4/10 weigh in

[NancyLynn]

Do these things really work? Like if I gain a lb and it's mostly water, the scale will tell you that?

The weight is generally pretty accurate.

The body fat % is based on a measurement based on sending a low level electric signal up on leg and back down the other. The most accurate measurements using electrical signals would send the signal from one foot out the opposite arm (transit through all the major fatty areas, not just the thighs, hips, and perhaps midsection). The limited data makes the measurement accurate relative to itself, but not necessarily to an absolute scale.

Since all you really need to know is whether you are improving, maintaining, or backtracking, how it compares to an absolute scale doesn't really matter.

Hydration (which would be the "mostly water" measurement) is generally based on an algorithm, rather than a direct measurement. I haven't been able to find much information as to how accurate it is and I don't have enough experience yet to tell whether it is accurate relative to itself.

 

[Fuzzmutton]

I have a Taylor scale, not the same model, but one that is supposed to track body fat and all that. That scale is sooooo inaccurate it is not funny. For example, I showed my husband (who bought the scale) that I could get on and weigh myself and get a certain weight, THEN, get back on holding a large bottle of shampoo and it would weigh the same. If that was not bad enough, I got back on holding two, large, full bottles of shampoo (.5 litre kind) and it STILL showed the same weight!

Someone much heavier or much lighter has to weigh themselves on it after me before I can weigh myself again and get a different weight. Go figure.

I am new to this thread but I have lost 52 lbs. and sucessfully kept it off for over 5 years.

NancyLynn, those last few lbs. are so hard to lose because if you are trying to do it by dieting, consider that a lb. of fat is equal to 3500 calories. If you want to get rid of a lb. you have to cut out those 3500 calories from somewhere. When calculating calories to cut the formula is normally 15 X (lb. of body weight)=number of calories per day to stay at a certain weight, if you are getting moderate exercise. If you cut 500 calories from that number, you will lose a lb. per week. So, a person that weighs 150 lbs. takes that times 15 and comes up with 2250 calories per day. If they cut 500, they will lose that lb. per week.

The skinnier you get, the harder it gets to cut enough calories to lose! You practically have to stop eating. At 131 lbs. you would have to be eating 1,465 calories per day to lose one lb. per week. That is assuming moderate exercise where you get your heart rate up and keep it up for 30 minutes at a time. If you exercised enough, you could lose more.

I went through this myself, the weight just dropped off when I was heavier but as I got thinner it slowed down and I had to cut calories more and ramp up my exercise. Both very hard to do, especially at the same time as you lose energy when you don't eat as much.

Anyway, I hope this made sense. Maybe you already knew this? If so, sorry for the unsolicited advice

 

[NancyLynn]

I have a Taylor scale, not the same model, but one that is supposed to track body fat and all that. That scale is sooooo inaccurate it is not funny.

That's what all of the reviews said - and why I didn't buy from a brick and mortar store (all the scales sold there were either Taylor - or others with equivalent reviews).

The skinnier you get, the harder it gets to cut enough calories to lose! You practically have to stop eating. At 131 lbs. you would have to be eating 1,465 calories per day to lose one lb. per week. That is assuming moderate exercise where you get your heart rate up and keep it up for 30 minutes at a time. If you exercised enough, you could lose more.

You're coming up with about the same numbers I have - and about what I've been eating.

If you exercised enough, you could lose more.

Well, not really. The level and duration of exercise needed to make a significant difference in calorie consumption is too high to be worth it for the calorie benefit. I've run those numbers, too. It does add some benefit in that it generally makes me less inclined to eat - but doesn't make any significant difference in rate of loss unless it is accompanied by additional calorie cutting.

Anyway, I hope this made sense. Maybe you already knew this?

Yep, but I'm sure there are others who don't. Actually the slow-down in weight loss as you near your goal makes it more likely that the loss will be maintained - it's hard on the body to abruptly change from starvation to normal consumption. A gradual transition from starvation (necessary, to an extent to lose the weight), to eating enough calories to maintain weight is much easier both on the body and to maintain.

Doesn't mean it isn't frustrating.

 

[Fuzzmutton]

Hi NancyLynn!

I appreciated reading your responses to the different things that I had written.

Well, not really. The level and duration of exercise needed to make a significant difference in calorie consumption is too high to be worth it for the calorie benefit. I've run those numbers, too. It does add some benefit in that it generally makes me less inclined to eat - but doesn't make any significant difference in rate of loss unless it is accompanied by additional calorie cutting.

On this, I wanted to say that for me (I don't know if it's the same with anyone else) my metabolism had slowed with age and lack of exercise. That's how I had gotten overweight. The INCREASED exercise served more to boost my metabolism than anything, I think. I changed my lifestyle and went from a couch potato to someone who went biking, rafting, scuba diving, and to the gym. For people who are already active and just wanting to reduce by a few pounds, this might not be any help.

Fuzz

 

[fairybasslet]

Well, that lb my scale said I gained yesterday is gone today.