Tanita Body Fat Scale

did yours?

i'd say the scale is broken and i question its accuracy anyway.

play around with different ages, sexs, and heights, you'll see such a huge range in variation in the % fat. i plug my self in as a woman and i'm between 25%-28%, same stats but plug myself in as a man, i'm now 11%-15%.

so, toss the sale - it's crap.

Yes, mine registered. I'm plenty fat.

Scales are run on equations and lose accuracy at the extremes. A good Tanita will be accurate on "athlete" setting to around 5% body fat. Anything under that, which someone at 5'10" 120lbs certainly is, will not register. Even with very little muscle mass, 5'10" 130 is most likely around 3% body fat. Even calipers won't give you a good reading unless you go to a 7 site formula.

A man with the height/weight as a woman will have a significantly lower body fat percentage. I\'m not sure that means anything.

Thanks

So what? wrote:

A man with the height/weight as a woman will have a significantly lower body fat percentage. I'm not sure that means anything.

True. But wouldn't you think that if a scale is actually measuring body fat and the same person is getting on the as a man versus a woman that the 2 measurements would be a bit closer? the differences i see are between 10% and 15%. These kinds of differences make you wonder if it's just using the equation and those pads you stand on are all a hoax.

el zola wrote:

One of my athletes is really, really thin right now and running great. He's 18, about 5'10" and weighs about 120 lbs. I put him on my scale this morning and his body fat % didn't register. Anyone had a similar experience? Is this cause for alarm?

have him take off his shoes

Why do you think the scale has you enter values such as sex and height? It's because those data are plugged into a statistical equation along with your measured weight and lower body impedance to determine a likely body fat percentage. It's not fool-proof. If you want the most accurate value possible you'll need an autopsy (but I think that might impinge on your social life as well as your running). Heck, I bought one a while back and if I use athlete mode it says I'm around 5%, but on normal mode it says around 10%. It's part measurement, part probability. (One thing I like about the scale is that it has .2 lb resolution and is very repeatable, thus I've used it to calculate with reasonable accuracy things like sweat rate.) It's not perfect, that's for sure, but it'll get you in the ballpark without the hassle and expense of a DEXA scan or underwater weighing. Of course, once you know the number, what good does it do most people? Not much.

just checking to verify that it was working

Jim:

Do you think that the athlete mode is more accurate? I'm thniking about buying one of these, and was wondering about this. Which one do you have?

Check the box. I was about to buy one until it said that it would not give good readings to competative athletes. It is good for hydration I have heard, but the body fat % is not as accurate to hydrostatic testing...though that is based on a formula as well.

With the new year, I'm thinking about one of these again.

Bump

Don't buy these...they are not accurate when compared to DEXA or a 3 component model. If you really want to know your body fat dexa and a 3-component model are the accurate techniques (see journal articles from Heymsfield) Here is a list of methods and the amount of error:

1) Reference Standard (1-2% error)

3-component model (water, body volume, mineral)

DEXA

2) Underwatering weighing with residual volume with correct equations, 1-component model (~5-7%)

3) BIA and Skinfold with correct equations (~7-12%)

4) Tanita & Omnron (modified BIA techniques) > 12-14%

P.S. A lot of old textbooks says that underwater method is the gold standard and has a 2% error but this is only true when two other body components are measured. Also BIA and skinofld are also stated to have about a 4% error but only when it is compared to the old reference standard using the 1-componet underwater method.