Body fat percentage for women?

2»

Replies

  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    I think 17-20% for most women is ideal. Mine is probably a little lower due to the fact I have no boobs and am genetically predispositioned to low BF, but to me 17% on a female with good muscle mass and boobs is ideal.

    I disagree, quite a lot actually ...see the chart posted in this thread and the difference between lean and ideal. There are similar charts which talk of under fat which may be more appropriate (unless temp stage ready state)
    Sued0nim wrote: »
    I'm at 14.4% right now and I feel probably the healthiest I've ever felt for what that's worth

    Do you know what that BF looks like on a woman? That's close to essential fat levels. I think you might have misunderstood, believed the wrong kind of estimate or have serious body issues ...

    Looking at her profile pics, I would hazard she is correct in the 14.4 range. I think she looks fine however. Some people, especially smaller framed women can carry off lower BF. It's all a matter of personal preference however.

    Your guess would be IMO wrong that is very low BF and you would probably be seeing significant musculature (if present) and vascularity which is not present on those profile shots. Although I agree she looks very good ...sorry to talk about you so objectively purple
  • chocolate_owl
    chocolate_owl Posts: 1,695 Member
    I was still 22% body fat by calipers when I had hipbones protruding, ribs showing, extremely prominent collarbones... "Good" depends in part on how your body fat is distributed and in part on how much muscle you have. I'm sitting around 25% right now, and while I could drop a bit of fat off my stomach, I don't want to lean out so much I go back to being bony in some places. So 23-24% is probably ideal for me, and I'd only go lower by adding muscle. I think 20% would be my absolute lower limit. It would also be bloody hard for me to maintain, I think.

    ...I'm also trusting calipers, so I could be a couple % different in either direction, I guess.
  • robininfl
    robininfl Posts: 1,137 Member
    I was still 22% body fat by calipers when I had hipbones protruding, ribs showing, extremely prominent collarbones... "Good" depends in part on how your body fat is distributed and in part on how much muscle you have. I'm sitting around 25% right now, and while I could drop a bit of fat off my stomach, I don't want to lean out so much I go back to being bony in some places. So 23-24% is probably ideal for me, and I'd only go lower by adding muscle. I think 20% would be my absolute lower limit. It would also be bloody hard for me to maintain, I think.

    ...I'm also trusting calipers, so I could be a couple % different in either direction, I guess.

    Collarbones are a funny measure - I'll never not have prominent collarbones, and some ribs showing in decolletage, that's just how my body is made. It's not a worrying thing at all to me, I literally have never thought about it until reading this. It's not a sign of being underfat.

    Hipbones for me don't stick out unless I am underfat though. They do define my width; I don't have body sticking out past the hipbones but don't have hipbones sticking out past my waist even when very skinny. I would consider prominent hipbones on me to be a bad sign. If my hips were wider, though, maybe I wouldn't.

    So again, ideal isn't a set % of body fat. Ideal depends on your body type, your preferences, how you feel too, not just how you look.
  • mom23mangos
    mom23mangos Posts: 3,069 Member
    Sued0nim wrote: »
    I think 17-20% for most women is ideal. Mine is probably a little lower due to the fact I have no boobs and am genetically predispositioned to low BF, but to me 17% on a female with good muscle mass and boobs is ideal.

    I disagree, quite a lot actually ...see the chart posted in this thread and the difference between lean and ideal. There are similar charts which talk of under fat which may be more appropriate (unless temp stage ready state).

    I think we arguing semantics. I was not talking about ideal from the chart, but just what my opinion of ideal is (from an aesthetic viewpoint, not medical) based upon pictures of women around that BF range like @jemhh posted above. It's only my opinion. You are entitled to think a higher BF% is ideal. We all have our different perceptions. And our perception may be different than whatever the guideline is for the average female.
  • purple18194
    purple18194 Posts: 52 Member
    edited June 2016
    Sued0nim wrote: »
    I'm at 14.4% right now and I feel probably the healthiest I've ever felt for what that's worth

    Do you know what that BF looks like on a woman? That's close to essential fat levels. I think you might have misunderstood, believed the wrong kind of estimate or have serious body issues ...

    stelloian wrote: »
    I am looking to set goals that are realistic and healthy. I am curious what others consider a healthy body fat percentage.
    I currently just measured 18.9 % but I have about 10-15 lbs left to lose.
    In my old athletic days, I was sub 12% but had issues with my cycle as a result (lack of a cycle). I don't want to be unhealthy, but I do want to have a good body composition.

    What is a good % for women in your opinion?

    I would doubt, if that is a current avatar, that you are sub 25% tbh

    Wow, this is an incredibly rude response. Yes, I know what 14% BF looks like on a woman, I did not misunderstand as I have my measurements done by a professional, and no, I don't have serious body issues. But I'm glad you can tell all of that from my avatar. Dang.

