Thank you for creating merciful content!

if the device is designed and tested well (which admittedly, only like 10% of devices are)

Pretty condescending post only for you to “admit” that the overwhelming supermajority of products on the market are badly designed. And then to agree with me that the information they extrapolate is “crap”, too.

Did you know that virtually all runners are using tech from that 90% crap category? That’s also who my post aimed at. You know, the people currently being scammed by these marketing companies, not people with the specific medical grade equipment you personally designed.

Thank you, nonetheless, for the interesting info and further reading. Hopefully it will help steer people towards good equipment if they do decide they want to track these metrics as accurately as possible

I do trail running primarily these days so my actual distance I’ll just pull from the trail map.

If you do roads you can actually just drive the route in a car once, and use the trip function. You can also plan a route with a map or map app.

But the other, easiest thing to do would be to actually switch training paradigms from distance to time. Right so instead of running a 12k, or hitting 50km per week, you could say “On this training day I want to run at a tough but manageable pace for an hour, and I want to train 6 hours a week in general”

From there you just mix in some track days (or days you run any familiar route with a known distance) to get an idea of how far you might be running in those intervals of time, if you feel like you really need to.

You have to remember portable gps tech is an extremely recent thing compared to how long runners have been training. I’m not against progress for progress’s sake mind you but I just genuinely don’t believe the introduction of these apps and trackers, with their many flaws, has improved the quality of people’s training. The old ways also cost nothing and have no privacy or security risks which is a bonus for many people

Seriously, this. The things are genuinely useless. They can’t even measure your heart rate correctly (seriously look it up. They use algorithms to “estimate” your heart rate. Different brands give different results. People wear elaborate chest strap setups to try and get an accurate value and even then it’s subject to a huge margin of error).

Get a $10 dumbwatch with a stopwatch function. Run or cycle a familiar route once in a while to track your progress. Find different ways to challenge yourself. Do some runs all out. Hill sprints. Do some longer runs a bit slower than you would think, so that even if your breathing is a little heavier you could still hold a conversation with someone while maintaining that pace.

Ignore all the senselessly overcomplicated 5 stage heartrate zone V02max aerobic astrology bull that these companies advertise to you as a big benefit of their product. Having a 3d map of your route is not going to make you a better runner. Having a virtual leaderboard where 99% of people you compete against are using a wonky cellphone gps that teleports them 1000ft off course isn’t going to make you a better runner

Thank you for creating non-fiction!

Well, if you’re feeling philosophical I think you’d first need to address your presupposition that life has or is meant to have any meaning whatsoever.

Like, according to who? And how did they determine that? Would you be sad if it turns out there isn’t any underlying meaning?

Thank you for personally attacking me!

Thank you for cultivating the vibe!

If I found a nice looking one for free I’d take it and use it as a table, I don’t think I’d pay much for one though

Thank you for being my friend!

Personally I have just always really liked the firefox icon

Thank you for creating video game content!

what is DEXA and why does a scan for osteopenia matter for body fat?

HA. Yes this is the question at the very heart of the issue. Why is a misappropriated bone scan with notoriously inaccurate readings when used to measure body fat championed as the “gold standard” for doing so? A fascinating subject if you pry into it. At the bottom of the rabbit hole is simply the tendency of scammers to create scams. But I sense that further elaboration on my part is not appropriate at the moment.

Otherwise, to be honest I disagree with your advice. (I hope it goes without saying that you are equally free to ignore my words, and that I wish you well either way) I think presenting OP as “the person trying to learn” is a lopsided mischaracterization. They repeatedly asserted specific, grandiose claims without evidence. I directed my comment towards them personally because indeed they personally were the one running damage control for a random brand. Even going so far as to bring up the rest of that company’s product line lol.

Secondly, frankly, people can simply look up the words if they want the full context. Like I said this scam is incredibly well documented. Anyone who is capable of differentiating a company’s marketing from actual research will arrive at the truth quickly. If they can’t, and instead present me with mere marketing material, well hey, we can proceed from there if the attempt appears to be in good faith.

Which is the crux of our issue here. You and others consider OP to be posting in good faith. I do not, for many reasons, and as such continue to stand by exactly what said. I have acknowledged that I may be wrong about that, and the inherent problems that creates, but at the end of everything I simply disagree with that take. I notice someone else responded to OP as well, with a softer tone, and was also ignored. The truth is there simply is no truth whatsoever in what they said, and they quickly realized this and tried to flip it around on me when I called it out.

I do appreciate your insight and perspective despite our disagreement on some matters. Thank you for the discussion

Fair enough yeah. My way with words can absolutely be too serrated at times, in an unproductive way. There’s also the matter of unclear framing in the comment in question, sure.

But I don’t really see that my argument has shifted at any point. The actual content is the same, if perhaps taking it as granted that we will all be on the same page regarding who has the burden of proof. You’re saying that I deflected and instead asked for proof that my point was wrong, when what I did was correctly reposition the argument (“You are the one [making the positive claim here] [thus you are actually the one who needs to bring sources]”). I can see how it can be read the way you describe, but ultimately I don’t think that interpretation is correct. I may be to blame for that, sure, so hopefully continuing to elaborate here when pressed is doing some good to clarify the whole picture.

