Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Team ABC Cycles Chris R.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Montreal Qc.
    My Bikes
    2010 Colnago CX-1 and '12 S-Works Venge
    Posts
    600
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Tanita body fat scale and settings...help.

    So I bought a BF scale last week and have been using it for the last couple of days with very different results depending on how i set it up.
    At first I set it up for me in "athlete" mode since I ride and race road bikes. In that setting it says I have 13% body fat and a larger % water and more bone mass. In setting "3" which is a highly active person, I have 20% (!!) body fat and lower % water and bone mass.
    I'm 5'10" and 172lbs in winter mode. I do about 6 hours of training per week....
    What setting is more"accurate"?
    Anyone have a scale like this and have any advice?
    Thanks
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  2. #2
    Junior Member KarlMarsh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Omaha, Nebraska
    My Bikes
    2009 Trek Madone 5.2, 2000 Trek 6500
    Posts
    20
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Athlete mode assumes you are in great shape and have lots of muscle mass therefore lower % of fat. Highly active mode assumes that you are good shape and active but not necessarily muscular.

    I have never met you so I can't tell you which is correct.

    The best way to find out for sure is to use a set of BF calipers and get a accurate reading then use the setting on your scale that matches.
    Karl

    2009 Trek Madone 5.2
    2000 Trek 6500 XC Shimano XTR

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Boulder, CO
    Posts
    6,993
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Agree w/Karl - but the way I use it is just pick one and use it to detect changes, rather than relying on the absolute number.
    ...

  4. #4
    umd
    umd is offline
    Banned umd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    My Bikes
    Specialized Tarmac SL2, Specialized Tarmac SL, Giant TCR Composite, Specialized StumpJumper Expert HT
    Posts
    28,343
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Neither is accurate, those scales are BS

  5. #5
    Faster than yesterday
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Evanston, IL
    Posts
    1,500
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by umd View Post
    Neither is accurate, those scales are BS
    Exactly. With these devices, it is very difficult to accurately estimate body fat % because distributions do vary quite a bit; without a sex selector, they are useless because they have no way to differentiate between android and gynoid fat distributions. Even then, they are guesses. The typical skinfold assessment is comprised of about 7 sites for a reason.

    Impedance devices are highly skewed by hydration status, as well.

    reminds me of the time I had a free "health assessment" as part of a new gym membership. The impedance device told me I had 3% body fat. Uh huh. Tell that to the DXA that just told me 8%.
    Last edited by tadawdy; 03-04-10 at 12:02 AM.

  6. #6
    Packfodding 3 caloso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Sacramento, California, USA
    My Bikes
    Ridley Excalibur, Gazelle Champion Mondial, On-One Pompino, Specialized Rock Hopper
    Posts
    29,037
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have one of those Tanita scales too. It's about 4% low in athlete mode compared to a recent skin fold test. So I always mentally add 4% to the reading. And as tadawdy says, it's pretty easily skewed by hydration. The best thing to do is use it to keep an eye on trends. As you get fitter, the number will go down. And that's about all it's good for.
    Cyclists of the world, unite! You have nothing to lube but your chains!

  7. #7
    Senior Member Timber_8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    South East Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,090
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    They are as useful or as useless as a scale. Body wt and body fat % means nothing other than a way to measure change or progress. It doesn't matter what you use as long as you use the same method every time. They are no more or less accurate than any other method. The only change that matters is in a mirror. Don't get hung up on body wt of fat percentages. I usually tell people to toss all scales in the garbage. It is useless information and usually only depresses people & destroys there motivation. I have one and haven't set foot on it in years. Make sure your feet are clean if your going to use it though.

    Here is a scale for you if your a male. If you can see your abs your around 11%, If you have deep cut in your abs & clear separation your around 7%. If your skin is transparent your around 4% and kicking the crap out of you immune system. If your percentages are higher than 11% it doesn't matter. These numbers only mater to ego & gym bragging rights
    Hybrid) Trek FX 7.2
    Road bike) Specialized Secteur Elite
    Mountain bike) Marin Bobcat trail
    Founding member of the Hybrid Forum
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    I have thoughts
    Charlie

  8. #8
    Senior Member bruce19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Lebanon (Liberty Hill), CT
    My Bikes
    MASI Gran Criterium S
    Posts
    2,410
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have one of those Taylor BF and Water % scales and as far as I can tell it's pretty inaccurate. I'm beginning to think that the only useable measurement is waist measurement.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    94
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have a tanita and don't really care if it's accurate. I'm only interested in trends. In my case, I got a little frustrated with the erratic readings and so tracked weight and BF% for several weeks in Excel. For me, I need about a 2% change in BF% to assume it's statistically significant.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •