# Can anyone explain the mystery of the missing 12lb?



## simmi (26 Nov 2012)

According to my quality Beurer scale on 27th Aug my weight was 227lb and my bmi was 30%
so in other words I was carrying 68.1lb of fat.

3 months later my weight was 196lb and my bmi was 25% so was carrying 49lb of fat.

If the scales are right then I have lost 31lb but only 19lb of fat.

How about the other 12lb I have lost? I have been working out 6 times a week so find it hard to believe I have lost muscle mass.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (26 Nov 2012)

simmi said:


> According to my quality Beurer scale on 27th Aug my weight was 227lb and my bmi was 30%
> so in other words I was carrying 68.1lb of fat.
> 
> 3 months later my weight was 196lb and my bmi was 25% so was carrying 49lb of fat.
> ...


I've never heard of a scale that can accurately distinguish what the weight is on it. A normal bathroom scaleset would have told you that you were 227lbs in total,like BMI equivalents they cannot accurately gauge what portion of weight standing on them is, fat,muscle,bone or your lunch. Hugely hugely misguided metric for weightloss.



> How about the other 12lb I have lost? I have been working out 6 times a week so find it hard to believe I have lost muscle mass.


That assumes that BMI scales are accurate (which they can not be)

In reality weightloss is a product of your diet which you haven't posted. But you could well be losing muscle,in reality a fair portion of it will be as simple as water. There isn't enough information to go on.

But if you want a truly accurate number, go see someone competent in bodyfat caliper usage


----------



## poynedexter (26 Nov 2012)

my guy in the gym uses some electronic device that passes a current from toe to finger. then out pops a % based on the different resistance between fat/muscle/water. you have to lie on the floor for some reason.


----------



## CopperCyclist (26 Nov 2012)

Your problem is in assuming that the BMI is anywhere near a competent technique for measuring body fat - it isn't.


----------



## vickster (26 Nov 2012)

BMI is just a calculation of ration of height vs weight (it's not a percentage per se afaik) -






Not knowing how tall you are means it isn;t possible to calculate, but I am surprised losing 31lbs (a little over 2 stone) took you from 30 (obese) to 25 (normal)

http://www.nhs.uk/Tools/Pages/Healthyweightcalculator.aspx

As above, need calipers to calculate fat %

Well done on the weight loss


----------



## tadpole (26 Nov 2012)

simmi said:


> According to my quality Beurer scale on 27th Aug my weight was 227lb and my bmi was 30%
> so in other words I was carrying 68.1lb of fat.
> 
> 3 months later my weight was 196lb and my bmi was 25% so was carrying 49lb of fat.
> ...


 if you've really only lost 19lb of fat, then the rest of the loss will be lean body mass,(LMB) or in simple terms Muscle.


----------



## Sittingduck (26 Nov 2012)

Presumably you have been in quite big calorie deficit, for the last 3 months? I think you are going to have lost some lean mass, along with fat - working out, or not. No workout (assuming weight training here) would doubtless have seen you lose a higher proportion of lean mass, so I think it's a case of retaining as much as possible, during weight loss.


----------



## Rob3rt (26 Nov 2012)

poynedexter said:


> my guy in the gym uses some electronic device that passes a current from toe to finger. then out pops a % based on the different resistance between fat/muscle/water. you have to lie on the floor for some reason.


 
These are not accurate and the number's can vary wildly on a number of factors, for example, how well hydrated you are.


----------



## 400bhp (26 Nov 2012)

water


----------



## VamP (26 Nov 2012)

Rob3rt said:


> These are not accurate and the number's can vary wildly on a number of factors, for example, how well hydrated you are.


 

They are actually reasonably consistent in their inaccuracy, so for individual progress purposes they're fine.


----------



## srw (26 Nov 2012)

1. The original numbers might be BMI or body fat percentage. They're different measures and without knowing how tall the OP is it's impossible to tell which. 

2. Body fat percentage measurements (even using callipers) are never accurate to more than 2 or 3 percentage points. Over time they're a decent indication and can give a rough target weight. 

3. BMI is OK as a crude indication of a decent weight - unless you're muscle-bound or an international athlete. 

4. The amount of muscle mass won't vary by more than a few pounds at most. If you've been working out 6 times a week you won't have lost muscle mass. 

5. Actual weight and measured fat percentage will vary because of hydration levels. Hydration levels are always changing, especially if you're a woman. 

6. Well done. You've lost a decent amount of weight and kept up a punishing exercise schedule. Keep it up.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (26 Nov 2012)

srw said:


> 1. The original numbers might be BMI or body fat percentage. They're different measures and without knowing how tall the OP is it's impossible to tell which.


The OP was standing on BMI calculating scales 



> 2. Body fat percentage measurements (even using callipers) are never accurate to more than 2 or 3 percentage points. Over time they're a decent indication and can give a rough target weight.


2-3% is much better measure than a scale which is essentially a pressure pad measuring force applied to it,and some mathematics to show some figures on an LCD. BF calipers are based on skin folds,there is margin for error if the measurements are taken wrongly/in the wrong places - BMI scales are based on absolutely NOTHING but a guess. 



> 3. BMI is OK as a crude indication of a decent weight - unless you're muscle-bound or an international athlete.


It is crude but simply not ok. 



> 4. The amount of muscle mass won't vary by more than a few pounds at most. If you've been working out 6 times a week you won't have lost muscle mass.


You will if your diet is insufficient. 



> 5. Actual weight and measured fat percentage will vary because of hydration levels. Hydration levels are always changing, especially if you're a woman.


