Body fat %: what is realistic maintenance?
loriflask
Posts: 13 Member
I am a 35 y/o woman, active 4-5 days/week. My body fat is around 15-16%. According to body fat scales, that's great! But I feel like I need to lose fat in spot areas, which means I need to lose BF overall. Is below 16% a sustainable BF%?
When I was cardio junky, my body fat stayed around 12-13%. Since switching my routine to HIIT and heavy lifting a few years ago (and of course changing my diet to higher cals and adding back in quality carbs) , I am pleased with my body composition change. My weight is up about 15lbs, and so is body fat at 15-16%. Did I overshoot calories to end up with higher BF%?
I want to keep my muscle mass, but still lose a few % of overall bf. Thoughts?
When I was cardio junky, my body fat stayed around 12-13%. Since switching my routine to HIIT and heavy lifting a few years ago (and of course changing my diet to higher cals and adding back in quality carbs) , I am pleased with my body composition change. My weight is up about 15lbs, and so is body fat at 15-16%. Did I overshoot calories to end up with higher BF%?
I want to keep my muscle mass, but still lose a few % of overall bf. Thoughts?
1
Replies
-
15-16% bf for a woman is very lean. Either a)your bf % is miscalculated, or b)you have a bit of a distorted body image19
-
15-16% is super lean for a female... like stage competitor or athlete lean... much below that are you would be under fat which isn't healthy.6
-
Keep in mind, those body fat scales are not very accurate. If you still feel like you have quite a bit of fat to lose at 15-16%, either the reading is not right or you lack the muscle base to make it happen. Maybe if you post a picture ?
Both of these women are 15%, however the one on the right is lacks muscle mass and is likely underweight (more fashion model) compared to the one on the left.
Regardless of what your BF% actually is, if you still want to reduce fat but are happy with your stats, I would recomp.. eat at maintenance and continue to lift weights. Over time you can increase muscle and reduce fat. Keep in mind it is not a quick process, it can take months to years for some people.
8 -
.1
-
Yesterday, my body fat was measured hydrostatically as 14.3%. Minutes later, using my scale with 4-point impedance detection, my body fat was measured at 10.1%. I don't know if the impedance device is wrong by 4.2 points or 40%, but I do know that the impedance device is wrong. There exist online photographic comparisons of males and females sorted by body fat ranges. The image I see in the mirror much more resembles the 15% fellows than the 10% guys. Your jpg is not of a 15% woman, but closer to 25%. Get hydrostatically tested before you undertake any drastic calorie-cutting plan. Mine cost $49.7
-
All body fat analysis tools are actually estimation devices which are measuring something other than body fat and using those measurements to estimate what it thinks your body fat percentage is.
And each of these methods has an associated margin of error with it.
Even the methods known to be the "most accurate" have somewhere around a 3-5% margin of error in individuals which is quite high when you think about it.
Having said all of that, I think the reality is that you've got only a few things to consider to answer your question as to what is realistic to maintain:
1) Is your body-fat having a negative impact on the quality of your life?
2) Is it too difficult to do the things you need to do in order to maintain that bodyfat?
3) Is your health being compromised due to your body-fat?
If you answered yes to any of those then it's probably not realistic or desirable.4 -
My thoughts are you seem to be comparing typical body fat numbers for fit /athletic / slim men rather than those for women.
Think either your measuring device or your expectations are a bit off.
2 -
My thoughts are that you wouldn't want to "lose fat in spot areas" if you were truly that lean.
Anything below 18% bodyfat for women and we're talking competition levels of bodyfat. We're talking visible striations in all muscles. Hell, most women lose their period and/or have hormonal repercussions of staying this lean for too long.
My guess is that whatever method you're using to measure your body fat is just plain wrong.
To answer your main question, I think anywhere in the low 20's is reasonable for women to maintain long term without any poor health consequences.8 -
rainbowbow wrote: »My thoughts are that you wouldn't want to "lose fat in spot areas" if you were truly that lean.
Anything below 18% bodyfat for women and we're talking competition levels of bodyfat. We're talking visible striations in all muscles. Hell, most women lose their period and/or have hormonal repercussions of staying this lean for too long.
My guess is that whatever method you're using to measure your body fat is just plain wrong.
To answer your main question, I think anywhere in the low 20's is reasonable for women to maintain long term without any poor health consequences.
