Interesting thought about the scale...

**gbrice75** · 11-17-2010, 05:40 PM

Let me correct myself and say interesting TO ME, because maybe this is obvious to other people and i'm just a moron!

There's always this debate about whether the scale is a useful tool to help measure progress, regardless of the goal. We all know that weight can fluctuate several pounds within a single day - due to water, food, and other factors.

Doesn't it make sense that the lowest number you get is closest to your true weight? In other words, if within a 2 day period I weigh myself 4 times and I get 191, 189, 188, 190 - can't I ascertain that 188 is the closest to my real weight?

We know that weight can be added (by food intake and water/water retention like I mentioned above), giving the impression of being heavier. But what could cause your weight to drop other then the emptying of food and water? (obviously potential fat and/or LBM loss are already factored) Nothing I can think of, so the lowest number MUST be your real weight, or close to it. Is this faulty logic?

**stack_it** · 11-17-2010, 06:13 PM

To me it's best to weigh yourself when you wake up before you eat or drink anything. I've seen pretty consistent numbers this way.

**gbrice75** · 11-17-2010, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by stack_it

To me it's best to weigh yourself when you wake up before you eat or drink anything. I've seen pretty consistent numbers this way.

True - and this is what I always do. People doing this generally do it once a week though - if it were done every day, chances it would fluctuate a bit more, but not by much if the diet was consistent. Still though, doesn't it make sense to assume the lowest reading you get is most accurate?

**stack_it** · 11-17-2010, 06:26 PM

Yeah I would say the lowest number would be the most accurate. The other numbers are just ego boosters. I've weighed 4lbs heavier after an hour workout lol.

**tbody66** · 11-17-2010, 06:46 PM

What about barometric pressure, altitude, sleep position. The point isn't the accuracy, the point is what is it relevant too? Really, GB, if you weighed 191 and everybody, even the blonde at spin class, just went on and on about how smokin' hot you looked, but at 188 people didn't say anything, what would it matter. Just pick the one you like the best, put that on your Driver's License, and quote it to all who ask!

**Damienm05** · 11-17-2010, 09:16 PM

Originally Posted by tbody66

What about barometric pressure, altitude, sleep position. The point isn't the accuracy, the point is what is it relevant too? Really, GB, if you weighed 191 and everybody, even the blonde at spin class, just went on and on about how smokin' hot you looked, but at 188 people didn't say anything, what would it matter. Just pick the one you like the best, put that on your Driver's License, and quote it to all who ask!

Haha, good post.

But yes, that's always been my logic. I've always taken the lower number, provided it hasn't been long at all between weigh-ins and my diet's been consistent.

**A010011000111** · 11-17-2010, 11:02 PM

i recently realized how much my weight can fluctuate in a day.... i went up 4+ lbs one day and i realized just how much water contributes to your weight. so my rule of thumb is to weigh myself in the morning, AFTER shit and piss!!!

**gbrice75** · 11-18-2010, 01:33 PM

lol @ Tbody, lol @ A01010101010101010111101001010101010-100101010101010 =)

**SergeantCarbs** · 11-18-2010, 01:42 PM

I get pretty consistent results weighing when I first wake up. I do check daily, more so just out of habit and to see if there did happen to be any spikes throughout the week. I also feel the tape measure is more important then the scale (luv my MyoTape). I would rather see a 1/4 - 1/2" reduction in my waist then 1-2 lb loss on the scale.

**tbody66** · 11-18-2010, 08:58 PM

I haven't weighed at all for the whole month, and I'm not stressed. I am losing inches, even a little off my arms, but I know I look more ripped then ever and that's the point, so I'm not stressin'.

**Twist** · 11-18-2010, 09:54 PM

I think way too much thought is going into this. First of all, what is your "real weight"? I mean the lower number means you are holding less water, food, waste etc... But muscle is 70% water so you might have lost muscle too. Or maybe you are dehydrated. If somebody dehydrates their body for a contest are they now the closest to their real weight than they have ever been? In fact I could argue that when you have a reasonable amount of food and water in you, then you are closest to your real weight. How often are we walking around with an empty stomach and bladder? 5-10 minutes after waking? More if you do cardio I guess.

The point is that a scale is used only to help gauge and understand your body. It will, in no way, help you attain your goals - unless you are motivated by it. Someone could use no scale, no pictures, no tape measurer, and still make great progress. I rarely take pictures, rarely use a tape measurer, and only step on the scale because its sitting in my bathroom and takes no effort on my part. But I can still make progress in body recomposition. Nobody has to use a scale, but when a resource is right under your nose, it would be foolish not to take advantage of this.

Guess I just put more thought into it than you guys....

**tbody66** · 11-18-2010, 10:53 PM

Originally Posted by Twist

I think way too much thought is going into this. First of all, what is your "real weight"? I mean the lower number means you are holding less water, food, waste etc... But muscle is 70% water so you might have lost muscle too. Or maybe you are dehydrated. If somebody dehydrates their body for a contest are they now the closest to their real weight than they have ever been? In fact I could argue that when you have a reasonable amount of food and water in you, then you are closest to your real weight. How often are we walking around with an empty stomach and bladder? 5-10 minutes after waking? More if you do cardio I guess.

The point is that a scale is used only to help gauge and understand your body. It will, in no way, help you attain your goals - unless you are motivated by it. Someone could use no scale, no pictures, no tape measurer, and still make great progress. I rarely take pictures, rarely use a tape measurer, and only step on the scale because its sitting in my bathroom and takes no effort on my part. But I can still make progress in body recomposition. Nobody has to use a scale, but when a resource is right under your nose, it would be foolish not to take advantage of this.

Guess I just put more thought into it than you guys....

Yes, you do.

It is helpful to keep fights fair when you step in a ring, a cage or on a mat. But Manny "Pacman" Pacquiao doesn't care about weight dis-advantage too much either.

**gbrice75** · 11-19-2010, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by Twist

I think way too much thought is going into this. First of all, what is your "real weight"? I mean the lower number means you are holding less water, food, waste etc... But muscle is 70% water so you might have lost muscle too. Or maybe you are dehydrated. If somebody dehydrates their body for a contest are they now the closest to their real weight than they have ever been? In fact I could argue that when you have a reasonable amount of food and water in you, then you are closest to your real weight. How often are we walking around with an empty stomach and bladder? 5-10 minutes after waking? More if you do cardio I guess.

The point is that a scale is used only to help gauge and understand your body. It will, in no way, help you attain your goals - unless you are motivated by it. Someone could use no scale, no pictures, no tape measurer, and still make great progress. I rarely take pictures, rarely use a tape measurer, and only step on the scale because its sitting in my bathroom and takes no effort on my part. But I can still make progress in body recomposition. Nobody has to use a scale, but when a resource is right under your nose, it would be foolish not to take advantage of this.

Guess I just put more thought into it than you guys....

THIS is exactly what I was looking for... a legitimate argument as to why my theory could be wrong. You are correct - we do not walk around (generally speaking) depleted of food and water, so the lowest isn't necessarily always the 'truest'.

Perfect, case closed, for me! =)