A Fitness & exercise forum. FitnessBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » FitnessBanter.com forum » Fitness & Exercise » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Sharper Image: Body Fat monitor



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 15th 04, 11:31 PM
Proctologically Violated©®
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sharper Image: Body Fat monitor

"Isiafs5" wrote in message
...

Mun is basically giving


Giving unnecessary insults and narrow minded advice.


I think his insult/advice was 'lol lol lol lol". For someone who
can barely read the lines themselves, you sure do read awfully deep between
them, dude.


Even if BF monitors WERE accurate
(and they are not), they are useless "training measurement tools". Gee,

my
mile time is not fast enough... I think I'll lose another 2% body fat....
Give me an effing break.


You assumption is very incorrect. That's twice in one post.


We'll see. Start counting, boyzngerls...

Consider that someone might wise to know body fat percentages for reasons

other
than training purposes.


Yeah, but Dude, this is what YOU said:
"If it is
actually accurate, then it could be very valuable as a training measurement
tool."

And as a training measurement tool, what I cited is about right:
training ain't up to par, so work on the BF%, right?? What else could *you*
have meant??

You didn't mention "other purposes".
But since you mention it now, there are no 'other purposes". BF%
monitors are no good at measuring BF, and it is pointless to measure BF
anyway, except in clinical/research settings, and except for the incurably
narcissistic. Before you """research""" BF monitors, you should ""research""
what it is about BF that is so bad.


BF monitors don't have a prayer at giving you an accurate
*absolute* measurement of BF--their readings must be essentially


Well, finally you have posted on topic. I have read your opinion.

I am still looking for the original research that I asked about.

I always post on topic. It's just that people who can't see past
their noses or who scored 480 on their SATs (combined) have trouble
following their own topics.

Altho I have not used a BF monitor per se, I have experience with
*very* sophisticated laboratory equipment, in *very* controlled laboratory
settings, and can tell you that under the *best* of circumstances, the data
from these trials must be repeated over and over and over again, and then
again by different laboratories.
Given the uncontrolled application of a BF monitor, AND the
vicissitudes of the underlying theory (electrical current in a
*complicatedly* conductive medium with **no clear or easily reproducible
route/path of conduction**), it is IMPOSSIBLE for a home BF to give sensible
results.
If you don't believe me, talk to your local electrical engineer.
The fact that you don't understand the underlying theory is likely what
fuels your quest for """original research""". If you understood the theory,
you wouldn't be interested in the research--because it is irrelevant.
Remember Cold Fusion.
Also, with all due respect ahem, you are not likely capable of
evaluating said original research you desire. Unless it's some asshole at
Consumer's Reports, who can't even evaluate cars. (They can, however,
tabulate repair surveys, miraculously enough).
There is likely a way to make BF monitors *more* accurate, using
the mathematical techniques that MRIs use--really quite fascinating. But
this would send the price thru the roof, and still, because it would require
mechanical connections, would have a reliability problem.
Mebbe you can finagle a whole body MRI, and get them to assay yer
BF%. Get insurance to pay for it.
Sling, you act like a meat eater just turned vegetarian. Do
yourself and your family a favor--grab a McDonalds, before you bust.
--------------
Mr. PV'd
formerly Droll Troll


Sling Skate

My recommended reading for body fat control:
http://www.geocities.com/~slopitch/drsquat/fredzig.htm












  #2  
Old January 16th 04, 12:12 AM
Proctologically Violated©®
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sharper Image: Body Fat monitor

Oh, and one more thing: explanation of "nomogrammed".
When all is said and done, the readings from any type of
anthropometric (body data) measuring device must be referenced to a
standard, in this case, autopsied, or for the sadistic, biopsied analysis.
Now, biopsy is cleary impractical (unless idiots like Skate or Garrison were
to volunteer for the good of fat-conscious America), and autopsy presents
additional difficulties, in that dead tissue is electrically different than
live tissue--go figger, huh?
AND, given that goddamm BF% meters are basically measuring (quite
poorly) the impedance of the goddammed FEET, yet ANOTHER correlation has to
be made between the poorly measured fat content of the feet, and the actual
fat content of the rest of the body. Good luck.
Unless the path is in fact from one foot, thru the body, to the
other foot. That would make more sense, and obviate the last paragraph,
which still leaves the user in an experimental lurch. But if the above
paragraph DOES hold, then BF meters could not be made useful by Jesus
hisself.
Where is the database for the nomogram data??? Research DAT,
dude. Have a hot dog for the Troll.
----------------------------
Mr. P.V.'d
formerly Droll Troll

"Proctologically Violated©®" wrote in message
...
"Isiafs5" wrote in message
...

Mun is basically giving


Giving unnecessary insults and narrow minded advice.


I think his insult/advice was 'lol lol lol lol". For someone

who
can barely read the lines themselves, you sure do read awfully deep

between
them, dude.


Even if BF monitors WERE accurate
(and they are not), they are useless "training measurement tools".

Gee,
my
mile time is not fast enough... I think I'll lose another 2% body

fat....
Give me an effing break.


You assumption is very incorrect. That's twice in one post.


We'll see. Start counting, boyzngerls...

Consider that someone might wise to know body fat percentages for

reasons
other
than training purposes.


Yeah, but Dude, this is what YOU said:
"If it is
actually accurate, then it could be very valuable as a training

measurement
tool."

And as a training measurement tool, what I cited is about

right:
training ain't up to par, so work on the BF%, right?? What else could

*you*
have meant??

You didn't mention "other purposes".
But since you mention it now, there are no 'other purposes".

BF%
monitors are no good at measuring BF, and it is pointless to measure BF
anyway, except in clinical/research settings, and except for the incurably
narcissistic. Before you """research""" BF monitors, you should

""research""
what it is about BF that is so bad.


BF monitors don't have a prayer at giving you an accurate
*absolute* measurement of BF--their readings must be essentially


Well, finally you have posted on topic. I have read your opinion.

I am still looking for the original research that I asked about.

I always post on topic. It's just that people who can't see

past
their noses or who scored 480 on their SATs (combined) have trouble
following their own topics.

Altho I have not used a BF monitor per se, I have experience

with
*very* sophisticated laboratory equipment, in *very* controlled laboratory
settings, and can tell you that under the *best* of circumstances, the

data
from these trials must be repeated over and over and over again, and then
again by different laboratories.
Given the uncontrolled application of a BF monitor, AND the
vicissitudes of the underlying theory (electrical current in a
*complicatedly* conductive medium with **no clear or easily reproducible
route/path of conduction**), it is IMPOSSIBLE for a home BF to give

sensible
results.
If you don't believe me, talk to your local electrical

engineer.
The fact that you don't understand the underlying theory is likely what
fuels your quest for """original research""". If you understood the

theory,
you wouldn't be interested in the research--because it is irrelevant.
Remember Cold Fusion.
Also, with all due respect ahem, you are not likely capable of
evaluating said original research you desire. Unless it's some asshole at
Consumer's Reports, who can't even evaluate cars. (They can, however,
tabulate repair surveys, miraculously enough).
There is likely a way to make BF monitors *more* accurate, using
the mathematical techniques that MRIs use--really quite fascinating. But
this would send the price thru the roof, and still, because it would

require
mechanical connections, would have a reliability problem.
Mebbe you can finagle a whole body MRI, and get them to assay yer
BF%. Get insurance to pay for it.
Sling, you act like a meat eater just turned vegetarian. Do
yourself and your family a favor--grab a McDonalds, before you bust.
--------------
Mr. PV'd
formerly Droll Troll


Sling Skate

My recommended reading for body fat control:
http://www.geocities.com/~slopitch/drsquat/fredzig.htm














 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sharper Image: Body Fat monitor Isiafs5 Aerobic 8 January 18th 04 11:26 PM
Low carb diets Weights 194 January 9th 04 12:15 AM
bodyfat - realistic goal determined Weights 121 January 1st 04 03:01 PM
Low-carbohydrate diets - dangerous? Susan Estrich Weights 4 July 29th 03 07:47 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 FitnessBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.