I don't see visible striations in the picture on the right up above. I think many people think of competitive bodybuilders when they think of what women look like at that BF%. But she may not have that much muscle base. Or she may, we haven't seen any pictures. But I agree with you that 18-low 20's is probably a pretty attainable maintenance level depending on preference and lifestyle.1 -
mom23mangos wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »My thoughts are that you wouldn't want to "lose fat in spot areas" if you were truly that lean.
Anything below 18% bodyfat for women and we're talking competition levels of bodyfat. We're talking visible striations in all muscles. Hell, most women lose their period and/or have hormonal repercussions of staying this lean for too long.
My guess is that whatever method you're using to measure your body fat is just plain wrong.
To answer your main question, I think anywhere in the low 20's is reasonable for women to maintain long term without any poor health consequences.
I don't see visible striations in the picture on the right up above. I think many people think of competitive bodybuilders when they think of what women look like at that BF%. But she may not have that much muscle base. Or she may, we haven't seen any pictures. But I agree with you that 18-low 20's is probably a pretty attainable maintenance level depending on preference and lifestyle.
That's because the image above was created by someone online and isn't accurate. I'm sure you've also seen the other "body fat" visual charts, namely this one here:
I've spoken with the creator of this chart "Built Lean" who admitted they googled images and put them up there (without permission i might add form the original photographers) based on what they "think" someone of that bodyfat looks like.
Unfortunately, we don't have a dexa scan or any actual data on these women in the aforementioned photo.
Here's a woman without a "heavy" muscular base at 21% body fat according to a DEXA.
In any case, It doesn't matter the level of muscle base; a woman with 16% body fat isn't going to have "problem areas". This is very lean; you can use the above image as a reference for that.
9 -
mom23mangos wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »My thoughts are that you wouldn't want to "lose fat in spot areas" if you were truly that lean.
Anything below 18% bodyfat for women and we're talking competition levels of bodyfat. We're talking visible striations in all muscles. Hell, most women lose their period and/or have hormonal repercussions of staying this lean for too long.
My guess is that whatever method you're using to measure your body fat is just plain wrong.
To answer your main question, I think anywhere in the low 20's is reasonable for women to maintain long term without any poor health consequences.
I don't see visible striations in the picture on the right up above. I think many people think of competitive bodybuilders when they think of what women look like at that BF%. But she may not have that much muscle base. Or she may, we haven't seen any pictures. But I agree with you that 18-low 20's is probably a pretty attainable maintenance level depending on preference and lifestyle.
Yea that photo on the right is most likely a woman who is close to or underweight. She has very little fat on her body and her LBM is made up mostly of skeletal, organ tissue and fluid and little muscle.1 -
I agree that a lot of the scales and trackers estimate, nothing is 100%. However, is you feel you want to change something or lean out, then work toward that goal. Sounds like you have done a fantastic job. 16% to maintain sounds low to me to be at long term, however I am thinking in terms of my body type. Everyone is different.2
-
I was at 16% body fat pre bulk and my thighs still had fat while my upper half was bone. So yes you can be at 16% total body fat and have problem areas. If we cut me in half my upper was sub 10% body fat while my lower was over 20%. As women our body holds fat in areas and not always where we want them to so I totally get what you mean. I am very pear shaped and uneven ascetically.
And yes i know % due to dexa scan so it is accurate. I go back in 2 weeks now a follow up. Dexa also includes sub fat near organs and everything else too so it will always be higher then calipers and other methods for fat %.
My goal is to eventually maintain an even distribution as close to 15-16% body fat, and then cut down near 12% for competitions. (that is only about a 5lb variance though at that point)
To more of your questions, I would keep lifting. Maybe cut a few pounds because I said above at the lower body fat a few pounds of fat is a big difference. It is not quick at all though.4 -
You'll always have areas you don't like- stop looking at the details so much and look at your body as a whole. Part of your problem might be that you are just used to being smaller, or looking at small, model-type bodies, or you look at photoshopped athletes and expect your body to look like that. Look at less media and watch as many real-life badass athletes as possible. If they aren't spray-tanned and 22 they will still have uneven areas, stretch marks, loose skin, etc.
If you are using a scale to get bf% it's probably wrong- see if you can get a hydrostatic or dexa if you like using bodyfat% as a motivator. 15% may be fine. I also gained about 10 lb doing lifting and HIIT. My last 2 bodyfat tests (hydrostatic) are at 16-17% and I don't look like a bodybuilder or competitor- I have some veins but no striations and a barely visible hint of a two-pack. I think a woman with little in the way of breasts can come in at a lower percent and still have enough fat. I don't have to do anything extreme to stay at this level.
