Tanita scales--body fat numbers

[WadePatton]

I just registered 3.5% Now that was a laugh-out-loud moment! :D :D :D

I know I'm thinner, but that's just ridiculous. I'm using the "athlete" setting and was at 151 and 5'10.5" for that reading. The scale is accurate, but the fat calculator is just WAY inconsistent--and seems a bit optimistic to me. It always varies .5 to 1.0 pre/post shower.

Similar results or no?

[stormyClouds]

I took some human performance classes in college for my degree. One project compared some of the available body composition testing methods to hydrostatic testing (underwater weighing), which is (at least was in late 90's) the gold standard for testing body comp.
The Tanita (and similar) scales and hand held testers were so inaccurate and inconsistent that they could be off by 20%+ at times.
You really can't trust their data. Even if the numbers were off and they were consistent, at least you could chart your progress. As you mentioned, they produce different readings every time that you try them.
To get a real test, contact your local college's Sports Medicine or Health Science department. Some will test athletes as part of a class and will do it for free. You might also have an opportunity to test your VO2 Max.

[Louis]

Wow. No, I don't have similar numbers. I'm at 180 and could loose 10 lbs or so, and the % body fat tells me that. I don't use it as an absolute number, just a relative number to track my progress.

Louis

[WadePatton]

Yeah, I just did some calculations using circumferential data and got more realistic numbers. 13.4 per Navy method. I'll buy that.

And yeah, would be cool to have performance lab nearby. I'll check, but the "local" university isn't geared that way. And I'm not real serious about it. I'm going to ride and have fun no matter what. I don't even keep up with miles (gasp). If I'm counting, I count hours. :cool: :) :D

[jimcav]

i found it really hard to fully exhale under water and hold my breath for the short period required. the folks in the human perfomance lab that did the calipers day in and day out were in fact pretty consistent, but they were off from the hydrostatic method. the other thing that was decent was a full body scan, i think it was DEXA.
jim

[Tom]

but as a relative guide I guess they're OK. Mine reads anywhere from 7% to 15% these days. If I come in from a ride on a cold morning and my feet are numb the numbers are really high. If I'm roasting, well hydrated and all the blood vessels in my legs are dilated, I'll read really low.

I think the only real way to get absolute numbers is some other method.

[happycampyer]

+1

The problem is that, because they are measuring electrical resistance, they are sensitive to a number of factors, esp. hydration. I have found that the best way to get relatively consistent results is to try to weigh myself at the same time of day (first thing in the a.m.) with other factors as controlled as possible (after going to the bathroom; before eating/drinking; before showering, etc.). Still relative values and not absolute values, but the margin of error seems to be lower.

[gt6267a]

weighing myself in the morning after a shower, i find my tanita scale is fairly consistent over time though anamolies come up. at a high level view, when i am heavy it shows more body fat than when i am light. per the accuracy, the data appears to roughly match caliper tests years ago in college and online estimates but i have not done a formal test to determine an ofset or some such thing.

[BlackTiBob]

I did the Tanita scale at work and was kind of disappointed with the % after all my hard work.
Did the water dunking method and that result was 25% better in my case (25% less bodyfat) compared to Tanita scale. I think water result was to hundreth of a %.
Tanita scale would work on relative basis, to track your progress but result is only an approximation.

[39cross]

I just registered 3.5% Now that was a laugh-out-loud moment! :D :D :D Wade, you forgot to put on your glasses, it said 35% ;)

[jmc22]

I just registered 3.5% Now that was a laugh-out-loud moment! :D :D :D

I know I'm thinner, but that's just ridiculous. I'm using the "athlete" setting and was at 151 and 5'10.5" for that reading. The scale is accurate, but the fat calculator is just WAY inconsistent--and seems a bit optimistic to me. It always varies .5 to 1.0 pre/post shower.

Similar results or no?

Wade:
Try removing the "Athlete" setting from your set-up process and put it on a non-Athlete setting (mine for example has Male, Male Athlete setting, others may have a 1, 2 or 3 settings). What I found is that yes, if put on Athlete mode, even if you exersize per what they consider to be for the Athlete mode, it really changes the values (mine for example will drop my 19% body fat to 9% and also tell me I am in the shape of a 16 year old person vrs a 35 yr old person (I'm 44)).
The key is to do it around the same time each day to get a true idea of weight, body %, water %, etc. and yes, it is not 100% accurate if you were to have these values done by a professional, but they should be within a ball-park.

[WadePatton]

Oh yeah, I have the "normal" option selected in position #2. I didn't think to check that side--as these days being less than 20# overweight is far from normal.

And I do hit it in the morning pre/post shower every day. I just happened to take an evening shower that time and my conductive tissues were full of beer.

Glasses--spectacular.

That's why I say that the scale is accurate. Daily fluctuations of a pound or two is real--but the BF thing is just crazy variable. If I logged the readings--pitched highs/lows and averaged the rest it might look believable.

Short of immersion testing, I think systems including various body circumference measurements will get you pretty close.

Overall I'm at the bottom end of "normal" folks and the high side of true athletes WRT BF%'s.