# Body Fat scale recommendations?



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

My main criteria are : 

moderate cost (under $70-ish),
repeatability & reproducibility,
capability to _discriminate_ , especially at lower body fat %, eg distinguish between 10.5 and 11.0%
_Absolute accuracy_ , ie ability to match a laboratory setup, is not important.

I suspect, some models are intended for average, sedentary "fatties" -- where 30% body fat is typical  , and may not be able to reliably measure a difference between 10.5 and 11.0%.

Some models I've been looking at include:

Omron HBF-400
http://www.amazon.com/Omron-HBF-400-Body-Monitor-Scale/dp/B000FJQ48I/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=hpc&qid=1258424232&sr=1-3

Omron HBF-510W 
http://www.amazon.com/Omron-HBF-510W-Composition-Monitor-Scale/dp/B001IV61J4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=hpc&qid=1244233432&sr=8-1

Omron HBF-514C 

http://www.amazon.com/Omron-Full-Sensor-Composition-Monitor/dp/B0020MMCDE/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=hpc&qid=1258424232&sr=1-4


Advice ??


----------



## GerryR (Sep 3, 2008)

None of these things is even close to accurate when it comes to %BF, nor are they terribly repeatable; 15% today, 9% tomorrow. I have a not inexpensive Tanita and I can cut my %BF in half just be telling the thing I'm an athlete. WTF? You would be much better off to get a pair of skin calipers and have someone teach you how to use them.


----------



## Fltplan (Feb 27, 2009)

Even the higher priced scales/bf meters that I see in velo news are that innacurate? I was considering getting one. Are they all a complete waste regardless of price?


----------



## natedg200202 (Sep 2, 2008)

If you really want a bodyfat scale, you are going to have to lower your expectations. The ability to distinguish a 0.5% change will never happen. My scale varies by several percent in a day depending on ???


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

By fat % can vary about 1% or so just by standing differently and at the same weight.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Accuracy*



tom_h said:


> My main criteria are :
> 
> moderate cost (under $70-ish),
> repeatability & reproducibility,
> ...


There is no procedure, short of autopsy, that can measure BF that closely. +/- 3% absolute is about as good as it gets. IOW, if your scale (or calipers, or underwater weighing) says 15% BF, it's in the range of 12-18%. Don't kid yourself about accuracy to 0.1%


----------



## MerlinAma (Oct 11, 2005)

natedg200202 said:


> If you really want a bodyfat scale, you are going to have to lower your expectations. The ability to distinguish a 0.5% change will never happen. My scale varies by several percent in a day depending on ???


Everyone knows that you should weigh at same time every day if you want to compare. I weigh every morning after "emptying" and before breakfast, including coffee. 
What I learn from the bodyfat % tells me more about my hydration level.
Typically if I'm a pound less on Monday morning and my bodyfat % is up 1%, I know the weight loss is dehydration.
If from one Tuesday to the next I've lost a pound and the bodyfat number is the same or less, then I have really lost weight.
I don't need to know my EXACT bodyfat %. My pants keep me informed if it's becoming an issue!


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

Kerry Irons said:


> There is no procedure, short of autopsy, that can measure BF that closely. +/- 3% absolute is about as good as it gets. IOW, if your scale (or calipers, or underwater weighing) says 15% BF, it's in the range of 12-18%. Don't kid yourself about accuracy to 0.1%


Thanks for that info, I did not carefully research what's reasonable and achievable as a measurement.

I was originally thinking to use BF% as a quantitative means to ensure I'm losing fat, not muscle. Based on comments, home BF% measurements may not be sufficiently reproducible, or accurate, to bother with.

Maybe a side-view look in the mirror, is 'good enough' ;-)

I am 57 yo, 5'11" , vary 168-172 lbs , and thinking I should be solidly in the low-to-mid 160s. 

Wife semi-complains my arms are "too skinny"  , and I have to remind her that having beefy biceps the size of my thighs, would not help my desk job or cycling ;-)


----------



## MerlinAma (Oct 11, 2005)

tom_h said:


> ........
> I am 57 yo, 5'11" , vary 168-172 lbs , and thinking I should be solidly in the low-to-mid 160s. ;-)


FYI- I am 62, 5'10" (I've shrunk over time) and weigh 162 today. Ten years ago I was 170-175. 
I remember the exact day two friends dropped me and I was so mad. Started dropping weight until I got to 160. I usually stay 162-165. If I ever see 170, I don't eat until I loose at least a pound. Period!
When you lose your 5-10 pounds, your climbing will improve a lot and you'll feel much stronger when attacking rollers! 
By the way, those two guys can still drop me but at least it's their abilty not my lack of doing everything I can.


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

Found this in a _Consumer Reports_ magazine. 

CR's 2003 report -- which isn't available online -- claims some scales were 'consistent' , ie reproducible, even when their absolute measurements were "wrong".

CR's opinion on BMI (body mass index) is seriously flawed, as any athlete knows. CR's perspective is from a "typical" middle-america joe six-pak looking for a good value. I suppose the blunt instrument of BMI is OK, for fat-arsed people subsisting on a diet of fried foods smothered in mounds of mayonnaise, and washed down with a quart of soda.


A previous comment about simply learning to use a body-fat calipers, maybe is a more repeatable and simpler way to go.... 
In practice, the scales we tested in 2003 were mediocre. 

When compared with an accurate laboratory measure of body fat, the best scale hit the mark for only about 80 percent of the volunteers who tried it. 

The scales sometimes understated and sometimes overstated a volunteer's body fat. There was no way to predict which way the scales would err. 

At least they were consistent, always over- or understating by the same amount.

...
​*Why CR doesn't test body-fat scales*
​Ed Kippel, senior program leader, Consumer Reports

_An interview with Ed Kippel, senior program leader, Personal Care and Wellness, Consumer Reports._

*Q: Why are people interested in body-fat scales?*
A. Concerns about fat and obesity have spawned the body-fat bathroom scale. Besides giving your weight, it measures the percentage of fat on your frame.

*Q: Why doesn't Consumer Reports test them?*
A: We did, back in 2003. We found that none of the scales were accurate for all of our subjects. We compared them with results from a dual-energy X-ray test, or DEXA, which is one of the gold standards for body-fat measurements. There was quite a variability in how they performed.

*Q: But hasn't technology improved since then?*
A: No, which is one reason we're reluctant to test the scales again. The scales still calculate body-fat percentage by means of a weak electrical current, which sends a signal up one leg, across your pelvis, and down the other leg. Many things can throw off the reading, such as your distribution of body fat, whether or not you have a knee or hip implant, even whether your feet are clean.

*Q: Isn't it worth knowing your body-fat percentage even if it's not quite accurate?*
A: Not really. There's little reliable data relating ranges of body-fat percentage directly to health outcomes. Most of the information that's available relates health to the Body Mass Index, which does not directly measure body-fat percentage but is a more accurate indicator of overweight and obesity than weight alone. To find your BMI, you don't need to buy a body-fat scale. All you need to know is your height and your weight, and you can calculate your BMI easily on our Web site. 
Two other ways to gauge your personal risk—methods that could be more accurate—are to measure your waist circumference or your waist-to-hip ratio. Your waist circumference should be less than 35 inches around if you're a woman, and less than 40 inches if you're a man. For the waist-to-hip ratio, divide the circumference at the narrowest part of the waist by the circumference at the broadest part of the hip. A healthy waist-to-hip ratio is 0.8 or less for women and 0.9 or less for men. 



​


----------



## allison (Apr 19, 2006)

I've got something similar to the 510W. Wanted a scale and thought the hand-held BF might be more accurate than just standing alone. 

FWIW, I check my weight upon waking in the morning (before anything else) and my BF generally doesn't by more than 1% or so a day (typically even less). 

Note, that doesn't mean I'm saying it's correct, just that it doesn't vary all that much from one morning to the next  

Interesting, though, I've started lifting and have lost a little weight (1-2lbs) due to dietary changes and my BF% has gone up in the past 2 or so months, according to the scale, anyway. I don't think it's really gone up, though.

So, just keep in mind it probably isn't all that close, but you can still use it to measure one way or the other.


----------



## bad91 (May 20, 2009)

Just my 2 cents

just get a "good" regular scale. If you need body fat percerntages get a hydrostatic test or do a Bod Pod test. I have a nice Tanita scale with the b/f percentage but that doesnt mean it is accurate. What really counts is the inches you lose!


