Training & Nutrition - The Tanita Lied To Me

- or -
How Paid $25 to Find Out I Was Really Fat

So I went to the local Uni this weekend to test my body fat in the machine they have there. Its suppossed to be very close to the accuracy of hydrostatic weighing, but much more convenient. The machine in question, the BodPod, has info here: www.bodpod.com

All in all the procedure is pretty easy. You bascially just sit there. Each measurement takes about 5 seconds, and they usually do three to get accurate results. For me, the worst part was going and buying a speedo, as I don't own one, and would never wear one if I hadn't had to have one for the test.

I did two complete tests, with three measurements each. I wish I could come up with a reason for them to be wrong, but I haven't been able to discover any reason to believe there was an error. I guess I'm just worse off than I thought.

So down to the dirty numbers:

Tanita on Athlete Setting: 24.1%
Tanita on Couch Potato Setting: 29.2 %
Bod Pod, First Test: 35.3 %
Bod Pod, Second Test: 33.8 %


Now, this does not imply all Tanita's scales are wrong, just that mine was. YMMV.

Looks like hitting the trainer everyday is part of my new routine.

You know... I hate that bod pod.

I don't believe in it. If you have a lot of muscle, and/or are a bit shorter than normal and have more muscle, it will completely skew your results. Not only that, they still take those results and measure them against a preset norm, and as a lot of people know, I am about 20000000% against using one person to compare an entire cross section of a population. It is NOT as accurate as hydrostatic weighing, and I don't care what those bod pod people say. They will, of course, say that it is, but really, it isn't. If the bod pod only measured displacement in air and used that to calculate true body fat, that would be one thing. But they ask for your age and weight, and they do NOT accomodate for muscle. It's about as accurate as using a BMI scale to accurately tell you how fat your are.

I think the bod pod is off by as much as 10- 15%, not the 1- 2% they claim. I don't think the Tanita scale is very accurate either, but if you put it all into perspective, I really think the Tanita scale is a lot closer to being accurate than the bod pod.

When the bod pod folks dragged their machine over to my facility, quite a few people turned out with really high bodyfat percentages. I thought they caused a lot of undue panic and constirnation. I know the difference between being overfat and being muscular, and at my club, there are quite a few muscular people that took that test and walked away swearing off eating any type of food at all- anorexics of the future. I know these people are not as overfat as that machine said- some of them were quite lean, but because of what the bod pod claimed (how accurate they really are), they did cause a lot of undue panic at our facility. Which, I guess, is what my facility wants- panicked people who will run out to the personal trainers and nutritionists that work here and pay for their services, which gives us a whole heck of a lot more revenue.

Koffee

FWIW, Jan '04 Consumer Reports tested two Tanita models and said its body-fat measurements "weren't very accurate". They said the weight measurements were accurate. Taylor brand was rated as more accurate - getting a "good" rating for BF measurement.

I don't think the Tanita is that accurate, but as inaccurate as the Tanita is, I think the Bod Pod has its own problems.

Here's a link to some of what I was talking about:

http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/1025.htm



Athletes from a variety of different sports feel the need to monitor their body composition. Resistance-trainers, for example, check weight changes and percentage body fat on a regular basis to ensure that the gains they make are in the form of lean mass rather than fat; endurance athletes are often concerned about potential gains in fat weight because it can reduce maximal aerobic capacity and impair movement efficiency; athletes in power sports like volleyball and tennis worry that excessive fat will interfere with their ability to jump explosively or get to the ball quickly and some athletes intent on losing weight need to make sure that they don’t lose muscle mass along with fat tissue. All such athletes would welcome a reliable and user-friendly method of assessing body composition.

Hydrostatic weighing is considered the ‘gold standard’ in this respect, but it is neither problem-free nor easy to use. The repeated underwater submersions (and corresponding maximal exhalations) required for this technique have proved troublesome for athletes, while many coaches find it hard to measure hydrostatic weights accurately, which requires a significant amount of technical expertise.

Skin-fold measurements, the commonly used alternative to hydrostatic weighing, is much easier to carry out but poses its own unique difficulties. For one thing, the accuracy of the method is highly dependent on the individual actually taking the measurements; a true change in body fatness over time may be missed entirely if the skin-fold readings are taken by different people or by the same person with sloppy technique. In addition, skin-fold measurements require ‘population-specific equations’ (formulae which take proper account of the unique characteristics of a particular sporting population – female swimmers, for example) to provide reliable estimates of percent body fat. There is no single equation that applies to the entire athletic world, and thus athletes, coaches, and sports medicine experts who rely on skin-fold measuring must be sophisticated about which mathematical formulae they use.

