Related
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Body Fat% is a way off PART2

f|33tStA
over 3 years ago

as the other thread is closed by 

It can't be that the same fat value is always displayed, it can't be normal, all other values ​​change, the fat value is always 7 for every measurement, regardless of which activity class you choose?

Garmin's explanations cannot explain it in that way!

Top Replies

All Replies

  • 0 over 3 years ago

    Longtime Garmin fitness device fan, I've had more devices than I can remember. I just bought this scale and it said my body fat was 20%! 

    I bumped up my activity level from 8 to 10 (why isn't this autocalculated from all my activities on Garmin connect?) and haven't tried it yet. I really don't think I'm going to hack my height to get this thing to report the correct BF%, I'm thinking I will just return it instead, lot of other good options out there. Was just hoping to have one less integration to manage. 

    Generally Garmin has been great to work with so I'm confused at what I see in this thread. Something is clearly wrong with the scale but instead of acknowledging it they seem to be excusing it. 

  • 0 over 3 years ago in reply to 7244710

    Just used Index 2. I am 6 foot 2 male and weigh 11st 12lbs (75kg) and have a VO2 max of 51/52 My BF came out as 22%!! When the previous (non-Garmin) machine had 13% and no medical I have had in years has ever measured 22% (callipers/other machines etc) Impossible to think the Index 2 is right!!

  • +1 over 3 years ago

    Garmin has been investigating reports of inaccurate body composition metrics reported by customers that have contacted our Product Support teams and discussed in the forums.  This includes getting scales back from customers that exchanged with our Support teams and testing them to ensure they are working as designed.  When comparing measurements such as body fat percentage to the original  Index Smart Scale, non-Garmin smart scales, or handheld body composition devices, different methods are used to obtain the data and it is not unexpected that some data will be different on the Index S2. 

    The Index S2 uses more of the impedance data rather than relying more heavily on a BMI value. We believe that this creates a more accurate reading of body data compared to BMI charts. The body composition metrics provided by Index S2 compares to known gold standard methods (Dexa scan, Bod Pod, etc.) favorably on average. 

     

    To get the most accurate view of your body composition date overtime and determine if you are trending in the right direction compared to your fitness/wellness goals we encourage customers to use the recommendations in this FAQ link:

     

    Why Is My Body Composition Data Different When Compared to other Tests or Scales?

     

    Like other products, the scale has an accuracy tolerance, but we meet or exceed standards for body weight scales. If you are seeing large fluctuations in the metrics displayed on the Index S2, when taking a measurement at around the same time of day and under similar conditions noted in the above FAQ, we recommend contacting our Support teams directly so that we investigate the specific reports. 

  • 0 over 3 years ago in reply to Garmin-AmberD

    I don't think so...I'm a Pro athlete 65kg weight, 175cm tall and with 1st Smart Scale 7/9max % BF...now with SS S2 is 20/22 % BF and other data are in line as usual...so....there's something wrong!!!!!!

    Solve the prob, no excuses!!!!

  • 0 over 3 years ago in reply to Garmin-AmberD

    Thanks Amber for replying to this topic after I send you a message about this. So if I understand correct, you're just saying that all is well? You don't have to take back scales, its happening for each and every scale on the market. Its an software issue. And its definitely not meeting expectations let alone improve on it. It very often differs 10%+ from reality - this is not a users fault, its not a hardware fault, its a software issue. In the meantime I just deactivated the percentage widget from the scale because it just demotivates and I'll measure fat percentage with an old school fat scalp. But why not follow up with your tech department and see whats up and keep us updated? There's obviously an issue here.

  • 0 over 3 years ago in reply to Jan

    Hey! After reading through recent post, I have followed up today with my team and once I receive an update, I will update this thread! 

  • 0 over 3 years ago in reply to Jan

    Actually what Amber is saying is they are "working as designed" ie there is a design fault with their body composition algorithm.

    what i find interesting is she specifically says "The Index S2 uses more of the impedance data rather than relying more heavily on a BMI value". I think what most people here are seeing is a body fat % more in line with a BMI based calculation as compared to previous scales.

    it seems clear to me that these scales do not correctly calculate BF for leaner, athletic body types. i'm not quite sure why garmin can't understand that. from there, it should be an easy software based fix - simply alter the calculation more based on high activity class settings.

  • 0 over 3 years ago in reply to Garmin-AmberD

    ...please let me know in person or by mail too. Thanx

    Bye

  • 0 over 3 years ago in reply to Garmin-AmberD

    Please let me know in pvt or by mail too.

    Thanx 

    Bye

  • 0 over 3 years ago in reply to Garmin-AmberD
    Garmin-AmberD said:
    The Index S2 uses more of the impedance data rather than relying more heavily on a BMI value. We believe that this creates a more accurate reading of body data compared to BMI charts. 

    In this case something seriously went wrong not just in the engineering, but in the review process as well.

    In our family there we have members with vastly different body compositions, there is a skinny one and there is someone with obviously very high body fat.

    BF:
    S1: skinny 7%, obese 30%
    S2: skinny 22%, obese 23%

    So you are saying it relies more on the impedance data? Thinking
    Then it proves that the impedance module is not working at all.