ummm.. it didn't ask for my height, or any middle measurements. So like, if I was a midget with really thin arms and legs and like, a *huge* chest, it would say I was closer to goal than an evenly distributed person....
Lyssie, for all we know, you probably *are* a midget with great legs. :P
It says I'm still at 26% body fat. That makes no sense, I'm much smaller and fitter now than I was before...unless somehow I put in the wrong measurements before? But I know these new ones are correct, or at least semi-current...since I just measured last Friday.
I don't know, I really want to do the hydrostatic test...but this one told me that my lean muscle mass would be 129 pounds. I have always been a very muscular girl and I'm 5'3 so I wonder.
Julie, I totally understand what you are saying about the body fat moniters. Mine said that at 190 I was 37 and now at 169, it says 40?? I don't think that's right at all.
I went ahead and put in my highest weight and measurement and then my smaller ones and it does say that the less I weigh, the less lean muscle mass I have while is crazy b/c the only way thats possible is if I'm burning muscle and I am def. not doing that.
*Dieting makes you look good with your clothes on...exercise make you look good with them off.*
**About me:**
23/F/5'3"
Start date: 7/14/2009
Lost a total of: 15.75 inches!!
It said I was 19% bodyfat. It's inaccurate simply based on the [lack of] measurement zones. Submersion is the most accurate method, but it seems difficult to do, or find someone to do it for you.
Comment