Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know the scales aren't very accurate, but it should be following the same linear path as my weight, I would think. So I was 140 ilb and 29%, then 130 and 27%, but now I'm 133 and 26%. Is this a victory? Could I be losing fat and gaining muscle or water weight? What is your BMI versus fat %? I am a 30 something woman, around 5'3.

I'm confused. Aren't these numbers going down?

I was pointing out the 130/27% and 133/26%.

When I started lifting weights, my weight went up, but I looked great -- it was all muscle.

Anonymous wrote:I know the scales aren't very accurate, but it should be following the same linear path as my weight, I would think. So I was 140 ilb and 29%, then 130 and 27%, but now I'm 133 and 26%. Is this a victory? Could I be losing fat and gaining muscle or water weight? What is your BMI versus fat %? I am a 30 something woman, around 5'3.

I'm confused. Aren't these numbers going down?

How is your bmi going up if your weight is going down (140 to 133)? Maybe I’m missing something?
?

Agreed with what 14:05 says - those fat % on scales are very inaccurate. You;d be better off going with a DEXA scan if you really want to know your body comp, but those machines can be less than ideally calibrated - you'd need to check out places carefully.
I bought a deal for two scans (same place) and did them a year apart and I trusted the results I saw.

Anonymous wrote:Measure your waist circumference.

+2. This is great advice

The fat % measurement is highly inaccurate and the BMI calculation counts for muscle at the top of the rage. For example, I've been 125 lbs at 5'7 almost all my life and now I'm 130 after lifting. However, my clothes fit the same and my I have minimal abdominal fat. I also second the PP who told you to check your waist measurement. This is crucial for health. Your goal should be as little as possible visceral fat and great lipids ratio.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/taking-aim-at-belly-fat#:~:text=Visceral%20fat%20can%20be%20measured,see%20%22Gut%20check%22).

BMI has a pretty big range. If you have more muscle you can be at the higher end of normal and actually look thinner than no muscle and the mid range of BMI.

Measure your waist circumference.

Thanks for the responses. This is a post about body % as compared to BMI, not about BMI to determine health. I'm asking about the body % on my scale....

BMI is as others have said, an inaccurate gauge.

You could be a 60 yr old woman with very little muscle, thinning bones and a belly but your BMI is ok because your muscle and bones weigh less than they did when you were 35.

Similarly a man with lots of muscle and heavy bones will sometimes be lean and no belly but have a bad BMI due to not being tall and the muscle / bone weight skewing the measure.

BMI is not accurate if you have substantial muscle. I was an athlete and incredibly lean at 155 lbs and 5'7". My BMI was considered borderline (24.9 vs 25), but I couldn't even "pinch an inch".

Anonymous wrote:I know the scales aren't very accurate, but it should be following the same linear path as my weight, I would think. So I was 140 ilb and 29%, then 130 and 27%, but now I'm 133 and 26%. Is this a victory? Could I be losing fat and gaining muscle or water weight? What is your BMI versus fat %? I am a 30 something woman, around 5'3.

This exactly. Also BMI is a bs measurement.

I'd go with the scales not being very accurate. I'm about your height and weight (though in my 40s) and have been strength training pretty hard for the last year. My fat% as reported by my scale ranges from maybe 29% to 33%. I don't put much stock in it. I think it gives me a lower fat% when I'm dehydrated.

I know the scales aren't very accurate, but it should be following the same linear path as my weight, I would think. So I was 140 ilb and 29%, then 130 and 27%, but now I'm 133 and 26%. Is this a victory? Could I be losing fat and gaining muscle or water weight? What is your BMI versus fat %? I am a 30 something woman, around 5'3.