----------



## EMB145 Driver (Aug 17, 2006)

I've got an Omron. It works good as a scale, and that's about it.


----------



## ptfmb71 (May 16, 2007)

I would say you should not even worry about it. The key is to get fit and you won't care what your fat % is....and you will also know every spot on your body there is fat. I'm 143lbs at 5-9 and I have some fat around my stomach area and sides. To get rid of it I would have to be about 135...just genetics.


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

My wife has an Omron scale. I'm not sure which one but it has a hand-held piece that you hold at shoulder height with a cord back to the unit. It is a great scale and it is nice to have the instant BMI number. I agree with what the others say about the body fat measurement. It is plausible but with such a big error bar and lack of reproducibility that you will not be able to distinguish any real change in your body composition. If you are already in reasonable shape, it takes a huge amount of work to change your body composition significantly anyway. My readings come up in the range 5% to 10%, so I guess I'm somewhere in the middle of that. As someone mentioned hydration is a big contributing factor to the way that it is measured. It seems to me that even skin moisture in your hands is a factor (I have fairly dry skin). Anyway, the scale was cheap enough and my wife likes what it does but I don't use it.


----------



## independentmind (Sep 22, 2009)

+1 on calipers (when used properly). I'll PM you the make of the ones i have when i get home from work

Underwater weighing is "close", and some calipers approximate the measurements you get from the underwater tanks. Everything else (like those fancy scales at your gym) misses the mark, your water retention can have an effect on the way that those instruments measure.

The best bet (also from what a couple trainers have told me) is to buy a set of calipers and use the SAME instrument every single time! I can bet you all 4 bikes that are sitting in my apartment that you will get two different readings from two different instruments.


----------



## mrcookie (Mar 30, 2008)

wtf!?! it posted like 10 times!?!


----------



## mrcookie (Mar 30, 2008)

oops double post


----------



## millennium (Apr 3, 2002)

If I use my Tanita at the same time of day each day, my readings are within 1% of each other, so, over time, I can get a good idea of whether I'm moving up or down. But, it's really not been that helpful.

You might consider paying for a underwater tank reading to get an pretty accurate idea of your percentage now (and how much you can lose), then assume that if you're losing weight in the future, your probably losing fat.


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

I accept what everyone's been saying, but on a semi-lark, I acquired an Omron HBF-510W, figuring I can return it if it isn't useful or reliable.

This is similar to the Omron model _ukbloke_ described earlier, having both feet electrodes and hand electrodes.

After about 5-7 days of daily use, I am finding the fat% is _repeatable_ to within a range of about 1%, providing I measure myself consistently: I've been measuring within 15 minutes of waking up, and after using the bathroom.

As far as "absolute" accuracy, that's an unknown ... I haven't yet retrieved that 2003 Consumer Reports article that tested the scales.

So ... I'm being measured at about 24% fat :blush2: , which perhaps shouldn't be too surprising (57 yo, 5'11", 170 lbs). 

OTOH, my 25 yo son weighs in at about 13% fat :cryin: 

For me, it may be that pants waist size is a perfectly good indicator of excess fat.


----------



## Pasta Cervelo (May 29, 2009)

I have a top end Tanita with an athlete mode etc. Very repeatable results too. But my coach said "trust me, its worthless". so i paid $70 for a water tank test and yep - the scale was off by a factor of TWO. whats more the variations many people see are totally due to variations in hydration and thus impedance NOT body fat fluctuation.

Bottom line - they are great for measuring weight; making sure your gains or losses are gradual, great for making sure you stay hydrated etc but not for body fat monitoring.


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

*update ...*

I did return the Omron body fat scale ...

Decided to use an ordinary weight scale, plus waist size measurement ... where my 5-7 lbs of "blubber" is mainly located.


----------



## Zilla (Aug 17, 2009)

I've jumped in a bod pod for 10 dollars, about as accurate as you're going to get. Unless you have the time to do hydrostatic, but that's sort of a hassle.


----------



## vieuphoria (Dec 10, 2008)

tom_h said:


> So ... I'm being measured at about 24% fat





tom_h said:


> Decided to use an ordinary weight scale, plus waist size measurement ... where my 5-7 lbs of "blubber" is mainly located.


