[jose-skulpt]

@biscarch All great questions. Muscle quality (MQ) is a measure of your muscle's strength and definition. Leaner, stronger muscles are characterized by having larger muscle fibers with less fatty tissue infiltrated. MQ correlates strongly to weight-normalized strength and as you exercise and get stronger and leaner, you'll see your MQ go up. At this moment, we can't tease out the differences between different types of muscle fibers, but as we gather more data we believe there is a good chance we will be able to. We think this product will be extremely useful to high-level athletes since it will allow you to optimize your training by quantitatively measuring and tracking the impact of different exercise regiments on your muscles. You'll be able to see when you're plateauing, for example, so you know it's time to incorporate some muscle confusion. We have compared the fat measurements to underwater (hydrostatic) weighing (the gold standard), Bodpods, skinfold calipers and bioimpedance scales and found that our errors were much lower than skinfold calipers and bioimpedance scales by about 3-4x. And on top of that, you get data on individual muscles in a fast, easy, and private way. As far as the availability of "raw" data, we're playing that by ear right now and it will depend on user feedback. We'll certainly consider it if there is a lot of demand. Thanks for all of your interest!

[foobarqux]

> We think this product will be extremely useful to high-level athletes since it will allow you to optimize your training by quantitatively measuring and tracking the impact of different exercise regiments on your muscles. You'll be able to see when you're plateauing, for example, so you know it's time to incorporate some muscle confusion.

You know literally nothing about strength training.

[bcbrown]

Agreed. I would recommend bringing on board someone who's worked as a strength coach, or has some sort of expertise around long-term training regimens. Specifically, "muscle confusion" isn't a real thing. Have you spoken with any high-level athletes?

And it's easy to see if you're plateauing. That's when your performance plateaus. If there's any published research showing that this device has predictive power, that's a different matter. But I imagine that tracking cortisol/testosterone levels over the long term, plus the immediate hormonal response to an exercise stimulus (over the 0-48 hour window), would be much more effective than any sort of impedance-based approach. Plateaus and overtraining are more hormonal than muscular.

[biscarch]

Yea, this is really a bunch of pseudo-speak. I want to see a paper, a formula and access to (my) raw data on the device or this is going to be a glorified bodyfat tester for me.