones on the web and flipped the fuck out over it.

Johnnny

austinite so what if the poor person is 350lbs? There's no way you can replace all of that weight with muscle unless you're on steroids.


NickB you're absolutely right.

gr81

first of all you do not replace bodyfat with muscle. Thats not how it works by any means. Adipose tissue is NOT converted into muscle, even on steroids. time to read up johnny

Testosterone Site/Elite Fitness-Dave Tate/West Side Barbell/Berardi Nutrition & Sports Performance/Steroid Laws- Rick Collins/John Defendis Intensity or Insanity articles/Save the Supersonics

Johnnny

gr81 No sh!t dude, I knew that 10yrs ago. I was just making a point. I've been training about 10yrs.

If they managed to tone down to 170lbs or whatever depending on their height & whether they're male or female, then they got to get their muscle building diet going. They might only be able to gain 20-30lbs of muscle without using steroids. Depending on their genetics, training habits & diet.

So you don't need to teach me things I already know.

gr81

touchy aren't we. It sure didn't sound like you knew from the statement you made and my mind reading abilities are not on cue today so you'll have to excuse me. You said that a person can replace fat with muscle if on steroids and I commented on that. If you don't like my response next time make yourself clear so there won't be any confusion. Oh and a word of advice, anyone who uses the word "tone" ain't no real bodybuilder.

Testosterone Site/Elite Fitness-Dave Tate/West Side Barbell/Berardi Nutrition & Sports Performance/Steroid Laws- Rick Collins/John Defendis Intensity or Insanity articles/Save the Supersonics

Johnnny

gr81 What I said was I meant that if they lost 150lbs & managed to get down to a resonable body weight, for them to get back to even 250-300lbs of muscle, they'd have to get a serious mass building routine, serious mass building diet, & over a several years get on serious mass building steroid cycles to even get remotely close to 300+lbs of mainly muscle. That's why I said it would be impossible.

It takes alot longer to build muscle than to lose fat. When I had a 43inch waist line at 220lbs narrow, small & weak I lost 7 inches in 6 months really quickly. I got down to a 36 inch waist& weighed about 165lbs. Then I got into serious lifting & dieting.

It took about 12 months to get to 180lbs with good muscle & shape for someone who was only 15yrs old. 12 months building up muscle & strength is a lot longer than 6 months losing all that fat & lbs. & when I did build up to 180lbs, as you see that's 40lbs away from 220lbs which I was with my 43inch waist.

That's what I meant.