bad ideas I don’t need, not want, but still want:
CHATGPT scale.
instead of giving you your weight, it’ll burn you or call you out.
Those things are totally bogus if it makes you feel any better. Changes in body composition are not reflected properly via bioelectric impedance.
Truth is every bf% measurement is pretty much just a guess with a huge range of error. Far more practical to find some other measurement to track, such as athletic performance (lifting, cardio times) while keeping a loose eye on your weight
Are you saying that digital scales used to measure the weight of a person are inaccurate or am I mixing topics? This is new to me. Why measuring weight should be hard/inaccurate?
And why analogic scales (if they can be called like that) are better?
No, they are talking about weights that spits out a body fat percentage alongside the weight.
The other response is correct. Many “smart” scales claim to be able to tell you not only your weight, but also what percentage of your weight is lean mass vs body fat.
They are not accurate in that respect and should never be used
Normal scales that just tell you your weight, whether digital or analogue, are generally correct and reliable
They’re not accurate but I think they can at least track trends consistently. A clock that’s five hours ahead still tells you how much time has passed relative to itself. Similarly a scale might tell you what direction your fat level is trending.
I think they can at least track trends consistently
I’m sorry to say, but they can’t. It would be one thing if, for you as an individual, the error was always consistent (e.g., “always five hours ahead”). Then at least you would be able to track trends over time. Sadly, the technology itself is not reliable in that way and should never be relied on to track trends.
Perhaps not. My subjective experience of my Withings scale is that the reported fat percentage has at least remained where I’ve expected given my general activity level. ie, fat percentage goes up when I’m sedentary, down when I’m active.
But it’s more a curiosity than a useful metric regardless.
I strongly encourage you to disregard the bf% information that scale provides you, even if it is only a passing curiosity. It can and will taint your general understanding of the body and your relationship with fitness. I would recommend even disabling it entirely if possible, and would even recommend replacing it with a non-“smart” scale if the option is at all economical for you. I’m happy to explore the subject further and suggest alternatives if you so desire
Honestly I don’t care enough. If I happen to be in the interface I’ll probably turn it off, sure. It doesn’t inform any decisions, I barely register that the number exists.
This is why we need home MRI machines so you can get a 3D model of the fat in your body /s
Skin fold isn’t necessary accurate but it is repeatable. I’d you measure the same spots the same way you can tell if you are gaining or losing fat.
Skin fold calipers, in the best possible case scenario when administered by a trained expert, have such a significant margin of error as to make them functionally useless. I strongly discourage you from lending any credence whatsoever to their measurements when determining your plans regarding training and nutrition.
See my other comment regarding the smart scales, but it’s the same situation. They’re not “always consistently wrong by the same amount” per individual. If so, then yes, that would be useful for tracking trends. Sadly they are not
As an amateur who has used them enough to get repeatable results, I strongly disagree with you. Yes they are not accurate but they can be precise enough to track progress when the scale is flat or up due to a recomp.
You can certainly pinch the same spot on the same day and get the same number a few times in a row, sure. But as your body changes you become a different organism. It’s not always going to be consistently wrong in the same way. Self administering the skin fold test makes the problem even worse.
Setting aside the fact that they are neither precise nor accurate at tracking trends, why are you recomping?
No really, let’s think about why you’re changing your body. Is it for a strength sport? Is it to improve your health? Is it to become more muscular? Do you want to run faster?
Because all of these things are completely self evident. Simply take a step back and examine whether or not you are actually making progress towards your goals. Whether you are stronger, faster, etc. If your doctor is happy with your new bloodwork.
All of the various bf% scams are so ridiculous at the outset because in fitness, we have such specific tangible goals. There’s no situation where having a figure for your bf% actually assists or informs you in any way. If you are achieving your goals in fact then the number shouldn’t dissuade you. If you are not achieving your goals in fact, then you shouldn’t let the number gaslight you about it and make you feel better. You need to make adjustments based on your actual results, not on something as nebulous and abstracted as bf%.
Especially not when the best, most expensive methods can at best tell you your number within six percent. Which is completely absurd. That 8% vs 14%. Literally guessing a number while looking in a mirror is more accurate for the purpose of tracking progress
I don’t care if the calculated % is wrong and I don’t believe you about changes in error. A thinner subcutaneous fat layer will form a thinner pinch at the same load. I am aware that it is an indirect measure but nonetheless it helps me meet my goals.
What is there to believe or disbelieve when the problems of this method are so incredibly well documented? The body is not as simple as you’re portraying, the measurement can swing in either direction for many reasons over the course of months and years. Rely on these measurements at your own peril
I’m 75% anxiety.
i don’t get it
The smart scale acts like it can determine your fat and muscle weight. The joke is about not being able to day you have heavy bones because the scale tells you it’s all fat.