Indeed 



> 6. Well done. You've lost a decent amount of weight and kept up a punishing exercise schedule. Keep it up.


Also indeed


----------



## Drago (26 Nov 2012)

Only a sedentary person should be using the BMI system, as all the people measured to create the datum were sedentary. Plus the initial work on developing the system took place when food rationing was still in force, so even by the standards of sedentary folk the subjects are unrepresentative. The BMI can often be as much as 13 or 14% out for a big muscly sort.

Must accurate results are achieved by a combination of calipers, skin resistance resting, and the water displacement method. Alas, I own neither calipers, a skin tester or a suitably large tank so I use the US military method, which was at least designed for active people.


----------



## amaferanga (26 Nov 2012)

tadpole said:


> if you've really only lost 19lb of fat, then the rest of the loss will be lean body mass,(LMB) or in simple terms Muscle.


 
He hasn't lost 12 lbs of muscle.


----------



## srw (26 Nov 2012)

Drago said:


> Only a sedentary person should be using the BMI system, as all the people measured to create the datum were sedentary.


 For the typical value of "not sedentary", weight doesn't vary all that much from the typical value of "sedentary". It's only Muscle Marys and international athletes who really need to worry that BMI is a terrible guide. For most of us it's OK.


----------



## tadpole (26 Nov 2012)

amaferanga said:


> He hasn't lost 12 lbs of muscle.


 
There are few options
Either the first weight was wrong
Or the second weight is wrong
Or they are both wrong
Or he’s lost an unknown amount of weight some of it being fat some of it being muscle and some water.
If the scales were right and accurate in their measurement, it is either one the other.
 Which is why I said “if you've really only lost 19lb of fat”


----------



## simmi (26 Nov 2012)

Thanks for all the replys, used vicksters link, NHS site that with measurements of 182cm and 89kg gave me a BMI of 26.6%.
It's not so much the accuracy of the results that intrigued me, but the *FACT * that I have lost 31 pounds and even allowing for inaccuracy's in the results I had some loss of weight I couldn't account for.
I think 400bhp one word answer *Water* is as good as any other,something I didn't consider I guess a 14st body holds less water than a 16st one even if the 16st one is a lot fatter.


----------



## amaferanga (26 Nov 2012)

tadpole said:


> There are few options
> Either the first weight was wrong
> Or the second weight is wrong
> Or they are both wrong
> ...


 
He hasn't lost 12 lbs of muscle. His scales are guessing parameters they can't compute and getting it wrong. But regardless of what the scales said, a bit of common sense tells you that he hasn't lost 12 lbs of muscle.


----------



## amaferanga (26 Nov 2012)

simmi said:


> Thanks for all the replys, used vicksters link, NHS site that with measurements of 182cm and 89kg gave me a BMI of 26.6%.
> It's not so much the accuracy of the results that intrigued me, but the *FACT * that I have lost 31 pounds and even allowing for inaccuracy's in the results I had some loss of weight I couldn't account for.
> I think 400bhp one word answer *Water* is as good as any other,something I didn't consider I guess a 14st body holds less water than a 16st one even if the 16st one is a lot fatter.


 
All you know is you've lost 31 lbs. There is no weight that you can't account for.


----------



## jowwy (26 Nov 2012)

WATER


----------



## srw (26 Nov 2012)

12lb of water is a bit over a gallon, or 5 litres. A 5l container looks like this. The whole lot of the weight loss won't be water.


----------



## VamP (26 Nov 2012)

srw said:


> 12lb of water is a bit over a gallon, or 5 litres. A 5l container looks like this. The whole lot of the weight loss won't be water.


 

Yeah but we already know that the 12lbs is an arbitrarily made up figure. There's no mystery here folks, move on.


----------



## srw (26 Nov 2012)

VamP said:


> Yeah but we already know that the 12lbs is an arbitrarily made up figure. There's no mystery here folks, move on.


 No. the 12lbs is the one figure we _do_ know. It's real. But it's not water.


----------



## black'n'yellow (26 Nov 2012)

srw said:


> No. the 12lbs is the one figure we _do_ know. It's real. But it's not water.


 
The only identifiable weight loss number we have here is 31lbs. Whether that is accurate or not is another issue, but it appears to be a figure 31lbs lower than previous, which is all that matters.

If indeed some of it is water, then he may well put some of it back on, he may not. Either way, it's a good number.


----------



## Sittingduck (26 Nov 2012)

Anyway, well done for losing 31lbs of... something


----------



## srw (26 Nov 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> The only identifiable weight loss number we have here is 31lbs. Whether that is accurate or not is another issue, but it appears to be a figure 31lbs lower than previous, which is all that matters.
> 
> If indeed some of it is water, then he may well put some of it back on, he may not. Either way, it's a good number.


Indeed. My mistake.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (26 Nov 2012)

vickster said:


> BMI is just a calculation of ration of height vs weight (it's not a percentage per se afaik) -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh dear



> BMI was explicitly cited by Keys as being appropriate for population studies, and inappropriate for individual diagnosis. Nevertheless, due to its simplicity, it came to be widely used for individual diagnosis, despite its inappropriateness.





> simple numeric measure of a person's thickness or thinness,





> physicians, have come to rely on its apparent numerical authority for medical diagnosis, but that was never the BMI's purpose; it is meant to be used as a simple means of classifying sedentary (physically inactive) individuals, or rather, populations, with an average body composition





> For a given height, BMI is proportional to mass. However, for a given mass, BMI is inversely proportional to the square of the height. So, if all body dimensions double, and mass scales naturally with the cube of the height, then BMI doubles instead of remaining the same. This results in taller people having a reported BMI that is uncharacteristically high compared to their actual body fat levels





> The weight excess or deficiency may, in part, be accounted for by body fat (adipose tissue) although other factors such as muscularity also affect BMI significantly





> These ranges of BMI values are valid only as statistical categories





> The BMI is generally used as a means of correlation between groups related by general mass and can serve as a vague means of estimating adiposity.





> BMI can be calculated quickly and without expensive equipment. However, BMI categories do not take into account many factors such as frame size and muscularity.[18] The categories also fail to account for varying proportions of fat, bone, cartilage, water weight, and more.
> 
> Despite this, BMI categories are regularly regarded as a satisfactory tool for measuring whether sedentary individuals are underweight, overweight or obese with various exemptions, such as: athletes, children, the elderly, and the infirm.
> 
> One basic problem, especially in athletes, is that muscle weight contributes to BMI. Some professional athletes would be overweight or obese according to their BMI, despite them carrying little fat, unless the number at which they are considered overweight or obese is adjusted upward in some modified version of the calculation. In children and the elderly, differences in bone density and, thus, in the proportion of bone to total weight can mean the number at which these people are considered underweight should be adjusted downward.


 
Pretty sure nothing more needs to be said about BMI. Execpt, I can tell you that the standard lobbied BMI chart - puts me in the obese category. I am no such thing.


----------



## Scruffmonster (26 Nov 2012)

All depends on what food has been going in. You can lose fat and lbm in that kind of ratio quite easily. That's a pretty good average tbh.

Your body needs fuel. It will just take it however it comes. Exercise does not determine how the weight falls off, your hands determine that by what you put in your mouth.

Try to keep an eye on any major colorie deficit days, keep some good fats in your diet, your body needs them, and stop thinking in such broad terms. If you carry on losing weight at a ratio of 2/3 Fat to 1/3 lbm, you'll be laughing.


----------



## musa (26 Nov 2012)

BMI is an unreliable measure. Avoid


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (26 Nov 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> All depends on what food has been going in. You can lose fat and lbm in that kind of ratio quite easily. That's a pretty good average tbh.
> 
> Your body needs fuel. It will just take it however it comes. Exercise does not determine how the weight falls off, your hands determine that by what you put in your mouth.
> 
> Try to keep an eye on any major colorie deficit days, keep some good fats in your diet, your body needs them, and stop thinking in such broad terms. *If you carry on losing weight at a ratio of 2/3 Fat to 1/3 lbm, you'll be laughing*.


 
Nobody knows if this is true or has happened. Why would anyone want to lose metabolically active lean mass? Or indeed be happy about it? 

Muscle mass which directly affects your metabolic rate to the tune of 350-500cals per day per 10lb muscle. Skews calorie deficits very easily.


----------



## Scruffmonster (26 Nov 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Nobody knows if this is true or has happened. Why would anyone want to lose metabolically active lean mass? Or indeed be happy about it?
> 
> Muscle mass which directly affects your metabolic rate to the tune of 350-500cals per day per 10lb muscle. Skews calorie deficits very easily.


 
I assumed that we knew this, That the first post contained a typo. ie His Body fat percentage was 30%. Not a BMI of 30%. My bad if not.

Irrespective of that, if you're coming down from 227lbs and two thirds of your weight loss is Fat, you're doing something right. What do you think would happen if he lost 100% fat every week? He'd probably weight 200lbs before he couldn't do anything more.

You HAVE to lose lean mass to a point. Some prefer not to, I myself would rather keep a bit of upper body muscle weight on there for when I play Football for example, but for me to start hitting hills as fast as I'd like, getting down to 5% body fat wouldn't help on it's own. Getting smaller, lighter muscles, powering a smaller, lighter body would be how to do it.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (26 Nov 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> I assumed that we knew this, That the first post contained a typo. ie His Body fat percentage was 30%. Not a BMI of 30%. My bad if not.
> 
> Irrespective of that, if you're coming down from 227lbs and two thirds of your weight loss is Fat, you're doing something right. What do you think would happen if he lost 100% fat every week? He'd probably weight 200lbs before he couldn't do anything more.
> 
> You HAVE to lose lean mass to a point. Some prefer not to, I myself would rather keep a bit of upper body muscle weight on there for when I play Football for example, but for me to start hitting hills as fast as I'd like, getting down to 5% body fat wouldn't help on it's own. Getting smaller, lighter muscles, powering a smaller, lighter body would be how to do it.


Beurer scales measure BMI. The op stated BMI. This is correct because I harnessed the power of google and discovered they sell two BMI versions.

The OP stated 31lbs lost - The scales cannnot tell what the loss was accurately(We've discussed and ably debunked the BMI crap a few posts up). The OP does not know either - therefore nobody can know how much of the 31lbs was fat,water,muscle or lunch.

So we know: The OP weighs 196lbs - I wonder how much of that is body hair.


----------



## Scruffmonster (26 Nov 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Beurer scales measure BMI. The op stated BMI. This is correct because I harnessed the power of google and discovered they sell two BMI versions.
> 
> The OP stated 31lbs lost - The scales cannnot tell what the loss was accurately(We've discussed and ably debunked the BMI crap a few posts up). The OP does not know either - therefore nobody can know how much of the 31lbs was fat,water,muscle or lunch.
> 
> So we know: The OP weighs 196lbs - I wonder how much of that is body hair.


 
Beurer scales also measure Body Fat.

BMI is not expressed as a percentage, to me, reading through, it looked like there was plenty of misunderstanding. If the scales are showing a % value, it's not BMI.

