Bodyfat % testing, which is accurate which is not

[michael]

I prefer the Skulpt, but it's a mean little bastard.

[DirtyRed]

After shopping for an impedance-measuring scale, I decided not to buy one.

I know how my composition is changing, because I track weight, e1rms, and waist size. The scale's BF% could tell me the same thing, with added noise due to varying hydration.

I already know how not-pretty my belly is, from looking in the mirror. Putting a number on it (15% or 25% or whatever) doesn't seem to add any useful information.

Body fat percentage might be the most useless thing people obsess about. It's HIGHLY impractical to measure accurately, and to any extent it's useful, other measurements and stats are just as or more useful.

I could see how, for a weight classed competitor during some offseason training, one might want to keep an eye on making weight gained less pure fat and more useful tissue, and generally not letting body fat get out of control regardless. But even for that, the exact level of body fat doesn't matter as much as the relative level between two points in time, and for that it only matters that whatever method one uses to measure it measures it consistently within the individual, not accurately across multiple individuals. So the hideously inaccurate circumference tests might be just as useful as any other.

AND you could still infer these things from other variables (performance in the gym, weight gain, looking in a mirror, etc).

[cwd]

One situation where having a bodyfat % number would be handy is an argument with your doctor, if you are obese according to BMI.
Or with your officer, in a military service where they have BMI targets.