Confused about body fat

worldofalice

At somewhere in between 5"3 and 5"4, I currently weight about 48 kilos, putting me just inside the healthy range. However my body fat is at 17.7% according the the machine at my gym (I had just finished a workout and had breakfast so not sure if this makes the results look lower too) While I understand this is inside the "athletic" range, it seems quite high considering my relatively low weight. I lift weights 4x a week, moderate cardio 3x and am trying my best to gain muscle although it seems to be an incredibly dlow process and I'm not sure how much I've achieved in 2 months! I guess what I'm asking is - am I right to think that my body fat is quite high, relative to my weight? I wasn't worried until I saw a couple of girls about the same size as me talking about how their body fat was 13%.

AJ_G

If you used an electrical impedance body fat testing scale or machine, don't trust it. Those machines are just about the most inaccurate method of testing body fat that there is.

Sued0nim

worldofalice wrote: »

At somewhere in between 5"3 and 5"4, I currently weight about 48 kilos, putting me just inside the healthy range. However my body fat is at 17.7% according the the machine at my gym (I had just finished a workout and had breakfast so not sure if this makes the results look lower too) While I understand this is inside the "athletic" range, it seems quite high considering my relatively low weight. I lift weights 4x a week, moderate cardio 3x and am trying my best to gain muscle although it seems to be an incredibly dlow process and I'm not sure how much I've achieved in 2 months! I guess what I'm asking is - am I right to think that my body fat is quite high, relative to my weight? I wasn't worried until I saw a couple of girls about the same size as me talking about how their body fat was 13%.

AJ_G wrote: »

If you used an electrical impedance body fat testing scale or machine, don't trust it. Those machines are just about the most inaccurate method of testing body fat that there is.

This is correct ..that reading has a margin of error of up to 10% and should be ignored

your healthy body fat range is 21-33% as a woman aged 20-40 roughly

The girls you overheard don't know their *kitten* from elbows

10-13% is essential BF for females

I despair sometimes

worldofalice

AJ_G wrote: »

If you used an electrical impedance body fat testing scale or machine, don't trust it. Those machines are just about the most inaccurate method of testing body fat that there is.

Are they usually too high or too low? I had pretty much the same result on that machine and the one at my gym review in November, which involved me lying on the flow with wires on me!

worldofalice

AJ_G wrote: »

If you used an electrical impedance body fat testing scale or machine, don't trust it. Those machines are just about the most inaccurate method of testing body fat that there is.

This is correct ..that reading has a margin of error of up to 10% and should be ignored

your healthy body fat range is 21-33% as a woman aged 20-40 roughly

The girls you overheard don't know their *kitten* from elbows

10-13% is essential BF for females

I despair sometimes [/quote]

Thanks for your honesty! I'm not sure why I'm so bothered to be honest. I guess it's because of all the hard work I'm putting in at the gym, I was hoping a lower body fat would be a sign of some hard-earned muscle gains!

Sued0nim

Here







I don't even know what BF test has wires?

worldofalice

rabbitjb wrote: »

worldofalice wrote: »

At somewhere in between 5"3 and 5"4, I currently weight about 48 kilos, putting me just inside the healthy range. However my body fat is at 17.7% according the the machine at my gym (I had just finished a workout and had breakfast so not sure if this makes the results look lower too) While I understand this is inside the "athletic" range, it seems quite high considering my relatively low weight. I lift weights 4x a week, moderate cardio 3x and am trying my best to gain muscle although it seems to be an incredibly dlow process and I'm not sure how much I've achieved in 2 months! I guess what I'm asking is - am I right to think that my body fat is quite high, relative to my weight? I wasn't worried until I saw a couple of girls about the same size as me talking about how their body fat was 13%.

AJ_G wrote: »

If you used an electrical impedance body fat testing scale or machine, don't trust it. Those machines are just about the most inaccurate method of testing body fat that there is.