A good maintenance is one where it fits with your lifestyle and goals. How is your energy? Your skin, hair, and cycle? Sleep? Performance at the gym? Can you have a social life or is food/fitness everything?
7 -
sunflowerhippi wrote: »I was at 16% body fat pre bulk and my thighs still had fat while my upper half was bone. So yes you can be at 16% total body fat and have problem areas. If we cut me in half my upper was sub 10% body fat while my lower was over 20%. As women our body holds fat in areas and not always where we want them to so I totally get what you mean. I am very pear shaped and uneven ascetically.
And yes i know % due to dexa scan so it is accurate. I go back in 2 weeks now a follow up. Dexa also includes sub fat near organs and everything else too so it will always be higher then calipers and other methods for fat %.
My goal is to eventually maintain an even distribution as close to 15-16% body fat, and then cut down near 12% for competitions. (that is only about a 5lb variance though at that point)
To more of your questions, I would keep lifting. Maybe cut a few pounds because I said above at the lower body fat a few pounds of fat is a big difference. It is not quick at all though.
Thank you @sunflowerhippi. I completely agree that a woman with 16% BF can very well have problem areas. You can look at the pics in my profile. They are ~15-16% BF as verified by Bodpod and DEXA. My legs show no definition whatsoever. I'm like sunflowerhippie, and and have very little fat above the waist. Gynoid/Adenoid fat was 8.5%/25.3%.
To the OP, scale percentages were slightly lower. If you are concerned about going too low for hormonal purposes, invest in a DEXA or hydrostatic test. You might have to do rounds of bulk/cut like Sunflowerhippie if you want a more uniform appearance. Or you can just accept you will likely always have problem areas like me.5 -
Helpful info in here. Thanks!0
-
rainbowbow wrote: »mom23mangos wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »My thoughts are that you wouldn't want to "lose fat in spot areas" if you were truly that lean.
Anything below 18% bodyfat for women and we're talking competition levels of bodyfat. We're talking visible striations in all muscles. Hell, most women lose their period and/or have hormonal repercussions of staying this lean for too long.
My guess is that whatever method you're using to measure your body fat is just plain wrong.
To answer your main question, I think anywhere in the low 20's is reasonable for women to maintain long term without any poor health consequences.
I don't see visible striations in the picture on the right up above. I think many people think of competitive bodybuilders when they think of what women look like at that BF%. But she may not have that much muscle base. Or she may, we haven't seen any pictures. But I agree with you that 18-low 20's is probably a pretty attainable maintenance level depending on preference and lifestyle.
That's because the image above was created by someone online and isn't accurate. I'm sure you've also seen the other "body fat" visual charts, namely this one here:
I've spoken with the creator of this chart "Built Lean" who admitted they googled images and put them up there (without permission i might add form the original photographers) based on what they "think" someone of that bodyfat looks like.
Unfortunately, we don't have a dexa scan or any actual data on these women in the aforementioned photo.
Here's a woman without a "heavy" muscular base at 21% body fat according to a DEXA.
In any case, It doesn't matter the level of muscle base; a woman with 16% body fat isn't going to have "problem areas". This is very lean; you can use the above image as a reference for that.
Im a guy and 30% looks the best to me. Guess it depends how you carry your weight.3 -
That bf% chart above has never been of any help to me. I'm a bit of that picture, and a bit of another one and maybe one part of me resembles yet another one.8
-
ItsBetterThisWay wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »mom23mangos wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »My thoughts are that you wouldn't want to "lose fat in spot areas" if you were truly that lean.
Anything below 18% bodyfat for women and we're talking competition levels of bodyfat. We're talking visible striations in all muscles. Hell, most women lose their period and/or have hormonal repercussions of staying this lean for too long.
My guess is that whatever method you're using to measure your body fat is just plain wrong.
To answer your main question, I think anywhere in the low 20's is reasonable for women to maintain long term without any poor health consequences.
I don't see visible striations in the picture on the right up above. I think many people think of competitive bodybuilders when they think of what women look like at that BF%. But she may not have that much muscle base. Or she may, we haven't seen any pictures. But I agree with you that 18-low 20's is probably a pretty attainable maintenance level depending on preference and lifestyle.
