Welp, I have no response. It's like when my doctor says chocolate and peanut butter have been proven not to cause acne, and then I breakout every time I have them. You win?
Not sure what I said to bring that on, wasn't aware it was a competition, nor was I trying to prove anyone "wrong". The problem with anecdotes is they're just that, anecdotes. I was thinking whilst I was half dying on the turbo trainer then that you could very well be seeing the numbers you're seeing and them still be completely out. For example, lets assume your first number is right (we have nothing to cross check it with, but lets make the assumption)...
Week 1- 11.5
Then take into consideration from that point you could be experiencing a very mild error.
Week 2 - 11.1 vs potential actual of 11.5
Week 3 - 10.6 vs potential actual of 11.0
Week 4 - 10.5 vs potential actual of 11.3
It's very unlikely you'd be able to see the difference visually between all of those numbers, but you'd still be assuming the numbers are correct (again, though you have no way of checking them). After four weeks you're seeing a potential error of less than 1%, for others it could be anywhere up to 4%.
In the worst case you might see the numbers dropping and be happy, but in reality you could be gaining body fat. Or vice versa, but you think you're making no progress at all.
I think more than anything, the point I'm trying to get across is that it's fine to look at the numbers and have a general belief that it's reflecting reality, but (and especially within such a small range) without any method of validation, the numbers don't really have much worth.