This is correct ..that reading has a margin of error of up to 10% and should be ignored

your healthy body fat range is 21-33% as a woman aged 20-40 roughly

The girls you overheard don't know their *kitten* from elbows

10-13% is essential BF for females

I despair sometimes

Thanks for your honesty! I'm not sure why I'm so bothered to be honest. I guess it's because of all the hard work I'm putting in at the gym, I was hoping a lower body fat would be a sign of some hard-earned muscle gains!

rainbowbow

That is near competition level body fat for women. Around 16% is when women start losing their period and have hormonal problems.

Your body fat at 5'3.5 and 105 pounds is probably a little TOO LEAN in my opinion. I am your exact same height and find i look best personally around the 108-113 range. Any less and i start having the loss of period, low thyroid, etc.

either way, it sounds pretty accurate to me based on your height and weight.

singingflutelady

worldofalice wrote: »

rabbitjb wrote: »

worldofalice wrote: »

At somewhere in between 5"3 and 5"4, I currently weight about 48 kilos, putting me just inside the healthy range. However my body fat is at 17.7% according the the machine at my gym (I had just finished a workout and had breakfast so not sure if this makes the results look lower too) While I understand this is inside the "athletic" range, it seems quite high considering my relatively low weight. I lift weights 4x a week, moderate cardio 3x and am trying my best to gain muscle although it seems to be an incredibly dlow process and I'm not sure how much I've achieved in 2 months! I guess what I'm asking is - am I right to think that my body fat is quite high, relative to my weight? I wasn't worried until I saw a couple of girls about the same size as me talking about how their body fat was 13%.

AJ_G wrote: »

If you used an electrical impedance body fat testing scale or machine, don't trust it. Those machines are just about the most inaccurate method of testing body fat that there is.

This is correct ..that reading has a margin of error of up to 10% and should be ignored

your healthy body fat range is 21-33% as a woman aged 20-40 roughly

The girls you overheard don't know their *kitten* from elbows

10-13% is essential BF for females

I despair sometimes

Thanks for your honesty! I'm not sure why I'm so bothered to be honest. I guess it's because of all the hard work I'm putting in at the gym, I was hoping a lower body fat would be a sign of some hard-earned muscle gains!

You've only lifted for two months. It takes a lot longer to gain a significant muscke(and significant is pretty small for woman as we don't have enough testosterone to make huge gains)

rainbowbow

Also, those women saying they are at 13% body fat are probably talking out their *kitten*. That sounds like BS to me.

here's a bikini competitor at 15% body fat.



Notice you can see ribs, visible seperation betweeen muscles, visible veins, very visible smile lines on face. This is what happens when you are this lean.

Sued0nim

rainbowbow wrote: »

Also, those women saying they are at 13% body fat are probably talking out their *kitten*. That sounds like BS to me.

here's a bikini competitor at 15% body fat.



Notice you can see ribs, visible seperation betweeen muscles, visible veins, very visible smile lines on face. This is what happens when you are this lean.

She has also turned teak coloured ...clearly another side effect of very low BF

CharlieBeansmomTracey

rabbitjb wrote: »

rainbowbow wrote: »

Also, those women saying they are at 13% body fat are probably talking out their *kitten*. That sounds like BS to me.

here's a bikini competitor at 15% body fat.



Notice you can see ribs, visible seperation betweeen muscles, visible veins, very visible smile lines on face. This is what happens when you are this lean.

She has also turned teak coloured ...clearly another side effect of very low BF

and here I thought it was due to spray tanning. hmm you learn something new everyday LOL

Yi5hedr3

The girls that THINK they are at 13%, are probably really 18-20%.

rainbowbow

rabbitjb wrote: »

rainbowbow wrote: »

Also, those women saying they are at 13% body fat are probably talking out their *kitten*. That sounds like BS to me.

here's a bikini competitor at 15% body fat.



Notice you can see ribs, visible seperation betweeen muscles, visible veins, very visible smile lines on face. This is what happens when you are this lean.

She has also turned teak coloured ...clearly another side effect of very low BF

This is actually one of the better spray jobs i've seen.