Is skinny fat so bad?
Options
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Visceral fat is not fat on your midsection or belly that you can see. Visceral fat is internal fat around the organs. It can't be seen by the naked eye.
It still occupies space and pushes out your abdomen so if you have belly fat, it's a combination of subcutaneous fat and visceral fat.
0 -
Doesn't "skinny fat" apply more to how the fat accumulates on the body as to actual body fat percentage? I'm a 56 year old woman who is 120 lbs. and 31% body fat. I've always had a curvier figure; even at a lower weight, I had a bust and hips. In fact, I've seen many women in better shape than I am, but much more body fat in what my spouse might call "aesthetic" areas -- hips and bust. But I have almost no visceral fat (fat in the midsection), and many of these women have pretty tiny waists. Are these women "skinny fat" or what we might call curvaceous (before that term became a synonym for moderately obese)? There's a lot of talk about being able to diet and strength train a body into a certain shape, but there are also women who can get that muscle definition and lean look much more easily while others still have some curves. Are these curves, which my spouse would say are what make the female form interesting to him, a natural part of being female or just unhealthy "skinny fat" that must be dieted and trained away. On the male side, some males will have love handles or even a pot belly at "normal weight," and that fat is definitely the fat around the internal organs that is so dangerous. I also have some female friends who are "apple shaped" and they and their family members do tend to get cardiovascular conditions earlier.
Women are supposed to have more fat in those "aesthetic" areas, as well as a higher normal percent body fat than men (so we can nourish a pregnancy in lean times). As others have said, skinny fat is more being at a normal weight with a higher than normal body fat percentage.
ETA: normal body fat for women is 25%. Everyone you see on TV and in magazines is less than that, so it makes normal people feel like they are overweight.
0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Visceral fat is not fat on your midsection or belly that you can see. Visceral fat is internal fat around the organs. It can't be seen by the naked eye.
It still occupies space and pushes out your abdomen so if you have belly fat, it's a combination of subcutaneous fat and visceral fat.
Nothing to do with my point, but yes, you would likely have both.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »But you would likely only retain all of those 96 lbs w resistance training of some kind.
Even with resistance training you lose some. My point was that I was left with 96 lb of LBM despite not being particularly muscle-y ever before and having a relatively slight build -- I didn't put on muscle mass while at a deficit, but likely from being fat and having to lug around all that extra weight. I'm sure I had much more when I was at my heaviest, but I didn't do a DEXA back then.
I've only gained and lost twice, but this second time I fit into the same clothes at a higher weight. Speaks to the benefits of retaining LBM to the extent you can, to keep the benefit of the muscle you may have unintentionally built.
Yup, all makes sense.
I think some people who have a lot of scale weight to lose might resent hearing about what they may see as a petty concern. And it s very true that on this board, lots of ppl have vanity goals (nothing wrong w that imo, except when it imposes yet another unreachable standard). And "skinny fat" is used for both the actual medical risk category and the "want to get shredded" goal. And, sometimes ppl who are of normal weight obesity do complain about it for aesthetic vs health reasons (or both).
But normal weight obesity is a real thing. And wanting to lose fat or weight for any of those reasons is valid.
Yeah, it irritates me when it's used incorrectly for just not being an aesthetic ideal (not aiming this at OP, who I think was concerned that there was something unhealthy about her situation when there's not, but the talk that gives rise to that concern). I don't think there's anything wrong with vanity goals (I suppose I am currently pursuing one, although not particularly hard, heh), but thinking you would look better with a bit less fat doesn't make you skinny fat (or "normal weight obese").
I do see that quite often in reference to lifting while losing weight. "You don't want to be skinny fat when you get to goal". While it's obviously true no one wants that, it's also true that unless one has a medical condition or is truly completely sedentary, it's not really a risk most of the time.
0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Visceral fat is not fat on your midsection or belly that you can see. Visceral fat is internal fat around the organs. It can't be seen by the naked eye.
It still occupies space and pushes out your abdomen so if you have belly fat, it's a combination of subcutaneous fat and visceral fat.
Well, you can't really tell -- it's a risk factor suggesting that you may be more likely to have visceral fat than someone who tends to gain weight in other areas, like the hips, thighs, and breasts.
For example, people focus on waist measurement and it IS a risk factor, but some women are going to naturally have less narrow waists without that being related to visceral fat.0 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »But you would likely only retain all of those 96 lbs w resistance training of some kind.
Even with resistance training you lose some. My point was that I was left with 96 lb of LBM despite not being particularly muscle-y ever before and having a relatively slight build -- I didn't put on muscle mass while at a deficit, but likely from being fat and having to lug around all that extra weight. I'm sure I had much more when I was at my heaviest, but I didn't do a DEXA back then.
I've only gained and lost twice, but this second time I fit into the same clothes at a higher weight. Speaks to the benefits of retaining LBM to the extent you can, to keep the benefit of the muscle you may have unintentionally built.
Yup, all makes sense.
I think some people who have a lot of scale weight to lose might resent hearing about what they may see as a petty concern. And it s very true that on this board, lots of ppl have vanity goals (nothing wrong w that imo, except when it imposes yet another unreachable standard). And "skinny fat" is used for both the actual medical risk category and the "want to get shredded" goal. And, sometimes ppl who are of normal weight obesity do complain about it for aesthetic vs health reasons (or both).
But normal weight obesity is a real thing. And wanting to lose fat or weight for any of those reasons is valid.
Yeah, it irritates me when it's used incorrectly for just not being an aesthetic ideal (not aiming this at OP, who I think was concerned that there was something unhealthy about her situation when there's not, but the talk that gives rise to that concern). I don't think there's anything wrong with vanity goals (I suppose I am currently pursuing one, although not particularly hard, heh), but thinking you would look better with a bit less fat doesn't make you skinny fat (or "normal weight obese").
I do see that quite often in reference to lifting while losing weight. "You don't want to be skinny fat when you get to goal". While it's obviously true no one wants that, it's also true that unless one has a medical condition or is truly completely sedentary, it's not really a risk most of the time.
Yeah, I agree. I'd add that it's also a reason not to do an extreme deficit, especially as you get closer to goal.0 -
I'm 45 and I have a minimal workout routine. I look at it this way. I know I'm not going to keep up with some strenuous daily workout routine. So I walk on my treadmill while I watch TV. I have some dumbells that I lift 3 days a week for about 15 min each. That's about it. My weight loss has no relation to my workout routine. If I stopped working out it would make no difference. I would still lose weight. Yes...I might end up being skinny fat but to be honest I really don't care. I just want to weigh less and fit into regular size smaller clothes. I'm not trying to win the best body competition. I'm seriously looking at this as a lifestyle change. What I'm doing now is how I plan on continuing for the rest of my life. I'm eating less. I'm walking more that I did before. I'm lifting some weights to help a little bit with muscle tone. But nothing overly aggressive. There's no point in doing something just to lose weight if you're not going to continue it forever. I'm done with being fat....I'm not gonna gain the weight back. I'm just gonna be a skinnier me and I gaurantee you that its going to be a lot healthier than the 250 pound me. Making better choices overall is what we should all be striving for.
Why would your weight loss not change if you stopped your current workout routine? What makes you so certain of this? Your entire post comes across is a very "Eeyore - oh bother" type of tone to me. Do you push yourself in other areas of your life? I know that what you do doesn't affect me personally, but you posted in a public forum so I feel that is an invitation to express my opinion of it...and my opinion is that I think you should push yourself more.
I think everyone should have the opportunity in their lifetime to realize the physical potential they have. We were each given an amazing body that does so many things for us, so why wouldn't we want to see what we can do with it? If you had a luxury car would you simply let it sit in the garage or would you be waxing it and doing whatever you could to maintain it?
