“Skinny Fat” problem: pls help !!

2»

Replies

  • Jthanmyfitnesspal
    Jthanmyfitnesspal Posts: 3,522 Member
    We are all our own worst critics. At your age it's difficult not to be obsessed with your appearance. But do your best to think about more important matters:

    What do you want in life? What skills to you need to do what you want? How are you going to get those skills?

    The more you focus on things other than your appearance, the happier you will be.
  • rheddmobile
    rheddmobile Posts: 6,840 Member
    It seems to me there’s a lot of distance between “has body images so bad they require professional help” and “has kind of a messed up idea of what normal levels of body fat on a 20 year old woman’s body looks like due to a lifetime of viewing photoshopped ads.”

    OP, you need some fat on your body in order to function normally, have periods, and so on. If your friends all have zero visible fat on their bodies then yes, they are underweight in a way that isn’t healthy.

    The advice to gain some muscle mass in order to look better at a higher weight is good advice, but it would be helpful if we all knew where you were coming from and if your expectations are realistic. Would you be comfortable sharing a photo?
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 14,238 Member
    edited January 2020
    @Azdak being aware that you've had potentially real life contact with clients in similar circumstances vs my being primarily guided by tangent reading of papers and blogs and MFP interactions, and definitely no professional expertise (i.e. nothing beyond my own reading for self education and understanding), how do you square the following circles:

    --currently underweight or near underweight with a
    --recent history of dieting to lose weight often leading to increased
    --ideation that may or may not amount to an ED but may carry some hints that it could amount to one if not modified in the very near future
    --weight restoration to ~bmi 20 often associated with significant reduction in such ideation independently of other intervention (and even more so in conjunction with professional intervention, of course)
    --the forum not suggesting increased net calories to stabilize weight above underweight and weight restore by preference as a primary step/ integral part of a plan of action?

    The second circle that needs squaring for myself: what profiles qualify as having excess fat available at a sub 20 BMI?

    I can think of very few. Vertically challenged, female, Asian, plus low muscle mass due to infirmity, injury, disease, or lack of training with or without associated nutritional misadventure?

    Note that I am talking excess fat beyond a relatively lean, at most approaching normal, level. In other words something that WOULD primarily benefit from a caloric reduction to improve, which I think is seldom the case in the type of posts we are currently discussing.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,427 MFP Moderator
    sardelsa wrote: »
    I disagree in that someone who is underweight should just lift and be able to gain muscle. Their first course of action should be getting to a healthy weight, and if there is history of ED (which we do not know) then seeing a doctor is recommended. OP doesn't have to "bulk" but can gain weight (with or without lifting) then recomp. Is it just terminology here or do you really think OP should stay underweight provided they lift? Would you tell someone who was obese to just lift and don't overcomplicate it by attempting to lose weight (or "cut")?

    If OP has body image issues and prefers not to gain weight and stay underweight then seeing a doctor is highly recommended IMO.

    I agree with this. And to add one of my biggest issues is that we are automatically assuming body image issues or ED even though we haven't directly said it. If we want to stay away from lifting jargon, then, i can get on board with that. But just because someone is concerned about their look doesn't mean ED or body issues.
  • sardelsa
    sardelsa Posts: 9,812 Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    sardelsa wrote: »
    I disagree in that someone who is underweight should just lift and be able to gain muscle. Their first course of action should be getting to a healthy weight, and if there is history of ED (which we do not know) then seeing a doctor is recommended. OP doesn't have to "bulk" but can gain weight (with or without lifting) then recomp. Is it just terminology here or do you really think OP should stay underweight provided they lift? Would you tell someone who was obese to just lift and don't overcomplicate it by attempting to lose weight (or "cut")?

    If OP has body image issues and prefers not to gain weight and stay underweight then seeing a doctor is highly recommended IMO.

    I agree with this. And to add one of my biggest issues is that we are automatically assuming body image issues or ED even though we haven't directly said it. If we want to stay away from lifting jargon, then, i can get on board with that. But just because someone is concerned about their look doesn't mean ED or body issues.

    I was almost underweight at one point, similar to OP (5'7" 120lbs), no ED or body dysmorphia, but very unhappy with my appearance. I was hesitant to gain at first but people on here highly recommended I gain. I am so glad I listened to them.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 14,238 Member
    Depends a lot on the circumstances of the person, no?

    i.e. there exist, let's call it a number of "points" that eventually amount to "sounds like it may be a concern" vs "is not sounding like a likely concern" that make it something relevant to mention?
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,427 MFP Moderator
    edited January 2020
    sardelsa wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    sardelsa wrote: »
    I disagree in that someone who is underweight should just lift and be able to gain muscle. Their first course of action should be getting to a healthy weight, and if there is history of ED (which we do not know) then seeing a doctor is recommended. OP doesn't have to "bulk" but can gain weight (with or without lifting) then recomp. Is it just terminology here or do you really think OP should stay underweight provided they lift? Would you tell someone who was obese to just lift and don't overcomplicate it by attempting to lose weight (or "cut")?

    If OP has body image issues and prefers not to gain weight and stay underweight then seeing a doctor is highly recommended IMO.

    I agree with this. And to add one of my biggest issues is that we are automatically assuming body image issues or ED even though we haven't directly said it. If we want to stay away from lifting jargon, then, i can get on board with that. But just because someone is concerned about their look doesn't mean ED or body issues.

    I was almost underweight at one point, similar to OP (5'7" 120lbs), no ED or body dysmorphia, but very unhappy with my appearance. I was hesitant to gain at first but people on here highly recommended I gain. I am so glad I listened to them.

    One of the biggest issues i have seen over the years and in real life (including my wife) is that put a belief on a scale number but body composition is what matters.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    sardelsa wrote: »
    I disagree in that someone who is underweight should just lift and be able to gain muscle. Their first course of action should be getting to a healthy weight, and if there is history of ED (which we do not know) then seeing a doctor is recommended. OP doesn't have to "bulk" but can gain weight (with or without lifting) then recomp. Is it just terminology here or do you really think OP should stay underweight provided they lift? Would you tell someone who was obese to just lift and don't overcomplicate it by attempting to lose weight (or "cut")?

    If OP has body image issues and prefers not to gain weight and stay underweight then seeing a doctor is highly recommended IMO.

    Terminology. I am not suggesting OP should “stay underweight”. However, my experience is SO embedded into body composition, right or wrong, I don’t pay that much attention to scale weight. It’s not that I dismiss it, I have just had decades with good body composition tools at my disposal, so my habit is to look at fat, lean mass and (if possible) muscle separately. I’m not sure if that makes some of my remarks seem inconsistent since, like I said, I don’t really think in terms of scale weight.


  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 14,238 Member
    I don't think you can exclude scale weight when discussing underweight; though as I mentioned above, even when going by body composition only, I have a hard time envisioning many overfat, in terms of body composition, BMI 18.5 people.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    @Azdak being aware that you've had potentially real life contact with clients in similar circumstances vs my being primarily guided by tangent reading of papers and blogs and MFP interactions, and definitely no professional expertise (i.e. nothing beyond my own reading for self education and understanding), how do you square the following circles:

    --currently underweight or near underweight with a
    --recent history of dieting to lose weight often leading to increased
    --ideation that may or may not amount to an ED but may carry some hints that it could amount to one if not modified in the very near future
    --weight restoration to ~bmi 20 often associated with significant reduction in such ideation independently of other intervention (and even more so in conjunction with professional intervention, of course)
    --the forum not suggesting increased net calories to stabilize weight above underweight and weight restore by preference as a primary step/ integral part of a plan of action?

    The second circle that needs squaring for myself: what profiles qualify as having excess fat available at a sub 20 BMI?

    I can think of very few. Vertically challenged, female, Asian, plus low muscle mass due to infirmity, injury, disease, or lack of training with or without associated nutritional misadventure?

    Note that I am talking excess fat beyond a relatively lean, at most approaching normal, level. In other words something that WOULD primarily benefit from a caloric reduction to improve, which I think is seldom the case in the type of posts we are currently discussing.

    Not sure I am following all the circles, so I am going to be a little more general and hope the comments fit. Happy to elaborate more if necessary.

    My reading of the OPs comments did not suggest any clinical issues with eating or with body image. IMO, one does not automatically have psychological problems if they look in the mirror and say "I'd like to look better".

    To me, the remarks about dieting were more indicative of a lack of understanding of her body composition and how best to deal with her particular physique. She is dieting because that is all she knows.

    Because of that, I disagree with the conclusion of "ideation" and so, to me, that and the related remarks are not relevant in this case.

    As I have said many times on these forums, all of my education and experience says that **extreme** caution must be exercised when trying to apply BMI standards to evaluate an individual. I would go so far as to say that a lay person should never use it in a case like this. In fact, in my opinion, this case is flashing red light example of why BMI should not be used.

    Your fifth comment sounded to me as though you were of the opinion that recommending an calorie increase was appropriate in this case because of the OPs "underweight" condition, as defined by BMI. (I don't think that's what the people who recommended the calorie increase were thinking--they were referring to a "bulk" cycle). My response to your comment is that, since I think BMI is not relevant in this case, increasing calories to address a nonexistent "underweight" condition is also not supported. (again, my view of the situation).

    As far as what profiles are out there--all I can say is that there are enough of them to make this a relevant discussion. I don't have any specific numbers but I have sat at a table with dozens of women over the years who fit the OP's profile. No disease, malnutrition, injuries, defects, etc. Healthy bodies that are just built like birds, for want of a better description.

    We all come from a different background in terms of education and experience when it comes to fitness and health. I understand how people with different backgrounds would see this in a different way. For me, since I have seen this so many times, the profile suggested by the OP's comments kind of jumped off the page. I have spent a lot of time over the years mentoring other trainers and exercise physiologists on this topic--because they don't teach it in school--and so I have a particular sensitivity to it. Obviously that can color my judgement as well.