Some additional context here which is admittedly invisible, is that having immersed myself in the fitness industry, I am constantly presented with such scams lol. So at a certain point I have become quite unapologetic in my condemnation of them all. It’s why I come up with things like, “The reason you can’t find any source for this is because these are all worthless scams” and “whoever told you that is a con artist liar, exile them from your life” lol.

And hopefully by now it can no longer be said that I am refusing any type of deeper delving. The happiness that I feel in continuing to do so is also ongoing, even if by tone one would assume at points that I am impatient or irritated

The irony being that these companies pushing the scam products are themselves presenting as experts with an absolute standpoint. A standpoint which of course involves paying them a bunch of money to acquire extremely specific capabilities which are totally unfounded in reality.

Which makes you raising this principle very interesting: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You are misapplying the concept.

If I said, “there are no bears in the woods”, then yes now I have to carefully and thoroughly demonstrate this. An impossible task in fact, since I simply cannot check behind every tree. Indeed, even if I did check every tree, bears move around, and I could miss one despite it really being there! Therefore it is wrong for me argue such a strong negative, and it would be proper to instead say, “I haven’t seen any bears”. I’m with you on this.

Now imagine if some company says, “The woods are full of dangerous bears! You should buy our bear repelling hat!”, and I say, “This is actually a well known scam tactic, and this company is just selling useless hats. Another company is selling bear pants, and yet another company is doing shoes. It’s all bullshit. Don’t waste your money. Use proven methods such as bear spray.”

Now in this situation, sure, you can try to start a semantic argument with me about whether or not it is philosophically just for me to state “the hats are useless” in such absolute terms. Structurally, that snippet is the same, yes? A strongly phrased negative. Doesn’t it run into the same problem?

It turns out, no. You see, the scam company at this point in time has already made the claim that the hats are useful. This is a claim that absolutely requires a source. The fact that they are forcefully presenting this claim despite having no source is itself proof that the product is a scam. By the very nature of the phenomenon in question, there needs to be a source before they make the claims.

In other words, once a company is claiming that an effect is present in fact, then absence of evidence becomes evidence of absence. Because they are simply fucking lying lol. We don’t need to keep doing this every week with every company that runs the same scam template with a different article of clothing.

Anyway, you wound me with your incorrect assertion that I have deflected anything, when I directly answered the questions I was asked and provided further information on things to look into, such as DEXA scans. Anyone bothered by my strong language will quickly discover the reality that every reputable study ever performed relating to these devices recommends against them.

TL;DR: Our study shows that although smart scales are accurate for total body weight, they should not be used routinely to assess body composition, especially in patients with severe obesity.

What is there to believe or disbelieve when the problems of this method are so incredibly well documented? The body is not as simple as you’re portraying, the measurement can swing in either direction for many reasons over the course of months and years. Rely on these measurements at your own peril

You can certainly pinch the same spot on the same day and get the same number a few times in a row, sure. But as your body changes you become a different organism. It’s not always going to be consistently wrong in the same way. Self administering the skin fold test makes the problem even worse.

Setting aside the fact that they are neither precise nor accurate at tracking trends, why are you recomping?

No really, let’s think about why you’re changing your body. Is it for a strength sport? Is it to improve your health? Is it to become more muscular? Do you want to run faster?

Because all of these things are completely self evident. Simply take a step back and examine whether or not you are actually making progress towards your goals. Whether you are stronger, faster, etc. If your doctor is happy with your new bloodwork.

All of the various bf% scams are so ridiculous at the outset because in fitness, we have such specific tangible goals. There’s no situation where having a figure for your bf% actually assists or informs you in any way. If you are achieving your goals in fact then the number shouldn’t dissuade you. If you are not achieving your goals in fact, then you shouldn’t let the number gaslight you about it and make you feel better. You need to make adjustments based on your actual results, not on something as nebulous and abstracted as bf%.

Especially not when the best, most expensive methods can at best tell you your number within six percent. Which is completely absurd. That 8% vs 14%. Literally guessing a number while looking in a mirror is more accurate for the purpose of tracking progress

Which parts of their business are a scam?

The bioelectric impedance scales, as I have been consistently saying the entire time. I have no expertise or opinion about their other products. It’s entirely plausible that they may furnish you with a functional blood pressure device, but to be honest I am reticent to support any company that offers scam products alongside their legitimate options.

Why are they used in research?

Whoever severely misled you into believing that this company’s products are some important cornerstone of scientific research should be totally exiled from your consideration. Hopefully it’s only a result of their ridiculous marketing and this will be a simple correction

Do you have any source on why they are entirely unusable?

You are the one claiming they are not only usable but scientifically important, please feel free to furnish any sources proving they can tell your bf% better than +/-5%. The reason you can’t find any is because none of the the methods, including DEXA scans, are functionally accurate at all. The entire field exists to scam people who are trying to better themselves

It doesn’t inform any decisions

Excellent, I encourage you to never deviate from this path

I strongly encourage you to disregard the bf% information that scale provides you, even if it is only a passing curiosity. It can and will taint your general understanding of the body and your relationship with fitness. I would recommend even disabling it entirely if possible, and would even recommend replacing it with a non-“smart” scale if the option is at all economical for you. I’m happy to explore the subject further and suggest alternatives if you so desire