choose language

Deutsch Français 日本語 简体中文

athlete mode

4

Comments

14 comments

Post is closed for comments.

  • Avatar
    shadonan

    Hi Walker,

    I understand that the difference comes from the populations used in the calibration process. If you had raw data of fat mass, it should always be the same. But on a scale like this, an algorithm estimates data based on measurements made on a given population. Each population have different trends. If you consider a large population ("normal") some people with different physiological parameters but the same values registered by the scale are taken into account for the result. To put it more simply: someone with fatter than you can also give the same numbers because scales like this do not "measure" body fat. They usually "estimate" using different parameters. Thus people usually do not use those scales for their accuracy but rather for their precision. A variation in the result shows that your body has undergone some kind of change from the previous one. But to have an idea of the real value, you should compare yourself to the population the closest to your situation. Thus athlete mode should give a better estimation of your real body fat.

    Hope it helps.

    Best regards.

    -4
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    abelvargas

    Hi there,

    Much better than an athlete mode, which is a huge jump from the regular mode, there should be an easy way to apply how active an user is to adjust the body fat calculations.

    I work out 5 hours a week and use a bicycle to move around. My heart rate is just below 60. My body fat measures 18% on regular mode and 9.5 in athlete mode. Using a body calliper I stand at 11%. Which is probably the right difference between 8 hours of workout and 5 hours.
    It’s a simple multiplier to the overall equation that would lead to much more accurate results.
    I’m sure most users who buy this scale are somewhat active and but not athletes per se so this measurements are alienating a good part of the user base with either too high or to low results.

    10
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    giuliagoolia

    I totally agree and have the same problem. Why can't there be an intermediate level between 'athlete' and 'normal'?!?

    8
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    velazkez21

    I have the same issue, the discrepancy is ridiculous and makes it useless!  I started my journey at 28% and it had been pretty accurate compared to a Dexascan (within 1%).  When I got to about 22% I started to see more variations in my readings each morning (no real progress if BF%) for like 3 weeks even though I drop a noticeable 5lb so I switch to Athlete mode... and it went to 12%. I was obviously not 12% (more like 19 or 20).

    Very lame! I was very happy with the scale until then, now I don't like it. My only hope is that once I get sub 15% Athlete mode starts to be more accurate.

    I believe it needs a third mode in between Normal and Athlete, to balance the discrepancy

    3
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    brad.salt

    Agree that Normal and Athlete modes are way too far apart. I just purchased the Body+ and mine is 24% in normal mode and 16% in athlete. My guess is I am more like 19%, but I don't quite meet the critera for athlete mode. Seems they need another setting or better yet, a configurable fat setting to set the algorithm. Otherwise it is completely inaccurate and not very useful.  

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    C.J.Schwiening

    I have a resting heart rate below 50bpm, typically 42 bpm at night and a bit higher when sitting before my first run of the day. I typically run over 21km per day and I run everyday. My weekly run time is usually over 12hours. I get 16% BF in normal mode and 7% in athlete mode. I suspect I am close to 14% BF. It is very hard to have any faith in 'measurement' by the scales. They seem to rely more on guessing and a set of comparative BF shape photos would be better.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    ceugene

    Same here, "Athlete Mode" doesn't work at all for me. RHR 36bpm, 135lbs, 5'10", VO2max >70ml/kg/min.

    Normal Mode: 8-9% body fat

    Athlete Mode: 3% body fat (I don't think it goes lower than 3%)

    The normal figures seem pretty close to me.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    lemekec321

    benefits of 5G for businesses will have a great impact within the business world – no matter what sector your business is in. That’s why you must be prepared for the introduction.

    https://www.fieldengineer.com/blogs/how-businesses-can-prepare-for-5g

    -3
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    marc

    yeah i am facing same  issue move or not move to athlete mode?

    actually i am training between 10-12 h a week running, swimming and bike,HR is about 46-50 in the morning. I moved my weight from 86 kg down to 74 KG for 185 cm and last time i went to my nutritionist she told me i have about 12 % body fat now normal mode tells me i have 16 % and athlete mode 9 % both are mainly wrong , i get it to look at tendency's , but still would be good to see a more correct value, any way question is should i move to athlete mode or not?

    cheers

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    niki

    Nowadays the app also tracks your fitness level (at least my app, maybe in combination with my Scanwatch). It would be great if there would be a mode between Athlete and Normal based on the fitness level, as in my case both modes do not provide the right fat-% (either too low or a bit too high)

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    raymond.reynoldssss

    Agree that Normal and Athlete modes are way too far apart. I am facing same issue move or not move to athlete mode? Any advices?

    Use the help of viplikes.net to quickly increase the number of instagram followers.

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    travisbridge65

    I am agree with you @shadonan

    Using the help of soclikes.com to quickly increase the number of twitter followers.

     
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    travisbridge65

    I am agree with you @shadonan about it:
    I understand that the difference comes from the populations used in the calibration process. If you had raw data of fat mass, it should always be the same. But on a scale like this, an algorithm estimates data based on measurements made on a given population. Each population have different trends. If you consider a large population ("normal") some people with different physiological parameters but the same values registered by the scale are taken into account for the result. To put it more simply: someone with fatter than you can also give the same numbers because scales like this do not "measure" body fat. They usually "estimate" using different parameters. Thus people usually do not use those scales for their accuracy but rather for their precision. A variation in the result shows that your body has undergone some kind of change from the previous one. But to have an idea of the real value, you should compare yourself to the population the closest to your situation. Thus athlete mode should give a better estimation of your real body fat

    Using the help of soclikes.com to increase the amount of your followers

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    andreastoppa

    I think everybody here is dreaming about a scale which can scientifically measure the fat in their body.
    There are electrical signals the scale uses to help the measure, ok, but they will never be enough.
    I reached 65kg on 170cm with simple daily stretching and hard cardio sessions, then I started a body building program, keeping the same weight. My body started to change (improve) in how it looks like when I do the mirror check, but the scale was stuck on the body fat measure: through 3 months of daily workouts, the measuer decreased only from 13% to 12%.
    So the scale was "feeling" something, but it could not catch the real difference.
    So the point is simple: the electrical signals do help the scale to understand if the measure is completely wrong, but basically the measure is based on a simple weight x height formula.
    Switching to athlete mode the measure changed to 5% which is much more likely my body fat percentage now.
    If I would stop working out, keeping the same weight at 65kg, I would be "thin" the same, but I should eat MUCH less and I would not look like this in the mirror. The scale alone with the electrical impulses cannot spot this difference.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
4

Didn't find what you were looking for?

New post
To preserve the Withings Forum as a place of kindness, mutual support, and interest for the products and services provided by Withings, I am committed to:
  • Be courteous and participate in the community with a spirit of friendliness and understanding
  • Respect all users on the forum
  • Avoid controversy or quarrel
  • Ensure that my messages do not infringe on the rights, reputation, image, or privacy of others
  • Avoid any and all discussions which contain insulting or discriminatory comments
  • Abide by the full terms and conditions outlined here

If you need assistance because of an issue which would not be resolved through troubleshooting, such as a product with physical damage, please contact our Support Team.