Bioimpedance and hydration: why the number moves

Photographs under fixed lighting and posture are a genuine record and are the hardest of these to standardise.

Taking bioimpedance and hydration seriously for a moment rather than deflecting: the honest position is that the community has observations and no controlled comparison, and those two things support very different sentences.

Thank you for the correction. I would rather find out here than later.

Coming back to post #20, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

My position on bioimpedance and hydration is current rather than settled. I have revised it once already and I expect to again, so treat it accordingly.

I read the earlier replies on bioimpedance and hydration twice before writing this, because I had assumed the opposite and wanted to be sure I was disagreeing with what was said rather than what I expected.

That is clearer than the version I had in my head. Thank you.

Post #41 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.

Photographs under fixed lighting and posture are a genuine record and are the hardest of these to standardise.

Post #49 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

Percentage body fat is a ratio, so it changes when either component changes. A rising percentage during weight loss is arithmetic before it is physiology.

Adding the measurement that post #64 says would settle it.

Where a facility reports a precision figure for its own machine, that number is more useful than any published average.

It is a small point and it changes the answer, which is an awkward combination.