Engadget42%

Scientists develop handheld device for measuring when your body is burning fat 50%

By Ian Carlos Campbell26%

7/23/2026, 3:39:08 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Overconfidence Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 34.6% saturation with 122 hits. Analysis detected 832 faulty-reasoning hits from 353 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50% and a BS Rank of 50% (11,052 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 50.50% of the article peer group.

Smart scales and smartwatches often rely on bioelectrical impedance to calculate body fat percentage, a quick, though not necessarily accurate, way to get a sense of the amount of lean mass in your body without having to take multiple measurements. 
Accurately measuring *when* your body is burning fat is a whole other ball game, though, which makes new research into a handheld fat burning measurement device all the more intriguing. 
In a study for the scientific journal Device spotted by *New Scientist*, researchers supervised by Andreas Güntner created a handheld breathalyzer that can detect when your body is burning fat by measuring the amount of acetone in your breath. 
The study measured when the bodies of 12 participants burned fat across a variety of diet and exercise scenarios, and found the breathalyzer closely matched traditional lab results. 
Scientists identify ketosis, the term for when your body is burning fat for energy, by either measuring ketones in your blood or acetone in your breath  both are byproducts of fat being turned into fuel. 
As *New Scientist* notes, acetone tests are usually most accurate in a laboratory setting where things like humidity and breathing patterns can be controlled. 
The researchers in this study got around those limitations by creating a breathalyzer that can filter out excess moisture and contaminants, and using a companion app that can guide the user through the breathing process. 
The app was not only able to identify when users were applying too much or too little pressure, but also help adjust when the breathalyzer collected its sample to make sure the measurement was as close as possible to what would be observed with a blood-based test. 
Nutrion, now the commercial name of the device the researchers used, is similar in concept to an older device called Lumen that aimed to spot fat burning using carbon dioxide rather than acetone. 
In either case, frequent metabolic measurements could be useful in a variety of health settings, from determining whether GLP-1 therapies are effective, to enabling athletes to fine-tune their metabolism. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.9%Ian Carlos Campbell: 2.7%Engadget: 3.1%Confirmation Bias7.9%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.8%Engadget: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.8%Ian Carlos Campbell: 3.4%Engadget: 3.1%Availability Heuristic6.8%This article: 20.7%Ian Carlos Campbell: 1.1%Engadget: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic20.7%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.1%Engadget: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 21.2%Ian Carlos Campbell: 1.1%Engadget: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias21.2%This article: 11.9%Ian Carlos Campbell: 5.9%Engadget: 6.0%Framing Effect11.9%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.9%Engadget: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 9.3%Ian Carlos Campbell: 1.3%Engadget: 0.8%Status Quo Bias9.3%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.1%Engadget: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 21.5%Ian Carlos Campbell: 6.2%Engadget: 4.6%Optimism Bias21.5%This article: 8.5%Ian Carlos Campbell: 2.1%Engadget: 2.2%Pessimism Bias8.5%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 6.9%Engadget: 7.0%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.6%Engadget: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.6%Engadget: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.2%Engadget: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 13.3%Ian Carlos Campbell: 1.1%Engadget: 1.9%Halo Effect13.3%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 1.4%Engadget: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.5%Engadget: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.1%Engadget: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.9%Engadget: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 21.2%Ian Carlos Campbell: 5.2%Engadget: 4.9%Appeal to Authority21.2%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 1.6%Engadget: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.3%Engadget: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 16.1%Ian Carlos Campbell: 4.6%Engadget: 5.3%Hasty Generalization16.1%This article: 9.3%Ian Carlos Campbell: 1.2%Engadget: 0.3%Red Herring9.3%This article: 8.2%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.7%Engadget: 0.9%Bandwagon8.2%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 2.0%Engadget: 3.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.7%Engadget: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 2.0%Engadget: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 1.0%Engadget: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 1.1%Engadget: 2.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 34.6%Ian Carlos Campbell: 3.4%Engadget: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)34.6%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.2%Engadget: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 9.9%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.4%Engadget: 0.2%Special Pleading9.9%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 2.7%Engadget: 2.9%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 1.4%Engadget: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 3.4%Ian Carlos Campbell: 7.2%Engadget: 7.5%Biased Writer Voice3.4%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.9%Engadget: 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.3%Engadget: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 11.6%Ian Carlos Campbell: 3.8%Engadget: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…11.6%

353 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.