Because of these problems, athletes, coaches and trainers have searched for a way to evaluate percent body fat which requires little technical know-how and also keeps potential tester bias to a minimum. And for some people, the ‘Bod Pod’ Body Composition System seemed like the answer to their prayers. The Bod Pod uses a technique called air-displacement plethysmography (ADP) to estimate percent body fat quickly, non-invasively and easily – with no special expertise required by the tester.

But, although ADP has been found to be highly accurate in measuring the volume of inanimate objects, its use for determining the amount of fat in human subjects has been controversial. Some studies have indicated that ADP underestimates percent body fat in lean men and in young men and women in general. Other research has suggested that ADP might overestimate percent body fat by as much as 14% in lean women. Therefore, concern has arisen that ADP might have a particular gender or body-composition bias – or that it is simply incapable of providing reliable body-composition readings.

ADP shown to overestimate body fat…

To find out more about the accuracy and reliability of ADP (with specific reference to the Bod Pod device), researchers from Washington, DC and Michigan recently compared the technique with hydrostatic weighing and skin-fold measurement in 80 female college athletes – 32 track-and-field performers, 17 volleyballers, 17 softball players, four footballers and 10 rowers.

To obtain the Bod Pod measurement, each athlete sat in the Bod Pod chamber, wearing either Spandex shorts or a swim suit. Two measures of body volume were taken, each lasting about 35-45 seconds; if these first two measurements were more than 150 ml apart, a third was taken. The estimation of thoracic gas volume (critical for estimating body density) was determined by connecting the subject to the Bod Pod’s breathing circuit through an air filter and breathing tube; after 2-3 breathing cycles, the airway was momentarily closed, and the athlete gently ‘puffed’ three times during this time. Body weight was determined to the nearest 20g on a calibrated digital scale, and a special software programme then used the athlete’s weight, body volume and thoracic lung volume to calculate body density and percent body fat.

The hydrostatic weighing was carried out in an indoor pool. A scale suspended over the water was attached to a chair submerged in the water. Each athlete entered the pool and removed air bubbles from her swimsuit and body hair. While submerged and seated in the chair, the athlete exhaled maximally, and the trial ended when no more air could be exhaled and the two investigators taking the measurements had agreed on a weight within 20g. All the athletes performed a minimum of three trials until three measurements agreed within 20g, and the three heaviest weights were then averaged to calculate body density and percent body fat from standard mathematical formulae.

All the skin-fold measurements were taken by the same experienced scientist at each of the two institutions involved in the trial. Skin-fold thicknesses at the triceps muscle, suprailiac region, abdomen and thigh were determined with Lange skin-fold calipers, and percent body fat was then calculated from the appropriate, gender-specific equation outlined by the American College of Sports Medicine (1).

In the course of this study, the researchers unearthed some interesting differences in body composition between the athletes. The track athletes were by far the leanest, with an average body fat percentage of 15.7 (measured by hydrostatic weighing). The slimmest 75% of the track athletes averaged an even trimmer 13.6% body fat. By contrast, the women in every other sport checked in with average body fat percentages of 21 or more; the heftiest being the volleyball players and rowers, with average body-fat levels above 22%.

As it turned out, there was no significant difference between the hydrostatic-weight and skin-fold estimations of body fat, but percent body fat measured by the Bod Pod was significantly higher than by either of the others; (remember that hydrostatic weighing is considered the ‘gold standard’). This overestimation by the Bod Pod was a factor even when the athletes were divided into lean and normal subsets; the Bod Pod tacked on about 2% of extra body fat in the general population (from the 19% determined by hydrostatic weighing to 21%) and 3% in the leaner athletes (from 14 to 17%). The researchers concluded that the Bod Pod (and ADP in general) may not be valid tools for measuring percent body fat in female athletes, especially the leaner ones.

…and sometimes to err the other way

ADP has run into trouble in other studies, too. In one investigation carried out with fairly lean male college football players, ADP underestimated body fatness, yielding an average reading of 15.1%, compared with 17% for hydrostatic weighing (4). In another piece of research, ADP overestimated body fatness by 7% in women and underestimated it by 16% in men (8), and in a third study ADP underestimated fatness by almost 3% in men (9). In a very interesting investigation, in which the subjects were divided into lean, average and overweight groups, ADP did well with the average and overweight people but overestimated body fatness by 14% with the lean group, most of whom (81%) were female(6). There is thus a growing consensus that ADP is plagued by a gender bias – and that it doesn’t work well with lean athletes.

So what are the take-home lessons of this research? For one thing, college female athletes tend to have rather high levels of body fatness in a variety of different sports (other than track). Thus, many volleyball, softball and football players could, in theory, improve their jumping ability, alacrity in getting to the ball and general movement speed by reducing body fatness. Such reductions should be carried out sensibly, however, and without a corresponding loss in lean tissue. Regular strength training, reasonable amounts of ‘aerobic’ energy-burning exercise during training (as a complement to normal sport-specific work) and a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, adequate in protein and relatively low in fat should help to achieve this aim.

It is also important to note that skin-fold measuring worked well in this study, providing measurements of body fat as accurate as those obtained via hydrostatic weighing. Skin-fold measurements are, of course, much easier to carry out than hydrostatic weighing (getting that scale and submersible chair to the swimming pool is not always easy!) However, if you decide to use skin-fold assessments to monitor your change in body composition over time, make sure you use the same ‘tester’ (the person who takes your skin-thickness readings) each time, and be sure you use the correct formula to calculate your percent body fat (1). If you bear these points in mind, skin-fold assessment can work well for you, but Bod-Pod measuring of body fatness (and ADP techniques in general) can not be recommended for determining body composition accurately, especially if you are a relatively lean athlete.

Owen Anderson



Koffee

Same thing happened at our workout/training facility. The BodPod guy finally admitted afterwards there was some norm or "plug figures" from some averages they were using in the formula, which explained a whole lot of clients becoming VERY upset at the high fat readings the BodPod was giving. The methodology, as near as I could tell, was just about worthless.

Well, my new Tanita

Day 1 24%

Day 2 - 40%

Etc., etc.

All measurements taken at the same time each morning upon arising prior to shower, eating, etc.

So, it doesn't even seem like I can use it as a baseline!

Well, my new Tanita

Day 1 24%

Day 2 - 40%

Etc., etc.

All measurements taken at the same time each morning upon arising prior to shower, eating, etc.

So, it doesn't even seem like I can use it as a baseline!

You must have gone on the Atkins diet. :D

Ummmm... you're NOT supposed to be taking your bodyfat measurements every day- partly for that reason that you see- the body varies from day to day, and even from morning to evening. Besides that, changes in bodyfat happen over TIME. The body simply does not lose fat in a day. If we could lose fat that easily, we'd all be skinny!

I recommend to my clients to wait at least 6 weeks before retaking a bodyfat test. I don't like the Tanita scales simply because they are accessible to us as the weight scales, and people tend to get so uptight and obsessive over weighing themselves every single day that they don't look at the big picture, and they tend to get discouraged easily if they don't see the changes on the scale(s). My advice- throw the scale away or let a friend hold onto it and only let you use it every 2 months to check your progress.

I have my fat clothes and my skinny clothes. Plus, I look for increases in muscle and I just look at how much I can pinch in my problem areas. I used to obsess over the scale, but I realized recently that I've lost about 20 pounds last year, and for the longest, I was getting on that stupid scale every week before I realized I was doing exactly what I told my clients NOT to do- and as soon as I put that scale in a dark place and didn't jump on it, I started seeing a difference when I DID use the scale to check my progress. Plus, I can see my fat clothes are getting a lot looser, and I was riding a bit faster. That's how I gauge progress.

Throw away that Tanita scale if you can't get yourself under control. You're not doing yourself any good, and will probably end up getting discouraged in the long run. No bodyfat scale is ever meant to be used every single day!

Koffee

Same thing happened at our workout/training facility. The BodPod guy finally admitted afterwards there was some norm or "plug figures" from some averages they were using in the formula, which explained a whole lot of clients becoming VERY upset at the high fat readings the BodPod was giving. The methodology, as near as I could tell, was just about worthless.

So right! And the idiot at my facility wouldn't even recommend it. I just knew that something was up when they asked for my age and weight... and when the percentage came back as 10% over my norm, I just about rolled my eyes out of my head and out the door. I tried to get him to explain it, but he just claimed that I was 45% bodyfat. *****, if I were truly that fat, I wouldn't be able to get out of my bed in the mornings, and I certainly wouldn't be able to propel my bike with me on it! I sneaked a look at some other people's results when he went out of the room because I said I wanted to change my clothes, and quite a few people had bodyfat measurements between 30- 50% bodyfat. It made no sense whatsoever.

Koffee

I use my Tantita every few days and it's very consistent. I'm not really tryiing to lose weight so whatever it reads doesn't bother me. Regarding time to weigh, I understood that the best time was when hydrated and after not having eaten for 2-3 hours, which is why I weigh myself after I get home from work.

- or -
How Paid $25 to Find Out I Was Really Fat

So I went to the local Uni this weekend to test my body fat in the machine they have there. Its suppossed to be very close to the accuracy of hydrostatic weighing, but much more convenient. The machine in question, the BodPod, has info here: www.bodpod.com

All in all the procedure is pretty easy. You bascially just sit there. Each measurement takes about 5 seconds, and they usually do three to get accurate results. For me, the worst part was going and buying a speedo, as I don't own one, and would never wear one if I hadn't had to have one for the test.

I did two complete tests, with three measurements each. I wish I could come up with a reason for them to be wrong, but I haven't been able to discover any reason to believe there was an error. I guess I'm just worse off than I thought.

So down to the dirty numbers:

Tanita on Athlete Setting: 24.1%
Tanita on Couch Potato Setting: 29.2 %
Bod Pod, First Test: 35.3 %
Bod Pod, Second Test: 33.8 %


Now, this does not imply all Tanita's scales are wrong, just that mine was. YMMV.

Looks like hitting the trainer everyday is part of my new routine.

Oh Come on ! You wear a speedo all the time who are you foolin!
P.S That readind sucks! I wouldn't want to get measured in that BodPod!!

Later,
Robin

Ummmm... you're NOT supposed to be taking your bodyfat measurements every day- partly for that reason that you see- the body varies from day to day,

Koffee, if it changes day to day, it follows that it changes week-to-week.

Therefore, the same problem would apply.

If I can't get the same readings day-to-day (and you missed that I was trying to set a baseline on my NEW Tanita, not to measure my fat changes in one day - of course I [and others] know that you don't have significant body fat changes in one day), then I also will not get relaible readings week to week or 6 weeks to 6 weeks. Why would they be any more accurate on a 6 week basis, if they are so inaccurate day-to-day?

I think you misread my post and my purpose of day to day readings for a short period of time.

Denver - keep us posted. The scale shold not vary by more than a few % in my experience. Mine is very consistent, and show a steady deline in B% while I was losing 15 lbs at the end of last year. If yours continues to vary that mcuh, maybe the unit is defective.

Denver - keep us posted. The scale shold not vary by more than a few % in my experience. Mine is very consistent, and show a steady deline in B% while I was losing 15 lbs at the end of last year. If yours continues to vary that mcuh, maybe the unit is defective.

Thanks.

I think I found my problem. I was misunderstanding how to set the male-female choice, and was mistakenly choosing the female at some times.

I tried it several times this morning (sorry about that Koffee, but sometimes you just have to fiddle around until you get things right), and am now getting pretty consistent readings.

As I am quite muscular, I don't really believe the 27% reading - it does not jibe with the caliper readings of 22% I get with my trainer at they gym, but in any event, it will provide a baseline so I can measure changes over time.

So, Tanita is now out of the doghouse!

Incidentally, according to the trainer at my gym, I am in the "elite" category (top 1% or so) for cardio-vascular fitness for someone age 64+!!

I have a Tanita and I've never been really sure how accurate it is. I've never gone someplace and had my BF% checked or used calipers or anything like that. The way I used it was to check my Weight and BF% once a week at the same time of day and record the number. I wasn't so much concerned how accurately it measured my BF% but rather that it was consistent off by the same amount. I was only concerned about the BF% going down as my weight went down. The main thing I worried about was my BF% staying the same or going up as my weight went down.

I think if you use it for those purposes, it can be a good tool. To me, if you are over 20% BF I don't see the point in taking regular, accurate measurements. The only time I would want to get regular, accurate BF% measurements was if I were a top athlete in top shape and my BF% was under 10%. I think most of us are just concerned with losing fat and not muscle, so getting a dead on accurate reading isn't really that important, but rather getting consistent readings is.


The one thing I did want to point out about the Tanita is that the info packet states you need to keep your knees locked when you are on the scale. I tested that by taking a reading with my knees locked and then with my knees slightly bent and it actually made a significant different. Since this scale uses a current that goes up one leg and down the other, I think a bend in your leg will somehow change that current. That's my theory anyway... I'm probably wrong.

We have one of those BF% tanita type scales
(don't remember brand offhand), I usually ignore
that aspect of it. However since I saw this
thread I did a little test.
this am, pre shower BF 17.3%
post shower BF 20.5%
So, did I gain bodyfat in the shower?
As I said I tend to ignore this function but once a week
or so check it just to keep an eye on it(bodyfat).
I figure if I show a consistant high jump in BF% its time
to chuck the scales and get new ones. :D

Marty

Thanks.

I think I found my problem. I was misunderstanding how to set the male-female choice, and was mistakenly choosing the female at some times.

I tried it several times this morning (sorry about that Koffee, but sometimes you just have to fiddle around until you get things right), and am now getting pretty consistent readings.

As I am quite muscular, I don't really believe the 27% reading - it does not jibe with the caliper readings of 22% I get with my trainer at they gym, but in any event, it will provide a baseline so I can measure changes over time.

So, Tanita is now out of the doghouse!

Incidentally, according to the trainer at my gym, I am in the "elite" category (top 1% or so) for cardio-vascular fitness for someone age 64+!!

:eek:

My bad... I didn't read your post correctly. But now I see what you're trying to do. It's all good. As long as you don't plan on getting on the scale everyday to see how your bodyfat percentage is doing, it's all good.

As far as the Tanita, there are some problems with these types of scales. The more muscle you have, the more it can affect your overall results, making you seem fatter than normal. Muscle can actually slow down that current as it flows through your body, giving you a higher bodyfat reading. So I would take that into consideration if you're using that scale.

If you retain water, the same result could happen too. Ladies, if you happen to bloat when you are close to that time of the month, it would not be a good idea to get on that scale to measure yourself.

It's so unfortunate how there are so many different ways to measure bodyfat, but they each have their own flaws. If you know the flaws, you're a little more empowered with information so you can interpret the results more accurately.


Koffee

Koffee: You never cease to amaze me with your knowledge. If I still lived in Chicago, I'd definately start going to your classes.

lotek: Shower would definately change the reading some. Since the Tanitas are all based off electri impeadence, as your hydrate and/or warm up your muscles in your legs in the shower the conductivity will definately change.

After reading all this, I do feel better. I wasn't sure I wanted to believe the numbers, but wither way I was gonna use it as motivation to get back into my cardio.

Some thoughts that have been going through my head since I first posted had to do with sources of the inacuracies in the various measurements. As for the BodPod, in my case the two that I can think of are lung volume, and body temperature. It could be that I have a rather large lung capacity, and therfore the volume estimates might have not taken that into account. The other thing is that my normal body temperature is at least a full degree below the infamous 98.6. When talking with the tech, he mentioned high temps resulting in lower than correct body fat numbers, so perhaps a lower temp results in a higher reading?

As for Tanita measurements, I will admit to taking mine daily on both settings. I am very much aware of the day to day variances, in fact I have gathered enough trends to know that the Tanita will read 2.5% higher for 36 hours after weight lifting. I also wonder about the fact that Tanitas never get a chance to pass current through anything other than the legs. Would cyclists, making more use of their legs possibly posses more leg muscle than the average model which the Tanita bases its calculations on? I know you can't spot reduce fat, but you can add lcoalized muscle, and an addition of a pound or two of muscle to the quads might be enough of a shift to cause the Tanita to get a skewed view of the entire body composition.

I ordered a pair of skin calipers last week, but I wonder if there is a way I can measure on myself? I don't think I should have trouble with abdomen and thighs, but I'm not sure how to measure my arms, the whole not enough hands thing makes that difficult.

damianb - Secretly wearing his speedo

It would be difficult to measure bodyfat with the calipers, but possible... although not as accurate, since the more sites you can pinch from for the bodyfat analysis, the more accurate the bodyfat result. I know I wouldn't bother unless someone was taking from at least 5 sites, and 7- 10 sites would be optimal for me. Even then, there is still some variation.

I guess if you wanted to be really accurate, you could do what I did once- I had a bone density test, along with a girth measurement with a tape measurer, plus an underwater weighing, a bioimpedence analysis, an MRI AND a bodyfat caliper analysis from 7 sites... I had it all done in one day, plus they measured my lung capacity too while they were at it. The test took about 8 hours.

From all those tests, there was only about a 4% difference between the highest end fat reading (underwater weighing) and the lowest end fat reading (from the bioimpedence analysis). I thought that was pretty good.