But cool.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (26 Nov 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> Beurer scales also measure Body Fat.
> 
> BMI is not expressed as a percentage, to me, reading through, it looked like there was plenty of misunderstanding. If the scales are showing a % value, it's not BMI.
> 
> But cool.


They measure weight,they *guess* everything else. Typo or not the BMI 30 or BF 30% whatever it may be - reading is balls.

But cool. Concentrate on irrelevant stuff. It doesn't change the -31lb reading. It just means that nobody knows accurately what that 31lb was comprised of,which is still the overall point in question.


----------



## MrJamie (26 Nov 2012)

A lot of the body fat sensors are next to useless and guess based on your weight, with the handheld sensors you can get someone else to hold them or use a piece of wire and it often makes very little difference.

It's probably a mixture of fat, muscle, fluid etc. From what i remember, your energy stores require lots of water to bond so when you're on a calorie deficit and your energy stores are running light you end up considerably lighter from that. Its a bit like how people can lose half a stone after having a 24 hour stomach bug. If you start munching the pies you'll probably bounce back a fair bit of weight too.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (26 Nov 2012)

MrJamie said:


> A lot of the body fat sensors are next to useless and guess based on your weight, with the handheld sensors you can get someone else to hold them or use a piece of wire and it often makes very little difference.
> 
> It's probably a mixture of fat, muscle, fluid etc. From what i remember, your energy stores require lots of water to bond so when you're on a calorie deficit and your energy stores are running light you end up considerably lighter from that. Its a bit like how people can lose half a stone after having a 24 hour stomach bug. If you start munching the pies you'll probably bounce back a fair bit of weight too.


3.7g water per g glycogen without referring to any manuals.


----------



## Scruffmonster (26 Nov 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> They measure weight,they *guess* everything else. Typo or not the BMI 30 or BF 30% whatever it may be - reading is balls.
> 
> But cool. Concentrate on irrelevant stuff. It doesn't change the -31lb reading. It just means that nobody knows accurately what that 31lb was comprised of.


 
Most body fat scales will do an excellent job of tracking weight loss through fat. They're never going to be super accurate, but if you use them daily, using your common sense to help them be precise then they're an excellent tool. Far better than a set of scales alone.

Simple things like standing on them first thing as you get out of bed and jotting down the numbers, skipping a day if you've had a skinful, or disregarding the results if you then go to pee and see a different colour to normal. They'll all see you keep track of your general body composition.

It's not about trusting them to bet your life away, it's about being as precise as possible. Quoting 'I am 14% body fat' to a mate is silly, recording your daily calues for 3 months and charting progress is valuable enough to warrant owning some.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (26 Nov 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> Most body fat scales will do an excellent job of tracking weight loss through fat. They're never going to be super accurate, but if you use them daily, using your common sense to help them be precise then they're an excellent tool. Far better than a set of scales alone.
> 
> Simple things like standing on them first thing as you get out of bed and jotting down the numbers, skipping a day if you've had a skinful, or disregarding the results if you then go to pee and see a different colour to normal. They'll all see you keep track of your general body composition.
> 
> It's not about trusting them to bet your life away, it's about being as precise as possible. Quoting 'I am 14% body fat' to a mate is silly, recording your daily calues for 3 months and charting progress is valuable enough to warrant owning some.


They are like a normal scale - a starting number which is not in dispute. What is in dispute is a bathroom scale competently measuring BF% and BMI - neither of which it can do with any accuracy. That is equivalent to my fridge telling me how much I'm about to eat based on how much natural light it senses when I open the door.

Like weight both BMI and BF% will be *numbers* - these numbers(BMI/BF%) are based on a guess taken from pressure created on pads by the persons *FEET*. Weight overall is the only accurate number attainable on such a set of scales. The scales can in no way calculate accurately what that weight is made of,you are connected to it via your feet. If I put my cat who weighs a few kg on a set of scales and then put an equal weight of bricks - the scales will not be able to tell which is part of the damp-proof course and which is Mika the 7yr old tom

These numbers will go up and down(hopefully mostly down) but what these numbers cannot be is accurate - they can be consistent. Accurate and consistent are not the same thing.

Conclusion: The OP shouldn't be worrying about finding a supposed rogue 12lb. But should be carrying on with doing such a good job irrespective of what the scales _predict_

I really don't get why this is so hard for people to understand.


----------



## Scruffmonster (26 Nov 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> They are like a normal scale - a starting number which is not in dispute. What is in dispute is a bathroom scale competently measuring BF% and BMI - neither of which it can do with any accuracy. That is equivalent to my fridge telling me how much I'm about to eat based on how much natural light it senses when I open the door.
> 
> Like weight both BMI and BF% will be *numbers* - these numbers(BMI/BF%) are based on a guess taken from pressure created on pads by the persons *FEET*. Weight overall is the only accurate number attainable on such a set of scales. The scales can in no way calculate accurately what that weight is made of,you are connected to it via your feet. If I put my cat who weighs a few kg on a set of scales and then put an equal weight of bricks - the scales will not be able to tell which is part of the damp-proof course and which is Mika the 7yr old tom
> 
> ...


 
Leaving absolute accuracy to the side, Do you know what body fat scales are?


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (26 Nov 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> Leaving absolute accuracy to the side, Do you know what body fat scales are?


Marketing gimmick for the gym bunny/yoyo dieter. I wouldn't trust something I can buy in Argos to tell me what my body is made of.

Here is one. It shows a pretty lady stepping onto a scaleset with her feet of all things. Would have thought?

Here's another Although no pretty lady this time

Here's another Only this time the pretty lady has the remote(story of my life) and once again maneuvers herself onto the scaleset with her FEET.


----------



## Scruffmonster (26 Nov 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Marketing gimmick for the gym bunny/yoyo dieter. I wouldn't trust something I can buy in Argos to tell me what my body is made of.


 
You should. How long ago did you last use a set?

This is anecdotal but telling.

I ran a Marathon in April, weighing a lean 154lbs. Muscles were defined, I felt light, springy, healthy, fit. My body fat scales had me down at 16%.

I now weigh 175lbs as I've been lazy. I have a light covering, little definition and I know I'm off my game. Happily so, I'm taking some downtime. Training starts in December. My body fat scales have me down at about 25%.

Now, I'm not saying that I am 25% fat now, nor would I say I was 16% in April. There is however, an absolute correlation between those numbers and my body. It's not a wild guess.

Learn how to use them and they can be a good tool. Certainly far better than scales alone. As millions of people currently losing weight on diets right now but never getting any less fat really.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (26 Nov 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> You should. How long ago did you last use a set?
> 
> This is anecdotal but telling.
> 
> ...


You are totally not getting this. Your scales had you at 16%, it does not mean that you were actually. Your scales have you at 25% now, it does not mean that you are.

What you have is a number that changed - a number taken on a set of scales connected to your body via your feet. That is quite a margin of error.

If your scales show 14% in June 2013 then something happened. What that something is, the scales cannot tell.


----------



## MacB (26 Nov 2012)

Not a fan of BMI here for most of the reasons stated and I now just use overall body weight, how I feel fitness wise and the ratio of height to waist size(measured just below belly button).

The only one I treat as a target is the latter, I kind of figure that if I reach that while eating well and being active then the other bits will fall into whatever suits me naturally.

By the way no original science was involved in the creation of this post.


----------



## Scruffmonster (26 Nov 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> You are totally not getting this. Your scales had you at 16%, it does not mean that you were actually. Your scales have you at 25% now, it does not mean that you are.
> 
> What you have is a number that changed - a number taken on a set of scales connected to your body via your feet. That is quite a margin of error.
> 
> If your scales show 14% in June 2013 then something happened. What that something is, the scales cannot tell.


 
I really am. I have a decent working knowledge of the scales, and my body.

I never said that at any point, it knows my exact body fat percentage. Yet it is a good indicator for ensuring that you're losing weight in a way that you want to.

It would be perfectly feasible to lose weight and never see that body fat percentage change. That was not my goal as a runner. I was looking to be light and efficient as possible. I ensured that happened.

Do you truly believe that they serve no purpose, that they have nothing to offer?


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (26 Nov 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> I really am. I have a decent working knowledge of the scales, and my body.
> 
> I never said that at any point, it knows my exact body fat percentage. Yet it is a good indicator for ensuring that you're losing weight in a way that you want to.
> 
> ...


I pretty much do yes. As I have repeated enough times, BMI and BF% taken off scales are no more than numbers. These numbers can rise or fall. But they cannot be assumed to be accurate in any way, they can be assumed to be consistent. As I have also posted, BMI is taken and based off populations of people to compare other populations or groups of people to. Do you compare your scale results to the population of France or to that of a local village? Don't think so!

The OP is looking for a rogue 12lb after his bathroom scales suggested it might have flown off in the middle of the night. Ultimately that 12lb is a loss somewhere as part of an overall loss of 31lbs, but neither BMI or BF% scales can tell you what it was made of.

Nobody knows what it is made of, bathroom scales certainly do not know what it was made of.

In this instance, the OP has too many numbers and such scales are a bad thing. Using three numbers to do the job of one just isn't appropriate here.


----------



## Scruffmonster (26 Nov 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> I pretty much do yes. As I have repeated enough times, BMI and BF% taken off scales are no more than numbers. These numbers can rise or fall. But they cannot be assumed to be accurate in any way, they can be assumed to be consistent. As I have also posted, BMI is taken and based off populations of people to compare other populations or groups of people to. Do you compare your scale results to the population of France or to that of a local village? Don't think so!
> 
> The OP is looking for a rogue 12lb after his bathroom scales suggested it might have flown off in the middle of the night. Ultimately that 12lb is a loss somewhere as part of an overall loss of 31lbs, but neither BMI or BF% scales can tell you what it was made of.
> 
> Nobody knows what it is made of, bathroom scales certainly do not know what it was made of.


 
I'm not debating the stupidity of BMI.

Body fat scales are a perfectly valid method of determining how you're losing the weight that you're losing, if you use them correctly.


----------



## snorri (26 Nov 2012)

Imperial measurements.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (26 Nov 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> I'm not debating the stupidity of BMI.
> 
> Body fat scales are a perfectly valid method of determining how you're losing the weight that you're losing, if you use them correctly.


No they are not.


----------



## Scruffmonster (26 Nov 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> No they are not.


 
Cool. If you believe that, simply choose not to use them.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (26 Nov 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> Cool. If you believe that, simply choose not to use them.


Ok I'll try again because as much as it pains me, you aren't getting this but are worth at least another chance.

Step onto BF% calculating scales weighing 14stone ( you know you weigh 14stone from standing on the scales)

Scales tell you that you are 20%BF

*How does it determine this when the only thing connected to the scaleset, is your feet? (or foot?)*

Step back onto the same scale a month later and it now says 18%.

*How does this scale know that the 2% difference is made up of body fat?*

It could be made up of water, it could be made up of lunch, it could be made up of muscle - maybe you were wearing really thick socks the last time.


Once again, even in this example. You have a number that changed, and nothing evidential to suggest that the change in bodyfat was 2%. All you know is, change happened somewhere. Nothing but a calculation as to where it was. 2% change could easily be dehydration too.

Explain.

Step onto a standard bathroom scale and you weigh 14stone.

Step onto the same scale 1 month later and you weigh 13stone.

You lost 14lbs but what was it you lost? water? fat? muscle? socks took off? 

What was it you lost most of? ???? 

What ratio did you lost it in? ????


----------



## Scruffmonster (26 Nov 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Ok I'll try again because as much as it pains me, you aren't getting this but are worth at least another chance.
> 
> Step onto BF% calculating scales weighing 14stone ( you know you weigh 14stone from standing on the scales)
> 
> ...


 
It's not going to be socks. You need to do it barefoot, preferably with wet feet, after your morning pee.

It sends an electrical charge through your body, estimating your body fat values.

Do you know how they work?


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (26 Nov 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> It's not going to be socks. You need to do it barefoot, preferably with wet feet, after your morning pee.
> 
> It sends an electrical charge through your body, *estimating* your body fat values.
> 
> Do you know how they work?





> es·ti·mate/ˈestəˌmāt/Verb: Roughly calculate or judge the value, number, quantity, or extent of.


Yes I do and take every opportunity to mock just how ridiculous they are.

I didn't say the socks were on your feet though.

ps: did you pee on your feet?


----------



## Scruffmonster (26 Nov 2012)

So in your opinion, they can never attain a level of precision to be worthwhile. That's ok. Each to their own. 

The simple fact remains that a decent set of body fat scales, used sensibly, can be a useful piece of kit for most.

Let's leave it at that. I'll let you get back to finding alternative ways to wear socks, I'll get back to practicing hitting the toilet bowl.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (26 Nov 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> So in your opinion, they can never attain a level of precision to be worthwhile. That's ok. Each to their own.
> 
> The simple fact remains that a decent set of body fat scales, used sensibly, can be a useful piece of kit for most.
> 
> Let's leave it at that. I'll let you get back to finding alternative ways to wear socks, I'll get back to practicing hitting the toilet bowl.


You are slowly proving that you just don't read things.


----------



## MrJamie (26 Nov 2012)

The electrical pulses are nonsense IMHO, it guesses your % from the weight you tell it and any other stats it asks for like age/height/sex, but it'll usually be roughly in the ballpark unless you have a really extreme body composition so will seem right. Surely if its measuring the resistance (as they claim) between one foot and the other, then touching calves would reduce the path and hence the resistance giving a wildly different reading. From messing round with a couple of these devices, if you vary the resistance you do vary the number it gives you but only within a very tiny range of say 1-2% because it doesnt trust the sensor so just weights an algorithym slightly, its even clearer if you try the handheld ones and get other people or a chain of people to hold them and they still base the results mostly on your weight.

Theres some guides online where you can measure your body with a tape measure and get a bodyfat estimate thats meant to be relatively accurate.


----------



## Scruffmonster (26 Nov 2012)

No. I realised that debating on the Internet with someone that talks about peeing on feet and disputing that socks are worn on feet isn't really the kind of person that can add anything to what I know. 

There was a message, some intelligent discussion... Then it meandered.


T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> You are slowly proving that you just don't read things.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (26 Nov 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> No. I realised that debating on the Internet with someone that talks about peeing on feet and disputing that socks are worn on feet isn't really the kind of person that can add anything to what I know.
> 
> There was a message, some intelligent discussion... Then it meandered.


In reality you've ran out of stuff to spew about BF% calculating bathroom scales and chose to bow out of a discussion by using a little post addition I put there to show that you read nor understood anything in the thread.

Good day to you.


----------



## Scruffmonster (26 Nov 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> In reality you've ran out of stuff to spew about BF% calculating bathroom scales and chose to bow out of a discussion by using a little post addition I put there to show that you read nor understood anything in the thread.
> 
> Good day to you.



Oh good lord


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (26 Nov 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> Oh good lord


Does the good lord know about BF% scales?


----------



## screenman (26 Nov 2012)

If BF scales as the above poster stated do not work, how do they get past trading standards? Just like to know the answer so that I can apply it to some of the thing I sell which TS keeps a sharp eye on.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (26 Nov 2012)

screenman said:


> If BF scales as the above poster stated do not work, how do they get past trading standards? Just like to know the answer so that I can apply it to some of the thing I sell which TS keeps a sharp eye on.


Who said they didn't work?


----------



## screenman (26 Nov 2012)

Wow! slow down there I was not having a pop. I just thought that you were stating that their figures were meaningless and could not be relied on, I must have misread somewhat. So what you are saying is they do work, personally I have very little experience with them, well only the once after being measured by Pete Read for fat content I then tried some scales and found they were as close as dammit. Not been on a pair since though.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (26 Nov 2012)

screenman said:


> Wow! slow down there I was not having a pop. I just thought that you were stating that their figures were meaningless and could not be relied on,


They can't be relied on to be accurate. They can be relied on to be consistent. They cannot ever tell you exactly how the numbers it gives you changed. Which can only leave a poor guess as to what BF% is.

BMI is wholly meaningless due to how it was studied(groups of people/populations). BF% is not(it is a measure of you only)



> I must have misread somewhat. So what you are saying is they do work, personally I have very little experience with them, well only the once after being measured by Pete Read for fat content I then tried some scales and found they were as close as dammit. Not been on a pair since though.


I've never said they don't work. I have stated categorically that a product I can buy in Argos or the likes,cannot accurately tell me my BMI or BF%. It is absolutely ridiculous to think any different.


----------



## screenman (26 Nov 2012)

I agree with the BMI bit, it was your knowledge of how the fat measuring scale manufacturers get around trading standards I was after.


----------



## simmi (26 Nov 2012)

A decade ago I did an American fitness program called body for life, my weight came down to about 12st 12lb then started going back although me body fat was still reducing my muscle mass was increasing due to all the weights i was doing. At the time I had no way to prove this to myself, if I had the BMI scales I would have know for sure.
I Know my scales my not be 100% correct but they have shown trends over time which I find useful and motivational.
In conclusion the 12lb will be some water fat and muscle but the % of each is impossible to say.


----------



## simmi (26 Nov 2012)

Oh and thanks for you answers although there was much disagreement you have improved my understanding.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (26 Nov 2012)

screenman said:


> I agree with the BMI bit, it was your knowledge of how the fat measuring scale manufacturers get around trading standards I was after.


Wouldnt know. I don't work there


----------



## black'n'yellow (26 Nov 2012)

screenman said:


> it was your knowledge of how the fat measuring scale manufacturers get around trading standards I was after.


 
by using words like _'approximately'_..


----------



## 400bhp (26 Nov 2012)

srw said:


> 12lb of water is a bit over a gallon, or 5 litres. A 5l container looks like this. The whole lot of the weight loss won't be water.


 
Of course. My one word answer wasn't an absolute.


----------



## Scruffmonster (26 Nov 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> They can't be relied on to be accurate. They can be relied on to be consistent. They cannot ever tell you exactly how the numbers it gives you changed. Which can only leave a poor guess as to what BF% is.
> 
> I've never said they don't work. I have stated categorically that a product I can buy in Argos or the likes,cannot accurately tell me my BMI or BF%. It is absolutely ridiculous to think any different.


 
I'm back. Being forced to watch Twilight drove me to check this again...

We don't need accuracy as much as we need consistency.

If my goal is to lose weight, it doesn't matter if my scales have me at 100kg if my 'true' weight is 105kg. All that matters is the number goes down. The accuracy of the reading matters little.

Body fat scales are consistent. Would I trust them as a once a week data point? Probably not. You need to use them often enough, and strictly enough, to dial out the noise.

As an example, if I go out Friday night, have a skinful, get up Saturday, run it off, then have a shower, then jump on the scales, the value will be MASSIVELY different from the number I'd see after a calm night, with a measurement taken first thing. You have to control as many variables as possible.

Despite what you believe about the scales, they work well enough to be used to monitor changes in body composition OVER TIME. You seem to be so hung up on the concept of the absolute number.

Example of two twins casting aside any kind of hinky variables for the sake of making a point.
Twin A and Twin B start training. They both weigh 80Kg. Both have 25% Body Fat according to their witchcraft scales.
They both work out that they need to consume 2000 Calories per day to hit their goal weight by race day.
Twin A goes Paleo and consumes food as mother earth intended. Lot's of natural goodness.
Twin B east sweets, chips, burgers, fried all day. He loves beer too.
Neither goes above their 2000 Calorie limit, they both expend identical energy in their training.
They both lost 15kg by race day.
They both get on their scales.
Twin A now has a body fat value of 15%
Twin B now has a body fat value of 25%

Obviously it's never going to be that perfectly sweet and tasty, but simply put, using body fat scales, you can track weight loss alongside a declining body fat percentage. You can correlate those two numbers over time.

If weight is falling, and body fat is staying the same or not falling too quickly, you're not losing a lot of fat. This was the point I made in my first post to Simmi.

Of course the scales are running an algorithm using as many knowns as possible; Height, age, activity level, gender, weight, but there is still the variable factor that is the impedance of the current. That value matters. It changes over time (hopefully), and it gets added to those other values to make a best guess estimate of your body fat.

Is it as accurate as a medical test? Nope. Better than Calipers in good hands? Nope. As telling as a tape measure? No. But in 30 seconds you can have a number that you can invest something in over time. Nothing comes close for convenience.

Those are my last words on the subject as I'm tired and I don't think I've got anything I want to add beyond that.

If there are spelling mistakes, blame Vampires and Werewolves. And Michael Sheen. What the feck was he doing in that film?


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (27 Nov 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> Lots of stuff


Thank you for repeating what I have been trying to drill into you for pages. It was hard going,but I knew we would get there eventually. I may well have even repeated myself on a number of occasions. There is a bit of rubbish in there, but you've got the idea now. Abeit roughly.

Although this was your first post to the OP.


Scruffmonster said:


> All depends on what food has been going in. *You can lose fat and lbm in that kind of ratio quite easily*. That's a pretty good average tbh.
> 
> Your body needs fuel. It will just take it however it comes. Exercise does not determine how the weight falls off, your hands determine that by what you put in your mouth.
> 
> Try to keep an eye on any major colorie deficit days, keep some good fats in your diet, your body needs them, and stop thinking in such broad terms. _*If you carry on losing weight at a ratio of 2/3 Fat to 1/3 lbm, you'll be laughing.*_


 
Which implied even then,that the ratio of loss is accurate. There is no reliable means of knowing such information. And thus there is no reliable means of finding out what the 12lb the OP was looking for, was made up of and in what percentage.



> If weight is falling, and body fat is staying the same or not falling too quickly, you're not losing a lot of fat. This was the point I made in my first post to Simmi.


----------



## screenman (27 Nov 2012)

What proof do you have that they do not work, is it scientific or just your assumption?


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (27 Nov 2012)

screenman said:


> What proof do you have that they do not work, is it scientific or just your assumption?


Once again,I have never said they don't work.


----------



## screenman (27 Nov 2012)

You just said there is no reliable way of finding out the fat content, maybe I am not reading properly.


----------



## Scruffmonster (27 Nov 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Thank you for repeating what I have been trying to drill into you for pages. It was hard going,but I knew we would get there eventually. I may well have even repeated myself on a number of occasions. There is a bit of rubbish in there, but you've got the idea now. Abeit roughly.
> 
> Although this was your first post to the OP.
> 
> ...


 
Erm, no. So quit with your condascending twaddle.

My post displays a perfect example of how the scales can be used as a reference point for weight loss.

To clarify, My original post sought to make it clear that a drastic weight loss plan that shed 2lbs of fat for every 1lb of lean body mass was excellent.

I don't know if you're getting confused in my original error which was to assume that the OP stated; 31% BMI. I (incorrectly) assumed that as he'd added a '%' that he meant Body Fat Percentage.

After that, the debate ensued on a tangent, leaving behind it's humble beginnings and evolving into whether body fat scales could be used in a way that gave good data.

I maintain that they can, hence my slightly contrived example as you didn't heed my earlier example using my own body, numbers and experiences.

It's cool to disagree, but adding some fake flourish of 'Thank you, I knew I'd get there in the end' is silly. You haven't provided an education here. You've added nothing to what I know and understand. By all means carry on as you were, but don't try to suggest you've planted a flag.

Take it easy


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (27 Nov 2012)

You're still not getting this. There is no loss ratio - there is no proof that a certain % of anything has been lost. There cannot be,due to how these scales work.

The electrical current passed through your feet,passes though body mass made primarily of water(the path of least resistance),it cannot pass through anhydrous fat mass,which is the figure you are after. The "estimation" then given is essentially a calculation based on how hydrated you are at that point. These calculations are often derived from hydrostatic testing,results and averages,which are in themselves inaccurate.

This level can change dramatically from one day to the next. It can and does on occasion skew BF% readings.

The most accurate method of determining bf% actually requires you to be dead. That is far removed from a bathroom scale.


----------



## amaferanga (27 Nov 2012)

screenman said:


> What proof do you have that they do not work, is it scientific or just your assumption?


 
I don't think anyone has to prove that they don't work. If someone is selling something then it's up to them to prove that it does what they claim it does. So what exactly do the manufacturers of these things claim?


----------



## simmi (27 Nov 2012)

I have got got thinner my scales say my BMI has reduced by 5% so they work , which is a different thing to saying the are accurate.
I think we have all established by now that the only way to get 100% accurate results would be to butcher me and render and weigh my fat.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (27 Nov 2012)

BMI doesnt reduce as a percentage


----------



## simmi (27 Nov 2012)

> BMI has reduced by 5%
> 
> 
> T.M.H.N.E.T said:
> ...


 
Sorry BMI has reduced from 30 to 25


----------



## black'n'yellow (27 Nov 2012)

simmi said:


> Sorry BMI has reduced from 30 to 25


 
Maybe we can forget about BMI completely..? The only number that makes a difference to your cycling performance is your weight.


----------



## Scruffmonster (27 Nov 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> You're still not getting this.


 
Simply repeating 'You're not getting this' does not make you right.

As you've said, and I have said at least once so far, hydration makes a difference. Which is why I've said that you need to control as many variables as possible, by weighing first thing in the morning, with an empty bladder, not after a night of dehydrating booze, or a hard workout, and so on.

I understand how they work. Implicitly. I know and recognise the scope and limitations of electrical impedance. I've seen results, watched numbers fall and rise over time, in training blocks, time off, lazy months. I've stood on the scales at the same weight, but in different shape, and seen a markedly different body fat reading that has held and been replicated for many weeks until I've changed diet or activity level. The numbers that have been shown have been backed up by the mirror.

This is MY proof, to ME. This is a forum. On the internet. I pass on my findings to someone who might have wanted it. As you do. They then decide what they choose to take out of it.

That's about as good as this is going to get I feel.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (27 Nov 2012)

So anecdote then. That settles it


----------



## amaferanga (27 Nov 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> Simply repeating 'You're not getting this' does not make you right.
> 
> As you've said, and I have said at least once so far, hydration makes a difference. Which is why I've said that you need to control as many variables as possible, by weighing first thing in the morning, with an empty bladder, not after a night of dehydrating booze, or a hard workout, and so on.
> 
> ...


 
Might you have achieved exactly the same with a regular set of weighing scales and a mirror?


----------



## Scruffmonster (27 Nov 2012)

amaferanga said:


> Might you have achieved exactly the same with a regular set of weighing scales and a mirror?


 
That depends on what you mean by 'Achieve'. There is no quantifiable value to looking in a mirror that can be compared with the next day, month, year, plus it takes longer than stepping on a set of scales.


----------



## amaferanga (27 Nov 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> That depends on what you mean by 'Achieve'. There is no quantifiable value to looking in a mirror that can be compared with the next day, month, year, plus it takes longer than stepping on a set of scales.


 
Take a picture or your rolls of fat then.


----------



## Scruffmonster (27 Nov 2012)

amaferanga said:


> Take a picture or your rolls of fat then.


 
Daily/Weekly photos and weekly measurements are great. I fully endorse them as an aid for monitoring weight loss or body changes. Hell of a lot of work though.


----------

