Re: Calipers vs. Tanita question

[Guest guest]

Dixie, I have hard nothing but negative feedback about the Tanita body fat scales. Unless you are incredibly average, the typical Tanita scales sold in stores (they do make a medical version), are apparently not designed to correctly read very lean or very muscular bodies. I know that the scales have an "Athletic" mode, but again, everyone I know who has tried one was disappointed. Caliper measurements, if done by a competent operator can be very accurate, but be forewarned that taking and reading these measurements is a skill. I am enclosing a website that sells calipers and scales, but again you might be better off finding a bodybuilder nutritionist. Also the water dunk might be worth the money in order to establish your baseline...sometimes health clubs sponsor mobile dunk units for a lower cost than is typical. BTW, where do you live? If you are in the MD/VA area, I can get you to a great nutritionist for measurement and if you are in CO, you can get the dunk done for $40 in January. If you are in any of the other 47 states, perhaps someone else will have an idea. Dave

http://www.bodytrends.com/acm.htm

http://www.femalemuscle.com/q_a/question30.htm Interesting article on BMI vs. Body fat %

----- Original Message -----

From: Dixie Good

CR Support Group

Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 3:46 PM

Subject: [ ] Calipers vs. Tanita question

Are calipers a more accurate measure of body fat than a Tanita scale? I’ve always figured the Tanita scale is more of a ballpark estimate than a fine calibration, so I had body fat measured using calipers at my health club today. I weighed (with workout clothes on) 129 with 20.6 percent body fat. Earlier this week using my Tanita scale I weighed 123 with 30% body fat. Quite a range. Using yet another scale at the health club in the women’s dressing room, sans clothes, I weighed 123, so I think the scale connected to the bodyfat calculator at the club is off, which may result in a false (low) calculation of body fat. I’m trying to set a goal to reduce body fat percent and it’s a little tricky with the current data I have. Which should I believe? I’m hoping to sidestep the $100 water tank dunk test. Thanks for any suggestions.Dixie

[Guest guest]

Dixie, here is an added resource for you...this is a mobile hydrostatic body fat testing group that has deals with various health clubs. Perhaps they can help. http://www.bodyfattest.com/links.html

----- Original Message -----

From: Dixie Good

CR Support Group

Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 3:46 PM

Subject: [ ] Calipers vs. Tanita question

Are calipers a more accurate measure of body fat than a Tanita scale? I’ve always figured the Tanita scale is more of a ballpark estimate than a fine calibration, so I had body fat measured using calipers at my health club today. I weighed (with workout clothes on) 129 with 20.6 percent body fat. Earlier this week using my Tanita scale I weighed 123 with 30% body fat. Quite a range. Using yet another scale at the health club in the women’s dressing room, sans clothes, I weighed 123, so I think the scale connected to the bodyfat calculator at the club is off, which may result in a false (low) calculation of body fat. I’m trying to set a goal to reduce body fat percent and it’s a little tricky with the current data I have. Which should I believe? I’m hoping to sidestep the $100 water tank dunk test. Thanks for any suggestions.Dixie

[Guest guest]

Looking in a mirror is more accurate than a Tanita...:-).

A good play might be DIY with calipers and after you get pretty consistent with your measurements hit a dunk tank... calibrate your caliper measurements with the dunk tank and you should be able to ballpark your future BF changes...

JR[john roberts]

-----Original Message-----From: Dixie Good [mailto:dixiegood@...]Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 4:47 PMCR Support GroupSubject: [ ] Calipers vs. Tanita question

Are calipers a more accurate measure of body fat than a Tanita scale? I’ve always figured the Tanita scale is more of a ballpark estimate than a fine calibration, so I had body fat measured using calipers at my health club today. I weighed (with workout clothes on) 129 with 20.6 percent body fat. Earlier this week using my Tanita scale I weighed 123 with 30% body fat. Quite a range. Using yet another scale at the health club in the women’s dressing room, sans clothes, I weighed 123, so I think the scale connected to the bodyfat calculator at the club is off, which may result in a false (low) calculation of body fat. I’m trying to set a goal to reduce body fat percent and it’s a little tricky with the current data I have. Which should I believe? I’m hoping to sidestep the $100 water tank dunk test. Thanks for any suggestions.Dixie

[Guest guest]

Yes the range of body fat with bio-electrical impediance (what Tanita

and other such devices use) is quite wide.

Here is a link to an explanation of body fat measurement in an

article I found all over the net:

http://www.bioanalogics.com/techniques.htm

from the article:

" The standard errors of estimate for these (bioelectrical impediance)

equations are ±5% to ±6.4% in normal populations when compared to the

hydrostatic tank " and " The accepted test re-test of hydrostatic

weighing is ± 2.5% for comparison of consecutive tests with the same

subject and the same technician "

So tell me does that add up to a range of 6% difference in body fat

measurements I got with bioelectrical impedance? According to the

article skin fold measurements seem to be even more unreliable.

[Guest guest]

I think it does not. “Standard

errors” are the deviation from the reading. So if the reading is 10 (don’t

get confused by the fact that 10 has the unit of %), and the standard error is ±6.4%,

this means that most measurements will fall between 9.36 (10-6.4%) and 10.64

(10+6.4%). Some measurements will still fall beyond these limits. IMO BIA is fairly

accurate when performed 1st thing in the morning , though as the article says,

it “over-predict(s) body fat of lean subjects”.

Micky.

-----Original Message-----

From: somejoanne2002

[mailto:bhsnz@...]

Sent: Wednesday,

October 09, 2002 9:49 PM

Subject: [ ] Re:

Calipers vs. Tanita question

Yes the range of body fat with bio-electrical

impediance (what Tanita

and other

such devices use) is quite wide.

Here is a

link to an explanation of body fat measurement in an

article I

found all over the net:

http://www.bioanalogics.com/techniques.htm

from the

article:

" The

standard errors of estimate for these (bioelectrical impediance)

equations

are ±5% to ±6.4% in normal populations when compared to the

hydrostatic

tank " and " The accepted test re-test of hydrostatic

weighing is

± 2.5% for comparison of consecutive tests with the same

subject and

the same technician "

So tell me

does that add up to a range of 6% difference in body fat

measurements

I got with bioelectrical impedance? According to the

article skin

fold measurements seem to be even more unreliable.