Body Fat % on Index S2 Smart Scale Seems Inaccurate

OK that is an option.

Next problem ahead, checked whether the BC-1500 is still available (I don't have one at home), found out it is no longer sold in some countries including Switzerland, where I live (take it it's because of the "IRONMAN" branding...).

The local Tanita representative only sells the newer models that work with Tanita's own app. 

Anyone knows how to get the data into GC, from there?

Cheers 

I got my BC-1000 from E-Bay. took a few weeks but I've been using it for circa 3 years now.

The BC-1500 seems a little rarer.

As you could pick up a BC-1000 for about 75 CHF perhaps you could buy one and use that till you can find a BC-1500 at a sensible price?

https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=tanita+%28+bc-1500+%2C+bc-1000+%29&_sacat=0&LH_TitleDesc=0&LH_PrefLoc=6&_fsrp=1

GL

Nice to know that some of you are looking at other scales.
Only ... rather of topic no?
I want a solution for my Garmin Scale in Garmin Connect!!!

I’ve seen enough from reading these tens of pages of forum posts. Unfortunately, I am returning the Index S2 “Smart” Scale and will look for an alternative. Disappointed is an understatement. I, too, have been a fan of the Garmin ecosystem - I have an Edge 530, 510, Forerunner 745, speed, cadence and HR sensors. Garmin really screwed this one up, and should probably fire (if they haven’t already) its Product Manager.

You're right.

Question: (unlikely, but) anyone around here happens to have two Index S2? Showing similar readings, or disagree? Both far off, or different?

Just wonder if that is a hardware problem of some production batches, factory calibration issue, whatever.

If this thing actually measures anything other that just weight.

Maybe it's just my experience but until now I've always been offered reasonable solutions from Garmin support, including replacing out of warranty equipment for free, by e.g. offering a new F6 sap/ti for a bricked Chronos, or even by a newer generation product like a HRM pro for a kaputt HRM run. 

Also, they do have upgrade paths like for the Vector 3 that works flawlessly since installed in the Rally XC200 upgrade kit.

Ok one could argue that the Vector 3 was a faulty design, but hey, it worked well for most, received better designed parts for free for those who wished, and received SPD etc compatibility years after  market introduction.

But Chronos, Vector etc are higher priced than something like the S2, so I fear it is not going to get the same level of customer support as a "premium" product would.

Which would be painful, of course.

i agree to an extent, however it is pretty damn premium priced for a set of scales that do nothing fancy other than sync to garmin connect

many of us have returned scales and got a replacement to check - nothing changes so i'm pretty confident it is not a hardware issue at all.

giving garmin the benefit of the doubt, i would say they maybe do measure something, but clearly garmin have little confidence in the measurements and instead rely heavily on population averages, categorised by your other statistics, so you get the average population body composition of someone your weight, height and age and activity level. most people turn to fat as they get older so it adjusts with age. if you match the norm, then they give you the norm figures which are more or less accurate (but of minimal value). if you happen to be say, older but still lean and muscled then they get it completely wrong. 

garmin even tacitly acknowledge this - i can't find it now but their claim is something like "on average across test subjects, the body composition is correct" - well duh, its easy to get the average correct if you have population data from real tests.

the upside to this is that it seems likely to be a software issue and hence easily fixed. i suspect garmin tried to do something good and improve the interpretation of the impedence data based on theese averages. unfortunately they put too much emphasis on age and not enough on activity level since i think many of those having major issues are the older athletes, though i have seen some major discrepancies in overweight people too.

to be clear, i don't regard the people who get 25%BF when they are actually 20% to be a major discrepancy (as long as it tracks changes which i'm not sure it does), its the people who get 15 when actually 8 or 20 when actually 30 who are well outside the bounds of reasonable expected accuracy from such a device.