170 * 0.24 = 40.8 lbs.

just sayin'


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

vieuphoria said:


> 170 * 0.24 = 40.8 lbs.
> just sayin'


Yeah, but I'd be dead if I was at 0% body fat ;-)

If I reduced to my 25 yo son's nominal 15% body fat, I'd weight about 155 lbs at 5'11" height ... that's _thin_. Whether that's a good or desireable goal for the next 12 months, I'm unsure. It certainly wouldn't be easy.

BTW & FWIW, I've _lost_ 2 lbs over the last 2 weeks, traditionally a period when most americans eat like famished hyenas. I've been very careful about diet, and simultaneously increased my cycling mileage and intensity.


----------



## Pasta Cervelo (May 29, 2009)

BTW - the only "hassle" with a hydrostatic test was finding out when the mobile tank truck would be at a gym near me. other than that its easy. just go in, change into a swim suit in the dressing room, hop in the tank, go under and fully exhale, hang out underwater for 4 seconds, come up. do that 3 times and get out dry off and get your print out.

oh yeah, and go home sobbing that you are no where near as lean as the TDF guys


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

Pasta Cervelo said:


> BTW - the only "hassle" with a hydrostatic test was finding out when the mobile tank truck would be at a gym near me. other than that its easy. just go in, change into a swim suit in the dressing room, hop in the tank, go under and fully exhale, hang out underwater for 4 seconds, come up. do that 3 times and get out dry off and get your print out. ...


About how much did that cost ??
One of those "body fat" trucks will be near me in a few weeks.
It might be useful to establish a semi-reliable baseline, if the price is "reasonable" (under $50 for me ...)


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

tom_h said:


> About how much did that cost ??
> One of those "body fat" trucks will be near me in a few weeks.
> It might be useful to establish a semi-reliable baseline, if the price is "reasonable" (under $50 for me ...)


Well, $50 is typical for a dunk tank and body composition analysis. Here's a calendar for one mobile dunk tank service in California. My wife was going to do it in Los Gatos. They canceled on her once because not enough people signed up. Then she changed her mind and didn't follow through with it.


----------



## grumpyphil (May 29, 2008)

A few points-
As a professional metrologist, I can tell you that NO scale is worth a damn without being calibrated and once calibrated it needs to be kept in a stable environment for the calibration to mean anything. 
Steps to take:
1) place the scale on a LEVEL platform or floor. If your floor is wood and creaky/unlevel your scale will read creakily and in an unlevel manner. The scale MUST be on a solid (concrete/granite/steel) platform or it will not read in a repeatable manner. 
2) Calibrate your scale. Good enough for your purposes is to place a known weight that is close to your body weight on the scale and note any deviance (borrow plate weights from your gym). If you can correct the scale, do so, and if not, mark the deviance.
3) Once the scale is calibrated, DON'T MOVE IT! If you move it, it needs to be recalibrated if you want accuracy. MORE important is that the machine is kept level and supported evenly at all 4 corners. If there is any rocking of the four corners of the thing, it's totally useless and you'll have to start over.
4) At this point, you should have a machine that will, at the very least, give you repeatable results. Accuracy will be as good as the machine is capable of and that can vary a lot but for most humans just having repeatability is a huge step forward. If you step on and off the thing 5 times in a row and it reads close to the same (+/- .2 lbs), that's PLENTY good.
5) Body fat is another issue. I would encourage you to read Racing Weight and what Fitzgerald has to say about these scales. Here's a hint though: by keeping a wet towel next to the scale and stepping on it just before you get on the thing, I have found that over days of time, I get "pretty" repeatable results. Certainly much better than not. Perfect it's not but good enough to watch trends over time and I think that's as much as you can ask from such a devise. I'm about to get a DEXA test and I'm going to use Fitzgerald's "calibration" technique. I'll post what I find out if anything.
6) I wouldn't pay a whole lot of attention to the other features on these gizmos...something telling my metabolic age is akin to a fortune teller.
7) Look at all of the data that you get from one of these machines as a "running average." At best, it's useful over months, not days.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

There's a Tanita hanging around my house. I consider the BF% nothing more than a toy, though the hydration numbers seem to make some sort of sense. 

FWIW, the instructions state (and they reference studies) that most consistent results are achieved in the late afternoon. Based on my experiences, I'd agree. Morning numbers bounce around much more than changing-after-work numbers, as odd as it seems.


----------