That's because the image above was created by someone online and isn't accurate. I'm sure you've also seen the other "body fat" visual charts, namely this one here:
I've spoken with the creator of this chart "Built Lean" who admitted they googled images and put them up there (without permission i might add form the original photographers) based on what they "think" someone of that bodyfat looks like.
Unfortunately, we don't have a dexa scan or any actual data on these women in the aforementioned photo.
Here's a woman without a "heavy" muscular base at 21% body fat according to a DEXA.
In any case, It doesn't matter the level of muscle base; a woman with 16% body fat isn't going to have "problem areas". This is very lean; you can use the above image as a reference for that.
Im a guy and 30% looks the best to me. Guess it depends how you carry your weight.
I agree that as a woman I'd rather look like that than the others, mainly because they don't have much curves lol but she looks lower than 30% to me? So idk. it's the internet - it could be a bit off.3 -
.......Both of these women are 15%, however the one on the right is lacks muscle mass and is likely underweight (more fashion model) compared to the one on the left.
Regardless of what your BF% actually is, if you still want to reduce fat but are happy with your stats, I would recomp.. eat at maintenance and continue to lift weights. Over time you can increase muscle and reduce fat. Keep in mind it is not a quick process, it can take months to years for some people.
LOL, the woman on the right doesn't "lack muscle", it's the woman on the left who has an above average level of muscle. That's what a typical bodybuilder figure competitors looks like and they represent less than 1% of the population. Using her as the standard and concluding that the girl on the right lacks muscle or is underweight, is ridiculous. In fact, the girl on the right looks like a normal, healthy slim girl at the low end of normal bmi.
12 -
I didn't make that chart. Is the girl on the right really 15% ? Probably not.. but it's there to prove a point and usually someone who is 15% without a lot of muscle will be just about underweight. Again, most runway models are.. that is how they are built. What is wrong with saying she doesn't have a lot of muscle? I didn't say that was a bad thing. And I did not say the one on the left is standard, my point was you can look completely different even though you have the same bodyfat % depending on your muscle mass. Sorry if you got offended.8
-
OP - taking your post at face value... it sounds like you've made some good progress in recent years. I would continue on that path. Rather than drop weight/fat, I'd consider adding some additional muscle. With 10 more lbs of muscle on your frame, your 15% body fat will probably look very different. You could do that through bulk/cut cycles or a long, slow recomp... but in either case, the end result should be pretty similar.
Obviously it's all personal preference, so take this for what it's worth.1 -
@loriflask are you ever going to come back to your thread?
4 -
0
-
I don't trust the scales so I went to one of those places where they dunk you (Fitness Wave, for all the CA people). You also meet with a nutritionist to look over your results and to address any issues you may have. I was actually happy with my results and didn't ask too many questions but they seemed like they knew what they were doing, fairly educated, didn't try to sell me anything like shakes, powders, or vitamins. I don't know if that is something you could try.1
-
Christine_72 wrote: »That bf% chart above has never been of any help to me. I'm a bit of that picture, and a bit of another one and maybe one part of me resembles yet another one.
Me, too, for sure!! And I agree the 30% woman in that chart looks great to me (and actually very similar to the 25% pic).1 -
I've spoken to PTs and doctors about body fat, and for a woman 20-33% is healthy, 18% at the least and only if you're fairly muscular. Most female athletes and personal trainers tend to aim for 18-22% which is super lean for a woman! My own body fat is about 16%, and I've been told mine is too low. I'm trying to increase it but it's hard when I'm so active0
-
I've spoken to PTs and doctors about body fat, and for a woman 20-33% is healthy, 18% at the least and only if you're fairly muscular. Most female athletes and personal trainers tend to aim for 18-22% which is super lean for a woman! My own body fat is about 16%, and I've been told mine is too low. I'm trying to increase it but it's hard when I'm so active
Who is telling you your body fat is too low and why? What are your "too low" symptoms? I have heard this before as well, but I know several very athletic women with good energy, regular periods, no signs of hormone imbalances that have low (sub 15%) body fat (hydrostatic tests) and they are fine.1 -
This is totally a personal preference.
I have a very hard time maintaining under 20% with my lifestyle, eating and exercise routine.
To me is not worth the extra work to go lower. So it's not realistic. Another person might be willing to put the extra work, so for that person is realistic.
5
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions