Looking to buy a scale
- Thread starter Lettuce
- Start date
I own a Tanita. Some people say you ought to go with something else, now, but I think I can recommend them. My scale is very consistent in its results. The body fat numbers are kind of wonky, though, because it's only a $100 model.
If you want something as accurate as possible you'd be looking at spending $300'ish dollars or so on one of the ironman models I think. I'd recommend something like the to start out with. It supposedly measures bone mass, muscle mass and visceral fat (at $140), which is much better than BMI info.
Let's see what other members have to say?
If you want something as accurate as possible you'd be looking at spending $300'ish dollars or so on one of the ironman models I think. I'd recommend something like the to start out with. It supposedly measures bone mass, muscle mass and visceral fat (at $140), which is much better than BMI info.
Let's see what other members have to say?
I've got a tanita too. I can look up the model, etc if you are interested. It's digital and tells you your bf, weight, and water percentage. It also has a memory where you can put in your age, sex and height. It cost about 50-60 dollars 2 years ago when I bought it.
Oh and I remember I ordered it online and the first one I got broke in a week. I sent it back and I haven't had any problems with the replacement.
Oh and I remember I ordered it online and the first one I got broke in a week. I sent it back and I haven't had any problems with the replacement.
The OP didn't ask whether buying one would be like grinding his cash into flour, baking a money cake and eating it, tho. 
To be perfectly honest I agree with Derwyddon 90%. It's just that there's an irrational part of my mind that needs to see what the scale says every morning. If you've got one, too, well, yeah. Carry on, wayward soldier.
To be perfectly honest I agree with Derwyddon 90%. It's just that there's an irrational part of my mind that needs to see what the scale says every morning. If you've got one, too, well, yeah. Carry on, wayward soldier.
I say spend you money on some fresh salmon. Mmmm.... salmon. Or you can mail it to me.
Weight scale machines are evil... no matter which one you get. It laughs at you. Taunts at you. When you haven't reached your goal, it's like that clown on that funny Adam Sandler movie where it laughs and poke fun at you. Time to die clown... just throw out the weight machines.
I say concentrate on the follow: waist size, and overall fat %. Those two are measurements of your physical health. If you're male, under 40 in. is where you want to be (I'm at size 32 right now), female should be under 35 in. If you keep it under that, your fat % should be down too since you lost the fat to fit in that size. I haven't checked my weight in over a month and a half. I feel great. And I pity the fools tied to that thing.
Weight scale machines are evil... no matter which one you get. It laughs at you. Taunts at you. When you haven't reached your goal, it's like that clown on that funny Adam Sandler movie where it laughs and poke fun at you. Time to die clown... just throw out the weight machines.
I say concentrate on the follow: waist size, and overall fat %. Those two are measurements of your physical health. If you're male, under 40 in. is where you want to be (I'm at size 32 right now), female should be under 35 in. If you keep it under that, your fat % should be down too since you lost the fat to fit in that size. I haven't checked my weight in over a month and a half. I feel great. And I pity the fools tied to that thing.
Last edited:
Problem, for me to be at a BMI of 24.4, I would have to be 165. I would be "healthy", but I would look like ****. I was 160 when I first met my wife and I was a scrawny, scraggly little mofo. I'm 195 now, with a BMI of 28.8, which is slightly overweight.
BMI's never take into play your muscle mass. It's only concerned with your total weight. When I was selling life insurance, we had this guy who was a semi-pro body builder. Guy was in great shape. He was shorter than me and weighed in somewhere around 210, He was told he was a risk because his overall body weight was too high. We had to pull a lot of strings to get his rate adjusted to where it should have been. You could have zero muscle and a bunch of fat or all muscle and no fat and get the same BMI.
As far as I understood, you carry fat and muscle differently. You'll stand different and the scales are supposed to measure that difference in weight bearing to different directions. If I'm wrong, please correct me.
I understand that no scale is perfect and none will ever tell me the whole truth, but having a vague idea is better than having none at all or paying someone loads of money (EACH time) to tell you the same thing the scale (which you only pay for once) will tell you.
My goal is to have a defined midsection for the summer and it will take a diet to lose the weight off my belly. I just figured there wight be a scale that I can use as a moniter to track my BMI and keep me motivated, even if it is off a bit.
If that's the case, why not save some money, and just use a FREE on-line ' circumference ' bodyfat % calculator like this one.....
These circumference methods have about the same accuracy as caliper methods - but in any event, accuracy isn't the issue as much as relative change in bodyfat% readings over time ( whatever tool you chose to use ) is IMO.
( Personally, I don't even own a scale )
btw - if you want a ' defined ' midsection, you should start with a primary goal of at least 15% bodyfat and then go down from there IMO .
Oh, and I would completely forget about BMI and focus entirely on bodyfat% if it were me.
Last edited:
Scales
Try the new Weight Watchers scales by Conair. They show your BMI and a couple of other things too. I'm going to get one soon!
Good luck!
Try the new Weight Watchers scales by Conair. They show your BMI and a couple of other things too. I'm going to get one soon!
Good luck!
They sell good Weight Watchers scales at Walmart for 30 bucks! : )
BMI is a completely worthless number. anorexic models have 'ideal' BMI's. super muscled and lean pro body builders are 'morbidly obese' per their BMI.
use a scale, and a mirror. if you like the number, and look good nekkid, who gives a rats ass what your BMI or bodyfat % is? Unless you're planning to compete, they don't really matter.
use a scale, and a mirror. if you like the number, and look good nekkid, who gives a rats ass what your BMI or bodyfat % is? Unless you're planning to compete, they don't really matter.
Check and....check. Awesome.
For waist size, it may be better to aim for a waist measurement less than half your height. 40" waist is still quite fat for most men.
Yeah, that was my problem with the BMI.
tjl, I've got a problem with the whole waist size thing. I measure in at 38 (IIRC) at my waist and at my hips. I manage to get up every morning and get into a size 34 pant.
Now, maybe it's just me, but if I wear a 34 pant, shouldn't my waist size measure at 34 inches?I've just gotta keep pushing myself. I knew you here would know a bit more about the scales than I do, so I figured (even if I get flamed in the process) I'd find out the real deal on them. Thanks guys and gals for all your help. I guess I'll just keep the mirror up on the wall. LOL!!!
I don't recommend Tanita Body fat scales. As I've brought up many times on this forum, mine is terribly inaccurate. My upper abs are visible and I still have a tiny amount of fat over my lower abs. By the caliper method and the US Navy method I'm between 10 to 12% body fat. My Tanita scale says I'm 21 %...and it hasn't change much in the course of losing about 30 lbs (although with my calipers I've dropped by about 7 percentage points.
...as far as pants size, I've found clothing manufacturers are quite generous, but even so 38" waist and 34" pants seems like a big difference...maybe your pants have stretched and "grown" with you
Also, I'll say that I don't really agree with BMI, but it's closer than I used to think. For instance in your case, 165 with average body fat (a little flab around the torso and spindly arms/legs) may look scrawny, but 165 with 9-10% BF probably looks a whole lot different.
I'm 6'1, just under 190 which is just slightly "overweight" by BMI. When I weighed this much years ago I looked skinny, but now that I'm lean and maintained good muscle mass I look a lot bigger than then
...as far as pants size, I've found clothing manufacturers are quite generous, but even so 38" waist and 34" pants seems like a big difference...maybe your pants have stretched and "grown" with you
Also, I'll say that I don't really agree with BMI, but it's closer than I used to think. For instance in your case, 165 with average body fat (a little flab around the torso and spindly arms/legs) may look scrawny, but 165 with 9-10% BF probably looks a whole lot different.
I'm 6'1, just under 190 which is just slightly "overweight" by BMI. When I weighed this much years ago I looked skinny, but now that I'm lean and maintained good muscle mass I look a lot bigger than then
Last edited:
Any of the body fat measures is only ok as a progress measure, not an absolute measure, due to various assumptions in the calculations. The higher end Tanita scales have an "athlete" mode which changes the assumptions to be more accurate for athletes (basically higher bone density assumption), but it is quite possible that neither the "athlete" or "non-athlete" settings have the correct assumptions for you.
tjl, I've got a problem with the whole waist size thing. I measure in at 38 (IIRC) at my waist and at my hips. I manage to get up every morning and get into a size 34 pant.
The trouser waistline level is different from the waistline level used for measuring waistline for health and fitness reasons. A man with a "beer belly" hanging over his belt may have a much smaller trouser waistline than the waistline measured around the "beer belly", for example.
Cause the US Navy method is SO accurate
I've personally never seen a more pathetic program for determining fitness, healthy weight, and body fat. I've seen more fit, muscular people placed on mandatory PT and more grossly overweight and out of shape individuals "squeak" by under the Navy's (terrible) standards than I care to recall.
Cause the US Navy method is SO accurate
I've personally never seen a more pathetic program for determining fitness, healthy weight, and body fat. I've seen more fit, muscular people placed on mandatory PT and more grossly overweight and out of shape individuals "squeak" by under the Navy's (terrible) standards than I care to recall.
It can certainly be off if you for instance are just thick waisted etc. but the point is I've tried several methods and all are close to each other except the scale...and looking at my physique I think it's obvious I'm not 21%
True that you are probably not 21%, but I have a Tanita scale that registers me at 13%, .5% off my actual BF from underwater weighing.
It depends partially on the quality of the scale you buy.
It depends partially on the quality of the scale you buy.