With regards as to whether you could do it yourself, bodyfat caliper use requires a little training, but the thing is, you couldn't accurately measure some areas (ie tricep and back), and other areas may be a little harder to grasp (ie biceps, midaxillary) and other areas would be easier (ie quads).

When doing the tests, you have to be trained to know how to pinch, how to separate fat from muscle, and exactly which part of the body you should be pinching on (ie halfway down the middle of the quads, in the center). It's not difficult to learn, but professionals have been trained in it, they are consistent with how they do it, so if you go back to the same person for your subsequent tests, your results will be more accurate than bouncing from person to person, and I would personally feel more comfortable going to someone else, even if I knew how to do it. I just don't think I could hit every site as accurately by myself as well as someone who's standing there and doesn't have to twist unnessarily to reach a site, which would prevent extra skin folding, which could interfere with your results. When it comes to bodyfat, you want to take out as much room for error as possible, because we all see how important it is to have an accurate bodyfat analysis.

Koffee

Koffee,

Makes sense. I guess I'll just keep taking the Tanita measurements for trending and long term, but mostly look at overall weight. Just wanted something to be able to guage progress by, and was trying not to focus on overall weight, since adding muscle can mask losing fat. But it looks like the only realiable and convienient thing I have at my disposal is the standard overall weight.

The best way to lose fat is to frink a couple beers! Try it! Take your BF% on the scales before and after drinking. For me, 3 beers = a 4% drop in BF. ;)

Thanks.

I think I found my problem. I was misunderstanding how to set the male-female choice, and was mistakenly choosing the female at some times.

I tried it several times this morning (sorry about that Koffee, but sometimes you just have to fiddle around until you get things right), and am now getting pretty consistent readings.

As I am quite muscular, I don't really believe the 27% reading - it does not jibe with the caliper readings of 22% I get with my trainer at they gym, but in any event, it will provide a baseline so I can measure changes over time.

So, Tanita is now out of the doghouse!

Incidentally, according to the trainer at my gym, I am in the "elite" category (top 1% or so) for cardio-vascular fitness for someone age 64+!!

You might want to visit this web site, and try their body fat test, to see how it correlates with your Tanita. The test is based on body circumference measurements that you take using a flexible fabric measuring tape. For men, you only need to measure your neck and abdomen. The tests were originally developed by the US Navy, and later refined by the Dept. of Defense, and are now part of their standard physical fitness assessments (they use this body fat analysis technique as a backup test for folks who's Body Mass Index falls outside of their standards).

http://www.he.net/%7Ezone/prothd2.html

fyi - I've incorporated this "circumference-based" body fat estimator in my CycliStats ride diary software. Although not as accurate as water weighing, it is (literally) close enough for government work :). It's also quite easy to perform the test, and it directly measures adbominal circumference which is an important indicator of health (and, fattness, or lack thereof).

BTW - Congrats on your "elite" status!

Does anyone have experience with the BF devices you grasp with your hands and hold at arms length? How do they compare with the stand on type?

In my experience any hand held device provides consistently wrong results. There is no way you can pass an electrical current through someones body and expect to determine their lean mass content. Even if it did work the device would only measure the upper body. Likewise the standing machine would only represent the lower body. They just don't work and rely mostly on lookup tables and reference values. Typically the 'athlete' mode will be much closer for anyone who works out at all. If you have access to a system that requires several electrodes placed on several points throughout the body while you lay down for 1/2 hour before the test, they are the most accurate method of bioimpedance, however they are several thousand dollars and therefore not readily available. I would be a fan of these machines if they would actually track changes, but they don't even do that. I'm 15.3% body fat and my Tanita says I'm 39% - this is worthless info and the reading doesn't change with any body composition changes I've made. If I do hydrostatic (underwater weighting) with our system, the reading will be exactly the same (repeatable) during a single day (unless I eat a huge meal within an hour of testing) and it will precisely track any changes during any given time frame. Again, I'd be fan of any other method that would at least track changes because other methods are much more available, but hydrostatic is the only truly accurate method. Of any of them I would recommend caliper testing with an experience operator. Get with your personal trainer on this. The calipers will be the closest to actual (in about 75% of people - obese and very lean people are hard to test) and track changes better than any other 'simple' device out there. Take a look at our comparative methods document for more details and go get tested at one of our mobile units if available in your area. I'll even pay for your test! Go to BodyFatTest .com to see our locations.
Bottom line - use the mirror test and waist measurements to track your changes. After all you're probably just looking for six pack abs and and more strength on the hills anyway :)

Congratulations you win an award for resurrecting the oldest thread. :thumb: