These usually get a bad rep, but I was wondering about their new scale designed for athletes (considering I weigh first thing in the morning). I have been using calipers, but it is difficult and I have not been getting consistent results. Has anyone tried it? It looks pretty good to me, but I’m still a little hesitant. Heres a link:
It works good enough, as well as electrical impedance can. Just remember,jump up and down in front of a mirror naked.If you dont like waht jiggles, shut yer mouth!Good luck…
A friend of mine had a scale similar to this one… It said I have 21% body fat. I dont think it’s very accurate, my bodyfat is at the highest 12%. It was a different make than this one though, perhaps poorer quality? Is it really possible to get an accurate reading of bodyfat % on one of these?
I have found bioelectric empedence to be a good estimate of bodyfat percentage CHANGES. They still use an equation based on the general or athletic population. If you have to enter age, their probably not using a good equation for you. I also tested some flat out fat highschool kids who came up with 8-12% bodyfat levels.
Also, if you are retaining water it will give you a low reading. After knee surgery, my percentage shot down, probably due to swelling and overall cortisol induced fluid retention.
Testing once a week on the same day of the week in the morning should be a good gauge of bodyfat % changes over 2+ weeks time, in my experience.
I actually just got a Tanita BF 578 today. I’ve been taking readings periodically throughout the day and have been getting readings from about 13.7% to 14.7%, which is a few tenths higher than I would have guessed from the mirror. The best thing is that some of the readings are from pre-workout and some are from post-workout (and post-workout shake and meal) and there was no huge jump in numbers. Maybe I just have better luck than most people.
I tried the non-athlete mode just out of curiosity, and it said 19% BF.
Sounds like a scam to lighten the wallets.B.F. has never been a problem for me so maybee I am a bit cynical,but until you get down into smaller numbers,isn’t it prety obvious by the regular scale whether or not what you’re doing is working? (that last sentence is kinda wierd.)
Does anyone know what the difference is between a BF-680 and a BF-679? I bought a BF-679 and was wondering whether to return it or not. what is athletic mode?
[quote]RoadWarrior wrote:
Does anyone know what the difference is between a BF-680 and a BF-679? I bought a BF-679 and was wondering whether to return it or not. what is athletic mode?[/quote]
"Tanita defines ‘athlete’ as a person involved in intense physical activity of approximately 10 hours per week and who has a resting heart rate of approximately 60 beats per minute or less. In addition, people who are involved in a ‘Lifetime of Fitness’ and who are very fit, but are not currently active 10 hours per week, are considered ‘athletes.’ "
I would definitely go with athlete mode (BF-680), although Tanita also says their scales aren’t for “bodybuilders and professional athletes.” I’m guessing that readings get wacky at very low BF%.
I worked for a while in graduate school developing regression equations to estimate bodyfat %. While a different equation definitely was necessary for individuals who had added say 20+ pounds of muscle through weightlifting during their lifetimes than to the general population, there was absolutely no difference between an aerobically trained athelete and the general population in terms of what equation should be used either for BI or calipers. Unless you have LIFTED WEIGHTS intensely 2+ hours a week for 2+ years (approximately) the non-athlete model is more accurate.
Having a resting heart rate of 60 BPM has no correlation whatsoever to which regression equation you should use.
I bought last year’s Tanita model and it was WAY off in left field for BF%. I only use is as a BW scale now. I bought a hand-held BI by Omron and that is much, much more accurate. I recommend spending the $60 bones on it because it’s much more portable, you don’t need to be almost naked to use it, and it doesn’t need a hard surface to work. But, I agree that unless you do under water weighing, it’s merely a gauge in the change in your bodyfat.
TopSirloin
I bought one a couple of years ago and I have to re-echo what most of the posters above say - it sucks at measuring BF. In my case it’s not even particularly good at measuring variations.
I read somewhere that the problem with these things is two fold: 1. the equation they use sucks and 2. the measuring spot - on your feet - sucks too, because most people have a particularly rough and dry skin under their feet which throws things off completely.
I’ve been thinking about the Omron too, I might check that out soon. What has put me off is the fact that it probably uses the same sucky equations and hence only solves the feet problem. 
[quote]hspder wrote:
I bought one a couple of years ago and I have to re-echo what most of the posters above say - it sucks at measuring BF. In my case it’s not even particularly good at measuring variations.
I read somewhere that the problem with these things is two fold: 1. the equation they use sucks and 2. the measuring spot - on your feet - sucks too, because most people have a particularly rough and dry skin under their feet which throws things off completely.
I’ve been thinking about the Omron too, I might check that out soon. What has put me off is the fact that it probably uses the same sucky equations and hence only solves the feet problem.
[/quote]
I don’t really understand why the Omron is better. I mean, could the hands be overmoist or undermoist? Where (if online) can I find one of these? Are they really that much more acurate?
[quote]hspder wrote:
I read somewhere that the problem with these things is two fold: 1. the equation they use sucks and 2. the measuring spot - on your feet - sucks too, because most people have a particularly rough and dry skin under their feet which throws things off completely.
[/quote]
I’ve heard a third issue is with your water intake and timing of such.
Matt
[quote]Matthew9v9 wrote:
I’ve heard a third issue is with your water intake and timing of such.
Matt[/quote]
Well, that one is splattered all over the user manuals of both the Tanita Scale and the Omron handheld… So I didn’t think it was worth mentioning.
[quote]T-man wrote:
I don’t really understand why the Omron is better. I mean, could the hands be overmoist or undermoist? Where (if online) can I find one of these? Are they really that much more acurate?[/quote]
Most people take much better care of their hands than of their feet. And it’s not just a question of moisture. Rough foot skin is a lot more than just de-hydrated and it simply has much poorer conductivity, even if you cover it with a moisturizer.
That’s why you’ll get much higher results with the Tamita than the Omron - since basically your feet are giving the same response than fat would - low conductivity.
[quote]hspder wrote:
That’s why you’ll get much higher results with the Tamita than the Omron - since basically your feet are giving the same response than fat would - low conductivity.[/quote]
So I would get more acurate or just higher results? And is this the omron?:
Every scale that I ever tried which also measures body fat, was inaccurate!
As far as Omron goes, they are a good company and I think their body fat tool is excellent.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Every scale that I ever tried which also measures body fat, was inaccurate!
As far as Omron goes, they are a good company and I think their body fat tool is excellent.[/quote]
Agreed. It also seems that the more muscle you carry, the les accurate the Tanita scales are. I have returned two of them. The Omron is the only one I use now.
By the way, doesn’t anyone use the search function? This question had to have just been asked about 2 months ago.
I’m suprised all of you guys are pimping the hand held one… my experiance (and two coworkers) found it to be way off. Seriously it was gave a reading that was close to 50% lower then actual! ACtually in my case it was WAY off saying 9% when I was around 20%
Also as mentioned I’ve found the tanitas to be inaccurate in just my weight… never bothered with checking BF%
[quote]JNeves wrote:
I’m suprised all of you guys are pimping the hand held one… my experiance (and two coworkers) found it to be way off. Seriously it was gave a reading that was close to 50% lower then actual! ACtually in my case it was WAY off saying 9% when I was around 20%
Also as mentioned I’ve found the tanitas to be inaccurate in just my weight… never bothered with checking BF%[/quote]
The usual complaints about the Tanita scales come from people who are carrying more muscle (lean body mass) than average. If you aren’t carrying above average amounts of lean body mass, it may be accurate for you. It seems to have a problem distinguishing between fat and body water, especially over the ideal weight for most people. The handheld one I own is fairly consistant, even if I don’t trust the exact reading. That isn’t the point. I could care less if I am 14.3% body fat or 13.7% body fat. As long as the reading is consistant, I am able to track progress. Autopsy is the most accurate way to test body fat percentage. I could honestly care less about absolute specifics until then.
Also, I use the OMRON tester. I don’t know how any other handheld ones perform and have never tried any others. Putting in your exact body measurements, like height and even age have much to do with the reading you get. If you are 5’2" and you put in that you are 6 feet tall, that may be why it was off.