  • purple18194
    purple18194 Posts: 52 Member
    edited June 2016
    Wow, this is an incredibly rude response. Yes, I know what 14% BF looks like on a woman, I did not misunderstand as I have my measurements done by a professional, and no, I don't have serious body issues. But I'm glad you can tell all of that from my avatar. Dang.
  • singingflutelady
    singingflutelady Posts: 8,736 Member
    Wow, this is an incredibly rude response. Yes, I know what 14% BF looks like on a woman, I did not misunderstand as I have my measurements done by a professional, and no, I don't have serious body issues. But I'm glad you can tell all of that from my avatar. Dang.

    @purple18194 the 25% minimum comment was not about you but the OP.
  • mom23mangos
    mom23mangos Posts: 3,069 Member
    I think the avatar remark of 25% BF was directed at the OP.
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    rvne7eprsey7.jpeg
    ...
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    edited June 2016
    Sued0nim wrote: »
    I'm at 14.4% right now and I feel probably the healthiest I've ever felt for what that's worth

    Do you know what that BF looks like on a woman? That's close to essential fat levels. I think you might have misunderstood, believed the wrong kind of estimate or have serious body issues

    stelloian wrote: »
    I am looking to set goals that are realistic and healthy. I am curious what others consider a healthy body fat percentage.
    I currently just measured 18.9 % but I have about 10-15 lbs left to lose.
    In my old athletic days, I was sub 12% but had issues with my cycle as a result (lack of a cycle). I don't want to be unhealthy, but I do want to have a good body composition.

    What is a good % for women in your opinion?

    I would doubt, if that is a current avatar, that you are sub 25% tbh

    Wow, this is an incredibly rude response. Yes, I know what 14% BF looks like on a woman, I did not misunderstand as I have my measurements done by a professional, and no, I don't have serious body issues. But I'm glad you can tell all of that from my avatar. Dang.

    There is nothing rude in being objective - there is a lot of misunderstanding on how Body Fat %ages work and differ between the genders.

    To confirm, the around 25% estimate was visual and regarding OP, hence why it was directly under quoting her post - it's within a good BF % range for a woman, and can be close to lean dependent on age.

    14% BF, which is what you said you were, dependent on frame and musculature will tend to show vascularity and musculature because it is extremely low for women (in the underfat region)

    there are lots of different photos online re body fat - and of course they all differ based on genetic physique and training. I've always felt this one is representative

    women-body-fat-comparision-232x300.jpg

    but there's the one above and this one

    womens-body-fat-percentage.jpg

    and millions more
  • jemhh
    jemhh Posts: 14,261 Member
    Sued0nim wrote: »
    Sued0nim wrote: »
    I'm at 14.4% right now and I feel probably the healthiest I've ever felt for what that's worth

    Do you know what that BF looks like on a woman? That's close to essential fat levels. I think you might have misunderstood, believed the wrong kind of estimate or have serious body issues

    stelloian wrote: »
    I am looking to set goals that are realistic and healthy. I am curious what others consider a healthy body fat percentage.
    I currently just measured 18.9 % but I have about 10-15 lbs left to lose.
    In my old athletic days, I was sub 12% but had issues with my cycle as a result (lack of a cycle). I don't want to be unhealthy, but I do want to have a good body composition.

    What is a good % for women in your opinion?

    I would doubt, if that is a current avatar, that you are sub 25% tbh

    Wow, this is an incredibly rude response. Yes, I know what 14% BF looks like on a woman, I did not misunderstand as I have my measurements done by a professional, and no, I don't have serious body issues. But I'm glad you can tell all of that from my avatar. Dang.

    There is nothing rude in being objective - there is a lot of misunderstanding on how Body Fat %ages work and differ between the genders.

    To confirm, the around 25% estimate was visual and regarding OP, hence why it was directly under quoting her post - it's within a good BF % range for a woman, and can be close to lean dependent on age.

    14% BF, which is what you said you were, dependent on frame and musculature will tend to show vascularity and musculature because it is extremely low for women (in the underfat region)

    there are lots of different photos online re body fat - and of course they all differ based on genetic physique and training. I've always felt this one is representative

    women-body-fat-comparision-232x300.jpg

    but there's the one above and this one

    womens-body-fat-percentage.jpg

    and millions more

    In the past I didn't like the picture charts but I've changed my mind and have come to appreciate both of those because of the body shape differences. I'm around 25-26% and apple/rulerish shaped (apple when overweight, ruler when at a healthy weight.) If I combine the two women in that range in my mind, I can see how I compare.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    jemhh wrote: »
    Sued0nim wrote: »
    Sued0nim wrote: »
    I'm at 14.4% right now and I feel probably the healthiest I've ever felt for what that's worth

    Do you know what that BF looks like on a woman? That's close to essential fat levels. I think you might have misunderstood, believed the wrong kind of estimate or have serious body issues

    stelloian wrote: »
    I am looking to set goals that are realistic and healthy. I am curious what others consider a healthy body fat percentage.
    I currently just measured 18.9 % but I have about 10-15 lbs left to lose.
    In my old athletic days, I was sub 12% but had issues with my cycle as a result (lack of a cycle). I don't want to be unhealthy, but I do want to have a good body composition.

    What is a good % for women in your opinion?

    I would doubt, if that is a current avatar, that you are sub 25% tbh

    Wow, this is an incredibly rude response. Yes, I know what 14% BF looks like on a woman, I did not misunderstand as I have my measurements done by a professional, and no, I don't have serious body issues. But I'm glad you can tell all of that from my avatar. Dang.

    There is nothing rude in being objective - there is a lot of misunderstanding on how Body Fat %ages work and differ between the genders.

    To confirm, the around 25% estimate was visual and regarding OP, hence why it was directly under quoting her post - it's within a good BF % range for a woman, and can be close to lean dependent on age.

    14% BF, which is what you said you were, dependent on frame and musculature will tend to show vascularity and musculature because it is extremely low for women (in the underfat region)

    there are lots of different photos online re body fat - and of course they all differ based on genetic physique and training. I've always felt this one is representative

    women-body-fat-comparision-232x300.jpg

    but there's the one above and this one

    womens-body-fat-percentage.jpg

    and millions more

    In the past I didn't like the picture charts but I've changed my mind and have come to appreciate both of those because of the body shape differences. I'm around 25-26% and apple/rulerish shaped (apple when overweight, ruler when at a healthy weight.) If I combine the two women in that range in my mind, I can see how I compare.

    The only thing thing I wonder about those charts is we see the athletic 14% BF, but I am not sure what 14% BF looks on someone who has less muscle.
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    jemhh wrote: »
    Sued0nim wrote: »
    Sued0nim wrote: »
    I'm at 14.4% right now and I feel probably the healthiest I've ever felt for what that's worth

    Do you know what that BF looks like on a woman? That's close to essential fat levels. I think you might have misunderstood, believed the wrong kind of estimate or have serious body issues

    stelloian wrote: »
    I am looking to set goals that are realistic and healthy. I am curious what others consider a healthy body fat percentage.
    I currently just measured 18.9 % but I have about 10-15 lbs left to lose.
    In my old athletic days, I was sub 12% but had issues with my cycle as a result (lack of a cycle). I don't want to be unhealthy, but I do want to have a good body composition.

    What is a good % for women in your opinion?

    I would doubt, if that is a current avatar, that you are sub 25% tbh

    Wow, this is an incredibly rude response. Yes, I know what 14% BF looks like on a woman, I did not misunderstand as I have my measurements done by a professional, and no, I don't have serious body issues. But I'm glad you can tell all of that from my avatar. Dang.

    There is nothing rude in being objective - there is a lot of misunderstanding on how Body Fat %ages work and differ between the genders.

    To confirm, the around 25% estimate was visual and regarding OP, hence why it was directly under quoting her post - it's within a good BF % range for a woman, and can be close to lean dependent on age.

    14% BF, which is what you said you were, dependent on frame and musculature will tend to show vascularity and musculature because it is extremely low for women (in the underfat region)

    there are lots of different photos online re body fat - and of course they all differ based on genetic physique and training. I've always felt this one is representative

    women-body-fat-comparision-232x300.jpg

    but there's the one above and this one

    womens-body-fat-percentage.jpg

    and millions more

    In the past I didn't like the picture charts but I've changed my mind and have come to appreciate both of those because of the body shape differences. I'm around 25-26% and apple/rulerish shaped (apple when overweight, ruler when at a healthy weight.) If I combine the two women in that range in my mind, I can see how I compare.

    The only thing thing I wonder about those charts is we see the athletic 14% BF, but I am not sure what 14% BF looks on someone who has less muscle.

    I am not sure how accurate this pic is.lwdt4llwrdh9.jpg
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    Thanks
  • purple18194
    purple18194 Posts: 52 Member
    edited June 2016

    "There is nothing rude in being objective - there is a lot of misunderstanding on how Body Fat %ages work and differ between the genders."




    Being objective is not rude, no. But your wording and tone were. I "must have misunderstood" or have "serious body issues." No.

  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    "There is nothing rude in being objective - there is a lot of misunderstanding on how Body Fat %ages work and differ between the genders."




    Being objective is not rude, no. But your wording and tone were. I "must have misunderstood" or have "serious body issues." No.

    Apologies if I caused offence. Your profile photos, before you closed it, certainly looked healthy IIRC

    I think this is a decent article http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/body_fat_categories.htm

    "THE ULTRA LEAN CATEGORY
    Then you have the ultra lean category, represented by 5-8% body fat for males and 15-18% body fat for females. This is typically where fitness and bodybuilding competitors are coming in, so muscle definition will be at its highest."


    "RISKY STAGE
    Finally there is the risky stage; less than 5% body fat for males and less than 15% body fat for females. At this point the individual is setting themselves up for a number of negative health consequences and could even risk death by staying at these extremely low levels for an extended period of time. In females, reproduction often ceases when body fat is at this level, setting you up for problems down the road."

    So women, who are not competition ready, talking about holding 14% BF is somewhat concerning to me