Directionally Correct but Accurate???
I've used a simple model from Tanita for over 5 years and was as happy as a man with one clock -- I knew exactly what time it was. The added features of the BC554 were irresistable but now I had 2 sources of data and they were not in agreement by a significant amount (e.g. 3% body fat difference on a base of 16%).
The weight measurement is as good as ever: precise accurate and consistent. The best that can be said of the other functions is that they seem to be directionally correct and some are simply 'figures of merit' not measurements at all.
Customer support is surprising. When I asked the inevitable questions via their web site I received a phone call from them. The answers made sense but only reinforce my assessment.
It seems that the algorithms are based on a statistical sample using gender age height and 'athleticism'. If your actual profile is close to the sample population the accuracy is probably pretty good. But as you progress toward 'athletic' and away from the calibration population accuracy declines.
It seems to me that anyone purchasing this model is serious enough about fitness to fall into this 'no man's land'. The other issue is that I would expect some continuity between the measures for 'standard adult' and 'athletic adult'. But there is a chasm! I measured 19% at 'standard' and 9% at 'athletic'. The first is clearly too high and the second is too low. Maybe a calculated average is closer to an accurate reading but that is a serious shortcoming in a top-of-the-line product.
So simpler & cheaper is my recommendation. Accept the idea that you are getting directionally correct numbers that are only accurate if you match the calibration population profile.More detail ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment