They way they organized (or rather didn’t) the female pics is a bit annoying
I didn’t even notice but my eyes did lock on to 25% and 30%. 
Has anything changed from the views above that no home scale can accurately measure body comp? I was wondering about trying to track muscle mass, visceral fat etc without Dexas (not so common in the UK), but appears to be not worth it from reading this thread!
n=1, as said way earlier in the thread I’m sure, but my renpho matched dexa. But ultimately, if you weigh at a similar time everyday, you can see the trend.
Even if the body fat breakdown isn’t accurate, autosyncing is dead handy for me in tracking trends. One less thing to do in the morning - renpho to fitbit; smartscalesync from fitbit to garmin/ TR/ zwift/ MFP
Thanks, which model do you have? They seem to have a new model due out morphoscan body composition scan – Renpho UK
Purchased in 2019 according to amazon!
Then smartscalesync is a couple of euros a month.
1 Like
No new magic technology has been invented.
Personally, I don’t even see the point of a Dexa unless it is to measure bone density for some medical reason.
So a Dexa spits out a number, say 27%. What do you do with the number?
The easiest thing is to look in a mirror. You can use one of those charts (like above) to get a ballpark percentage.
Being that those Renpho scales are only $22 now, there’s certainly no harm.
It was things like visceral fat I was interested in tracking, as the “unseen” thing…
1 Like
Is it unseen? I think looking in the mirror is a decent solution and free.
yes visceral fat is completely unseen.
Subcutaneous fat is fat that’s stored just beneath your skin. It’s the kind that you can pinch between your fingers. Visceral fat is different. Visceral fat is behind your abdominal muscles and can’t be seen. It surrounds your stomach, liver, intestines and other organs. Visceral fat and subcutaneous fat are both types of belly fat.
Even if you can’t pinch your belly fat, you can still see it by the size of one’s belly. If one is already thin, I really doubt that “unseen” visceral fat is going to be much of an issue.
As per your link, you just need to do all the right things - aerobic exercise, lift weights, eat right, etc.
1 Like
Having used several of these scales over years, I’ve pretty much lost faith in the consumer-level technology, even for the long-term trend value.
The one I’m using now (can’t remember which one it is) showed me at 34.6% body fat last year when I weighed 245 lbs. I now weigh 225 lbs, I eat better, I’m stronger and faster, my waistline is 2" less, I’m almost one size down in shirts, and… the scale says 32.6% BF.
Telling me my body-fat percentage is down just 2% through all that, is just not believable.
1 Like
I don’t think you’re looking at the 2% correctly.
You can lose 5lbs of water weight between waking up and going to bed. You’d be 5lbs lighter and you’d be a higher percent of body fat without the actual fat value changing.
That’s 11lbs of fat out of 20 lost. Sounds about right.
Hmm. Thanks, you’re right. I actually did the math and realized that the 2% does mean 11 lbs of fat. But if I know that I’m stronger, I would ASSUME that means the other 9 lbs are not from muscle… so where do those other 9 pounds come from?
Probably 5lbs or so of water and the rest muscle.
I’ve gotten lighter and stronger too. Around 2015 was the first time I broke 300 ftp. I was also down to 180lbs. Currently I sit at around 180lbs of lean mass, but I’m not as strong as I was then. Ok I can squat more currently but my bike power is down. Training can teach your body to use more fibers more efficiently so you can lose some muscle while still being able to do more work through various adaptations.
Great example of why the mirror doesn’t always tell us the whole story.
1 Like
I’d also consider Athlete mode v normal mode. It’s often a lower bar than I think to be considered an “Athlete”. iirc it’s something like 6 hours a week!