That's just my opinion though. Maybe I expect more from myself than others do. I don't want to settle for mediocrity, I want to push my limits and see what I can do.
I have lots of things I could use as an "excuse" to do less physically, but I don't because I have goals. My kids, my full time desk job, my part time waitressing job, etc, etc....but I still find time to fit my workouts in and prepare my meals in advance. It can be done if you want it badly enough.0 -
Doesn't "skinny fat" apply more to how the fat accumulates on the body as to actual body fat percentage? I'm a 56 year old woman who is 120 lbs. and 31% body fat. I've always had a curvier figure; even at a lower weight, I had a bust and hips. In fact, I've seen many women in better shape than I am, but much more body fat in what my spouse might call "aesthetic" areas -- hips and bust. But I have almost no visceral fat (fat in the midsection), and many of these women have pretty tiny waists. Are these women "skinny fat" or what we might call curvaceous (before that term became a synonym for moderately obese)? There's a lot of talk about being able to diet and strength train a body into a certain shape, but there are also women who can get that muscle definition and lean look much more easily while others still have some curves. Are these curves, which my spouse would say are what make the female form interesting to him, a natural part of being female or just unhealthy "skinny fat" that must be dieted and trained away. On the male side, some males will have love handles or even a pot belly at "normal weight," and that fat is definitely the fat around the internal organs that is so dangerous. I also have some female friends who are "apple shaped" and they and their family members do tend to get cardiovascular conditions earlier.
Women are supposed to have more fat in those "aesthetic" areas, as well as a higher normal percent body fat than men (so we can nourish a pregnancy in lean times). As others have said, skinny fat is more being at a normal weight with a higher than normal body fat percentage.
ETA: normal body fat for women is 25%. Everyone you see on TV and in magazines is less than that, so it makes normal people feel like they are overweight.
I think those %s are really off, the 30% person looks more like close to 40, and the 25% more like 33+0 -
Doesn't "skinny fat" apply more to how the fat accumulates on the body as to actual body fat percentage? I'm a 56 year old woman who is 120 lbs. and 31% body fat. I've always had a curvier figure; even at a lower weight, I had a bust and hips. In fact, I've seen many women in better shape than I am, but much more body fat in what my spouse might call "aesthetic" areas -- hips and bust. But I have almost no visceral fat (fat in the midsection), and many of these women have pretty tiny waists. Are these women "skinny fat" or what we might call curvaceous (before that term became a synonym for moderately obese)? There's a lot of talk about being able to diet and strength train a body into a certain shape, but there are also women who can get that muscle definition and lean look much more easily while others still have some curves. Are these curves, which my spouse would say are what make the female form interesting to him, a natural part of being female or just unhealthy "skinny fat" that must be dieted and trained away. On the male side, some males will have love handles or even a pot belly at "normal weight," and that fat is definitely the fat around the internal organs that is so dangerous. I also have some female friends who are "apple shaped" and they and their family members do tend to get cardiovascular conditions earlier.
Women are supposed to have more fat in those "aesthetic" areas, as well as a higher normal percent body fat than men (so we can nourish a pregnancy in lean times). As others have said, skinny fat is more being at a normal weight with a higher than normal body fat percentage.
ETA: normal body fat for women is 25%. Everyone you see on TV and in magazines is less than that, so it makes normal people feel like they are overweight.
I think those %s are really off, the 30% person looks more like close to 40, and the 25% more like 33+
I agree, they look "off" to my (admittedly) untrained eye.0 -
Somewhere in the middle of the argument about whether 'skinny fat' is a real term or just an insult I stopped reading the thread, but if you are able to run for 30 minutes and regularly walk 5 miles, you are fit enough for overall health purposes, which I think is your goal. Keep doing that. Maybe add in some hills and take in the scenery while you're at it.
I also find lifting weights for its own sake to be super boring. I can do a minimal amount as part of therapy/rehab, but it's never going to be my thing. Instead I'm trying to pick up other hobbies I enjoy that simply require some strength (loading and unloading a bunch of 50lb kayaks and aikido, for example).0 -
Neversettle78 wrote: »That's just my opinion though. Maybe I expect more from myself than others do. I don't want to settle for mediocrity, I want to push my limits and see what I can do.
I have lots of things I could use as an "excuse" to do less physically, but I don't because I have goals. My kids, my full time desk job, my part time waitressing job, etc, etc....but I still find time to fit my workouts in and prepare my meals in advance. It can be done if you want it badly enough.
First of all, she didn't say she doesn't work out. She said she's trying to be realistic about what she will want to keep up for a lifetime. I'm not sure why you feel compelled to be so judgmental.
I don't see her as "making excuses" at all. The fact is that people have different priorities and different things that they enjoy. Currently, mine do include some fitness goals, but I don't think this makes me better or that I expect more of myself than people who are focusing on goals in other areas of life. When I wasn't into fitness I still had goals -- career goals, educational goals (I think it's important to be well-read and to educate one's self, to keep up with current events, etc.). Now, none of this is inconsistent, but people make choices and currently I am probably reading less more challenging literature because I'm spending so much time on athletic things, which is a choice too. The point is that if we are going to shame people for making different choices than you would, why not shame others for what they are not reading or studying (most people know too little about science) or the good works they are not doing, etc. People aren't lesser (and don't not have goals) for having different ideas about how to spend their time.
Also, people likely change over time on these things.0 -
ramepithecus wrote: »if you are able to run for 30 minutes and regularly walk 5 miles, you are fit enough for overall health purposes, which I think is your goal.
I could do this when I most certainly was over-fat.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »ramepithecus wrote: »if you are able to run for 30 minutes and regularly walk 5 miles, you are fit enough for overall health purposes, which I think is your goal.
I could do this when I most certainly was over-fat.
My hubs is still almost 100 lbs. overweight and can do both of these things.0 -
OP, most people do not go to the gym. Most people who are not fat or skinny fat do not go to the gym either. If physical activity is part of your daily life, you do not need to do something more. Just focus on losing the weight.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Neversettle78 wrote: »That's just my opinion though. Maybe I expect more from myself than others do. I don't want to settle for mediocrity, I want to push my limits and see what I can do.
I have lots of things I could use as an "excuse" to do less physically, but I don't because I have goals. My kids, my full time desk job, my part time waitressing job, etc, etc....but I still find time to fit my workouts in and prepare my meals in advance. It can be done if you want it badly enough.
First of all, she didn't say she doesn't work out. She said she's trying to be realistic about what she will want to keep up for a lifetime. I'm not sure why you feel compelled to be so judgmental.
I don't see her as "making excuses" at all. The fact is that people have different priorities and different things that they enjoy. Currently, mine do include some fitness goals, but I don't think this makes me better or that I expect more of myself than people who are focusing on goals in other areas of life. When I wasn't into fitness I still had goals -- career goals, educational goals (I think it's important to be well-read and to educate one's self, to keep up with current events, etc.). Now, none of this is inconsistent, but people make choices and currently I am probably reading less more challenging literature because I'm spending so much time on athletic things, which is a choice too. The point is that if we are going to shame people for making different choices than you would, why not shame others for what they are not reading or studying (most people know too little about science) or the good works they are not doing, etc. People aren't lesser (and don't not have goals) for having different ideas about how to spend their time.
Also, people likely change over time on these things.
- I never stated that anyone does or does not work out.
- Why do you have to choose something and do it for an entire lifetime? Who ever said you had to do that? Certainly not I.
- I am not judgemental, I was stating my opinion. If that is "judgemental" to you then perhaps you should self-analyze.
- I didn't say everyone needed to have the same priorities or things they enjoy. I wasn't specific at all about what anyone should do, because that would be silly.
- I never stated I was "better" than anyone. Ever. I am just a 37 year old mom with a desk job and a waitressing job. No better or worse than anyone else.
- I didn't say non-fitness related goals are any less or more important than fitness ones. That just isn't the topic of discussion in this thread so I didn't mention those.
- I didn't shame anyone, I simply stated my opinion that basically I dislike when people settle for mediocrity. If someone takes offense to that then they must feel it applies to them.
- Again, I didn't say people are lesser for having different ideas about how to spend their time outside of fitness...but that isn't the topic we are discussing.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »ramepithecus wrote: »if you are able to run for 30 minutes and regularly walk 5 miles, you are fit enough for overall health purposes, which I think is your goal.
I could do this when I most certainly was over-fat.
My hubs is still almost 100 lbs. overweight and can do both of these things.
Fantastic. Then you have a much better health profile than someone who is both overweight and can't do those things and possibly better than someone who is thin and can't do those things. Drop the weight to lower your risks even more and you are golden. OP is already planning to lose weight and I assume was not planning to stop doing the exercises she already enjoys in the process.
0 -
Neversettle78 wrote: »I am not judgemental, I was stating my opinion. If that is "judgemental" to you then perhaps you should self-analyze.
You really should own it. Here are some of the things you said (and not about me, remember):Your entire post comes across is a very "Eeyore - oh bother" type of tone to me.my opinion is that I think you should push yourself more.Maybe I expect more from myself than others do. I don't want to settle for mediocrity, I want to push my limits and see what I can do.I have lots of things I could use as an "excuse" to do less physically, but I don't because I have goals.
Among other things, why accuse her of mediocrity because she has different goals (currently, anyway) than you do?0 -
I stand by everything I said. I believe it all to be true for myself. If the term mediocrity threatens you so much then that is your issue. I don't feel like wasting my time arguing with someone who is skipping over my relevant points, as listed in point form a few comments up from this.0
-
Neversettle78 wrote: »I stand by everything I said. I believe it all to be true for myself. If the term mediocrity threatens you so much then that is your issue. I don't feel like wasting my time arguing with someone who is skipping over my relevant points, as listed in point form a few comments up from this.
Everyone settles for mediocrity in the eyes of others. It's impossible to excel at everything and people have their own opinions of what is most important. It's nice that you've found something important to you.0 -
OK in all honesty, I'm aiming for skinny fat right now. Is that such a bad idea? It's better than fat fat surely?
To put things in context: I've been on here before, a few years ago. I lost a lot of weight, (just over 4 stone/approx 65lb) and got A LOT fitter. Then, like many, I thought "I've got this now", stopped logging and gained 2 stone back! However, I didn't return to the unfit me - although I don't do a specific exercise regime any more, I hit 10k steps easily every day, can run for 20-30 mins straight and can lift the heavy stuff that I need to around the house/at work:)
I want to be slimmer to be/stay healthy. I'm too old to care that much about the way I look TBH! (although looking nice is always nice, obviously). I need to lose 2 stone to get back into "normal" BMI but otherwise I am pretty healthy. I tried lots of different exercises last time, all worked for a period of time, then I got bored/finished/stopped so I keep healthy through daily routines (I cycle to work, walk to the shops etc) which obviously isn't putting any "overload" on my muscles so isn't making me fitter/stronger etc so I guess, when this weight goes, I will be skinny fat unless I find the time/money/interest to start going to the gym again, which is unlikely in the near future.....
opinions (expressed politely) of all sorts welcome.....
From your post it does sound like you carry sufficient muscle for daily activity function. Ultimately, you're the only one who can decide what level of muscle tone/fitness you want for yourself.
I looked at your age and my one caution would be that you may find yourself losing muscle (and functional ability) with peri-menopause and more drastically in menopause. From my experience, I'd say it would be preferable to build up a bit of lean muscle reserve at age 42 before your hormones take a nosedive -- I didn't, and have a bit of regret about that, as it's much more difficult to replace what's been lost now.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 983 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions