I'm looking for a body composition scale. Do these actually work?
The science says they does. Ignore the schizos on here.
They do, but you have to use it routinely. The tech gets more accurate the more data it gets. I have one.
Diamond scale, pretty sure it's better stats than dragon scale
the doctor's office i go to has a fancy one. but it said that i lost like 1lb of ffm for every 2lbs of fat i lost on this cut so i hope fucking not
>>77166556>What is the best scale?Phrygian
>>77166556Withings body smart is what I have. It works pretty seamlessly. With all electrical impedance scales, the bodyfat percentage readout is for entertainment purposes only.
>>77166556I have a xiaomi s400 and works good enough. I want one with 8 electrodes but 20 bucks is the most money i would spend on a fucking scale, so xiaomi it is
>>77166556>Do these actually work?Yes. Their main function is to separate you from more of your money. They do not provide a good estimate of body composition.
Tanita RD-545. Bought a Hume because it measures intracellular versus extracellular water while Tanita buries it in its "muscle quality" metric. Turns out, it doesn't even measure my weight right (Tanita matches the Seca dumb scale), and no amount of edema leaves a dent in Hume's ICW/ECW.>>77167948True, but they're directionally accurate. Measure yourself every morning post pee, follow the trend. Be autistic about it. A single reading is only useful in that fluid retention affects day-to-day variability in FFM. (For example, my median FFM in all of 2026 is 43.0 kg. It balloned to 45.2 after a 4700 calorie sodium binge. It was 44.83 the next day, 43.78 on the third day. I'm using it as a proxy subclinical edema).
>>77166556Just use the navy method. At higher bodyfat levels it doesn't fucking matter if you are 40% or 42%. At lower bodyfat levels the difference becomes more visually obvious.
>>77166556I had one before, but it didn't have the hand held 'trodes. Worked fine, kind of just stopped working one day and I don't know why, pissed me off and I didn't get one. Since semiglutide is all the rage and it's been a few years I'm kind of down to get one again. Hoping they are more reliable. I just want something cheap that works and doesn't just commit sudoku one day, any reccomendations?And yeah, they are precise, but not accurate. They'll tell you you are 8% when in reality you're way higher, but if you're losing weight (or gaining), and measuring relgularly under the same conditions, you'll be able to track your trend and overall progress.
>>77166556They're tuned to an average person. So if you're very short/tall or you have a lot of muscle the bodyfat estimate will be fucked up. I also noticed when I fast the readings are all over the place depending on how much water I've had.
>>77168367When you fast your body pisses a lot because you don't to retain as much (since you're taking in less salt your lack of food). That decreases your LBM readings.
>>77166556Kelvin
>>77166556They work well, accurate and consistent. Only seething delusional fatties say they don't. You can get the cheapest one.
>>77168367>I also noticed when I fast the readings are all over the place depending on how much water I've had.You take body composition measurements at the same time of day, to mitigate this.Usually right after waking up, pissing, and having a single glass of water.Everyone is mildly dehydrated after sleeping due to water loss from breathing. So the glass of water in the morning should be the standard.I know one guy who can shit on command and he does all of his business every morning before weighing himself, lucky bastard. Near exact ratio measurements.
>>77166556I have a Robi s15 smart scale, works great for tracking weight. There are a lot of other measures it does, like body water, skeletal muscle, protein, water, bmr, visceral fat and fat itself. These do not seem accurate, the scale estimates i am 26% bf (even in athlete mode), which i am not. But it does seem to track progress in a cut and bulk relatively accurate.
>>77167204I have an inbody h202 scale. The bf% was pretty damn close to the results of a dexa scan.
>>77166556>Do these actually work?No. I tried many. Completely random numbers.
>>77168367That's not how these work. They work by electrical impedance.
>>77166556I'm thinking about getting one.I used the feature on my smartwatch but it sucks ass, kek.I am easily 12% bf or more, yet it keeps telling me that I have 41kg muscle mass at 80kg body weight, and a bf of 8% or sothe data jumps from day to day, too. sometimes I have 6kg of bodyfat, half an hour later (without even drinking or eating in the meantime) I suddenly have 9kgit's basically useless for anything but logging the daily weight.not sure if the scales are any better.
>>77166556You don't need a scale. Just look at yourself in a mirror and if you are still disgusted it means you arent done yet.
>>77166556They all do the exact same fucking thing. Put a dumbbell on one and look at the result.
>>77170652>>77166576They do, but you have to use it routinely. The tech gets more accurate the more data it gets. I have one.
>>77170674They do "rank" you against average users with regard to whether you are over or under or standard. The data is based on weight AND electrical impedance, which the scale roughly calculates while factoring in previous measurements. Again, the more you use it, the more accurate it will be.By way of explanation, if you drink a gallon of water and hop on the scale for the first time, it's not really going to know your gallon of water from any fucking thing including fat, including muscle, including a tumor growing out of your neck. The scales work by progression to figure out what happened with you the last time. If I drink a gallon of water today the scale will register that I put on water weight and will say so. This has literally happened, although not with a gallon.
>>77171600I'm glad we agree that they're not "tuned" to the average person as originally claimed. I didn't read past the first couple words of your post because I wasn't wrong and the claim you made against my claim is totally irrelevant.
>>77168235If you are almost half body fat, yeah, no shit, 2% more isn't going to make a fiddlefucking goddamn difference.
>>77171602They are, though. Good job outing yourself as an insecure moron who can't take alternative points on the internet.
>>77171605Dont care, didn't read, next time address the actual claim instead of revealing your pivot in the first three words so people can ignore you and save time by not reading an irrelevant blogpost - apparently upsetting you for whatever reason
>>77171607I'm literally not the guy who initially responded to you, you insecure shithead.
>>77171608>>77171607
