Can anyone explain the mystery of the missing 12lb?

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

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]

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

by using words like 'approximately'..

 

[400bhp]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

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]

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

 

[Scruffmonster]

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.


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.

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