Well, pretty sure I'm "skinny fat", where to start
designerdiscounts
Posts: 517 Member
46 yr old female, currently weigh 132 lbs, 5'4". Got my body fat tested today at a nutrition center - 30%. I knew it would be high but wow, that's a surprise. I play pickleball 4 days a week, usually running back and forth for 2 hours or more each time. Just added weight lifting 5 weeks ago. Was going 3 days a week but really love it and want to increase that. I eat at 1250 calories a day and eat back exercise calories. Oh, and I'm vegetarian and don't eat enough protein. I'm working on that. Here's a picture for an idea of where I'm at:
4
Replies
-
How did they measure you? You do not look like 30% body fat.8
-
@MikePTY They used a machine called the "InBody230".1
-
And 30% BF is considered healthy for women. I personally am striving toward 25% which I prefer, but that is not some terrible number. Also as commented above it could be very inaccurate2
-
You don't look skinny or fat and your height and weight also don't indicate either skinny or fat.15
-
If your hoping to look more defined weight lifting will make all the difference! It's a slow process but in my opinion worth it!6
-
designerdiscounts wrote: »They used a machine called the "InBody230".
Did they tell you what to do / what not to do before your reading was taken?
TBH that type of machine can be useful for a trend (if used correctly) but one off readings should be taken with a pinch of salt rather than base decisions on a single measurement.4 -
@sijomial They said to eat more protein. The machine printed out a report that said I should gain 4 pounds of muscle and lose 12 pounds of fat.1
-
designerdiscounts wrote: »@sijomial They said to eat more protein. The machine printed out a report that said I should gain 4 pounds of muscle and lose 12 pounds of fat.
Who is “they” and what is a “nutrition center”? Are the people who did this test perhaps trying to sell you protein shakes or other products?8 -
For a woman your age you are at the low end of average body fat %, close to the "lean/fitness" level. Did their charts for target body fat % take age into account? Or is it your goal to be at the lean/fitness level?
How body fat % impacts overall health is also based on where you carry body fat - for example, if a woman is at 35% body fat but carries most of that fat in her abdomen, that is a greater health risk than a woman with the same percentage of body fat whose fat is mostly in her hips and thighs.
But yes to the protein, if you are doing weightlifting with the goal of gaining muscle you will need to consume a good amount of protein, especially in the time after your workouts (if you are doing intense weightlifting). Gaining muscle while losing fat is a slow process, but if you keep weight training going while you are losing weight it should help prevent loss of too much lean mass.2 -
designerdiscounts wrote: »@sijomial They said to eat more protein. The machine printed out a report that said I should gain 4 pounds of muscle and lose 12 pounds of fat.
How much protein are you eating now? How many grams per day? Also, for a woman to gain 4 lbs of muscle will take about 6 to 8 months at best. Good plan and I agree with it. But realize what this means.
Edited to add: I don't think that reading is right at all. But it is easier to lose weight than gain muscle. Gaining muscle is hard work and requires resistance training. I am a proponent of it and it is the way to look and feel your best. To maximize your muscle retention and lose fat requires a slight deficit, adequate protein and resistance training. Honestly, you don't look like you have a lot of body fat and I don't buy the 30% BF. Recomp, eating at maintenance and resistance training would give you more muscle mass and a better shape.5 -
Oy. Here we go again....I will have more to add later.
3 -
4 lbs of muscle for someone who just started weight training should not take 8 months4
-
I really want to hear what @Azdak had to say and recommend; but, you look pretty dang healthy to me with no hint of skinny fat in anything but the sales rep's imagination.
And I have a question about your average calories, because I am wondering whether appreciable weight loss should be your goal (versus fully fueling your exercise at maybe a very small deficit if more lean is your goal, or at no deficit if more strength is your goal).
How much protein do you get?
Given your weight, generally anything over 100g protein a day should have you substantially (if not necessarily absolutely optimally) covered...1 -
I had a Dexa scan done last May and I looked similar to her (same height and 4 pounds heavier) and my body fat was 28.9 percent. So you can’t tell from pictures.2
-
I really want to hear what @Azdak had to say and recommend; but, you look pretty dang healthy to me with no hint of skinny fat in anything but the sales rep's imagination.
And I have a question about your average calories, because I am wondering whether appreciable weight loss should be your goal (versus fully fueling your exercise at maybe a very small deficit if more lean is your goal, or at no deficit if more strength is your goal).
How much protein do you get?
Given your weight, generally anything over 100g protein a day should have you substantially (if not necessarily absolutely optimally) covered...
I'm inclined to agree with the bolded, as someone about the same size (5'5", 134 this morning), and also vegetarian (a fact that isn't relevant to needs
, just to the challenge of meeting them). More won't hurt a healthy person, but that should be adequate. Sometimes gyms/trainers reccommend unnecessarily high protein goals, IMO.
I'm also a bunch older than you are, OP, just as truth in advertising. While that might make a tiny difference in some nutritional goals, it shouldn't make a huge difference in this one.
Whatever Azdak says, pay attention to it, IMO. Even if he disagrees with me. 5 -
I'm back. I was actually waiting to pick up a pizza earlier, which is ironic.
Also...when entering an online order, the difference on the screen between "pepperoni" and "pineapple" is small, but the difference in the actual pizza is quite substantial.
So the commenters in this thread are very smart and very thoughtful and very analytical. However, in this case, the OP's numbers are almost certainly valid and this is verified by her picture.
Whenever I do (did?) a body composition assessment, I had a list of checks before discussing the results with a client:
1. Were the numbers realistically in the ballpark given the clients height and weight (in this case, check)
2. In marching out the numbers, were the fat levels and lean body mass levels realistic and feasible for the human condition--like if a calculated lean mass was like 60lbs, you'd know right away something was way off (again, check)
3. Did the numbers reasonably match the body that was sitting across from you (check)
This met all three conditions. The InBody has some limitations in that it is bioimpedance, but it is the best bioimpedance machine out there. The 230 is not quite as sophisticated in looking at visceral fat and intracellular/extracellular water as the 570 model I used, but for body fat readings, it is pretty much the same.
In most cases, the main source of inaccuracy is improper test preparation. Subjects should not exercise for 24 hrs at least before the test, should not eat, smoke, or drink caffeine 2 hrs before, and should not ingest a volume of fluid of any kind within 30 min of the test. In this case, if those factors weren't followed, there might be a small difference, but not enough to substantially change either the total body fat percentage or the fat/lean mass relationship.
This also clearly shows (again), the problem with relying on height and weight, or BMI to assess an individual. A number of people have commented that 5'4" and 132lbs could not be 30% body fat. However, if you use the body fat % to estimate lean mass, you come up with 92lbs. That is below average, but hardly unusual for a 5'4" female.
This was also confirmed by the numbers on the report listed by the OP.
Some background: InBody uses an idealized "reference figure" to give context to the numbers generated. The reference figure is based on age and gender. I don't know exactly what the standards are--they don't provide a list of norms and I don't know how the figures are derived. What's important to realize is that the "reference figure" is NOT meant to be used as a hard and fast recommendation goal that everyone should attempt to attain. They mean to show how far one's body deviates from "average" in order to understand the person's body profile.
So when the OP wrote that the "report...said I should gain 4 lbs of muscle and lose 12 pounds of fat" she was referring to this reference profile. (Note: It is a mistake to use those reference numbers as hard and fast "recommendations"; per InBody, that is not the intent.)
When the reference profile indicated her muscle mass was 4lbs less than the reference figure, that reinforces the 92lb lean mass number I calculated, which further validates the initial 30% body fat reading. While the InBody BIA methodology might be affected by hydration levels which would affect the total body fat number, I found the lean mass assessment and fat distribution patterns to be very accurate and reliable. (7 years and over 500 assessments)
Those are some of the steps I went through with every body fat test I ever did in an assessment to make sure the numbers were valid, and that I was giving a client the most accurate and appropriate interpretation. I hope I made it clear how these numbers all fit together to show that the OPs numbers were indeed pretty accurate and she is almost certainly at the body fat level (plus or minus a couple of points) indicated by the test.
The picture also verifies the test numbers, but you are going to just have to take my word on that, because I don't feel comfortable making detailed observations in public.
As others have said, for the OPs age, 30% body fat does not indicate an increased health risk. Whether or not it is "ideal" from an appearance standpoint is a personal decision.
I went into a little extra detail because I wanted to provide some background as to why I was so certain of my conclusions (and I am virtually 100% certain in this case).
I also am always trying to get the idea out that there are real pitfalls in trying to assess body composition or give target weight recommendations based on either height/weight or BMI alone.
21 -
As it turns out, maybe InBody has more reference material than I thought.
https://nl.inbody.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/InBody230_CDmanual_Eng_L.pdf
There is a lot here, but in the second half, they discuss some of the reference standards in more detail.
Here is an example of the results report. I don't know if it's the exact same one the OP received:
https://shop.inbodyusa.com/collections/accessories/products/inbody230-result-sheets
It is much simpler than the report generated by the 570 (the model I used); it also does not show segmental fat analysis or visceral fat.3 -
-
lynn_glenmont wrote: »
You can’t tell what someone’s body fat percentage is just by looking at pictures of them.
2 -
Thank you everyone for responding!
@Azdak thank you for explaining the test. I did work out this morning and I did drink water before the test. If that skews the numbers higher, just don't tell me
.
I'm not so much questioning the accuracy of the number (wish it were inaccurate but I was expecting it to be at least as high as 25%). My real wonder is what's the best way to move toward a lower number - do I change caloric input, time on cardio, etc. Ideally, I'd like to weigh 130 lbs and get at or below 22% body fat but those numbers are not set in stone, just something to work toward.
My protein intake is pretty darn low - usually around 50 grams a day. If I add a protein shake and a plain greek yogurt, that will bring it up about 30 grams a day with minimal calorie gain.3 -
Sorry we got a little sidetracked with the test analysis.
Maintaining a calorie deficit is the most important thing for fat loss, and you have already gotten good advice on protein.
Depending on your current fitness level, I think you would do well with one day of longer endurance cardio and other days doing some tempo interval training (not HIIT, but longer intervals at a 75%-80% effort.
I also think you might consider doing some metabolic resistance training. (don’t have a link handy so you’ll have to google it).
1 -
designerdiscounts wrote: »Thank you everyone for responding!
@Azdak thank you for explaining the test. I did work out this morning and I did drink water before the test. If that skews the numbers higher, just don't tell me.
I'm not so much questioning the accuracy of the number (wish it were inaccurate but I was expecting it to be at least as high as 25%). My real wonder is what's the best way to move toward a lower number - do I change caloric input, time on cardio, etc. Ideally, I'd like to weigh 130 lbs and get at or below 22% body fat but those numbers are not set in stone, just something to work toward.
My protein intake is pretty darn low - usually around 50 grams a day. If I add a protein shake and a plain greek yogurt, that will bring it up about 30 grams a day with minimal calorie gain.
I think you may have been the victim of unrealistic expectations. 30% is a perfectly good body fat in your age range. In fact, it is in the range that is listed as "ideal" on most body fat charts for women at your age. You may be able to knock it a couple of percentage points by weight lifting and protein intake, but 22% is pretty low, and I imagine hard to maintain unless you are a proper athlete.
I think sometimes women can see men throw out their BF numbers which are a lot lower and compare themselves to those. But your numbers are supposed to be higher. You have bodyfat in areas that we don't.6 -
@Azdak what you don't discuss in the technical detail is what I think many are responding to. That 30% body fat for a female (especially one with... boobs) is NORMAL. And what marketing is telling her is that she is "skinny fat". Also...wondering... which path forward would you discuss Caloric reduction to lose weight? At -250? At -500? Increased strength training and eating at 0? At -250? A large caloric reduction AND huge increase in exercise and training as many people try to implement each January?
As to the other discussions about whether the mark 1 eyeball is more accurate or not... James Krieger on weightology had some interesting discussions about the level of error with all these devices... and I am not so sure that the mark 1 eyeball is not the most accurate option short of a body composition MRI... which is probably NOT something most would want to undergo (hey, I am curious, but not to the extent of wanting to get a dose higher than all the DXA scans I've ever done for a bit of extra accuracy)4 -
MikePTY you bring up an excellent point, and that is healthy body fat percentages based on sex and age. I can’t believe I never looked up what body fat percentage is considered healthy for my age. When I had my Dexa scan my analysis gave me a “percentile chart” and told me what my “percentile range” was, but the staff there never clearly explained what those meant, at least not in a way that was easy for me to understand. I just Googled, and makes me feel great to know I am smack in the middle of the healthy body fat percentage range for my age. So thank you!6
-
OP you look great to me. You don’t look to me on the basis of the pic to need to lose any more weight, if you do not want to.
I would say get on an established resistance training programme if you aren’t already. Recomp. There’s a whole thread on it.
Ignore the machine. You aren’t skinny fat in my opinion but that phrase seems to be bandied about a lot and I don’t want to get into an argument with anyone about it!!
I used a Boditrax at my gym. When I was 145 pounds it had me at about 30 percent. I’m currently 136 and it says 23 percent. I’m 5 ft 8.5. So a reasonably small weight loss gets the fat figure down white a lot.
I’ve been recomping for about 3 years. I would recommend it for people who have a history of yo yo dieting (like me) and want to look a bit more muscular. I’m pleased with the results. I’m not ripped but I look ‘firmer’ in my lower body and a little muscular in my upper body. I still have fat in my bum legs and tummy though, but in a good light you can see definition.
Congratulations on your new body, it looks fab.5 -
@Azdak what you don't discuss in the technical detail is what I think many are responding to. That 30% body fat for a female (especially one with... boobs) is NORMAL. And what marketing is telling her is that she is "skinny fat". Also...wondering... which path forward would you discuss Caloric reduction to lose weight? At -250? At -500? Increased strength training and eating at 0? At -250? A large caloric reduction AND huge increase in exercise and training as many people try to implement each January?
As to the other discussions about whether the mark 1 eyeball is more accurate or not... James Krieger on weightology had some interesting discussions about the level of error with all these devices... and I am not so sure that the mark 1 eyeball is not the most accurate option short of a body composition MRI... which is probably NOT something most would want to undergo (hey, I am curious, but not to the extent of wanting to get a dose higher than all the DXA scans I've ever done for a bit of extra accuracy)
The question was not to comment on whether or not the body fat level was “ideal”, but on whether the number she received was accurate.
“Skinny fat” is a bad term, but the body type it describes — i.e. someone with disproportionately higher body fat compared to BMI—is real. In that sense it is not “marketing”, but just a description of a body type. Once you determine the body type, then the discussion about its significance is a different discussion.
3 -
Just wanted to say you look awesome 😀 you need enough fat to function normally as a woman, and you’re certainly not carrying excess weight around your abs (which can be bad for you).2
-
cupcakesandproteinshakes wrote: »OP you look great to me. You don’t look to me on the basis of the pic to need to lose any more weight, if you do not want to.
I would say get on an established resistance training programme if you aren’t already. Recomp. There’s a whole thread on it.
Ignore the machine. You aren’t skinny fat in my opinion but that phrase seems to be bandied about a lot and I don’t want to get into an argument with anyone about it!!
I used a Boditrax at my gym. When I was 145 pounds it had me at about 30 percent. I’m currently 136 and it says 23 percent. I’m 5 ft 8.5. So a reasonably small weight loss gets the fat figure down white a lot.
I’ve been recomping for about 3 years. I would recommend it for people who have a history of yo yo dieting (like me) and want to look a bit more muscular. I’m pleased with the results. I’m not ripped but I look ‘firmer’ in my lower body and a little muscular in my upper body. I still have fat in my bum legs and tummy though, but in a good light you can see definition.
Congratulations on your new body, it looks fab.
Just using your numbers, the body fat % change represents a loss of about 12lb of fat but also a lean mass gain of 3lbs. Since the scale weighs everything, your “reasonably small” scale weight loss masks a more significant body fat change (which, obviously was the whole point of your recomp). Not everyone would see your (great) results with just a scale change alone.
But I am wondering why you consider your Boditrax results legitimate but not the OP’s (“ignore the machine”) when they use essentially the same technology.3 -
MikePTY you bring up an excellent point, and that is healthy body fat percentages based on sex and age. I can’t believe I never looked up what body fat percentage is considered healthy for my age. When I had my Dexa scan my analysis gave me a “percentile chart” and told me what my “percentile range” was, but the staff there never clearly explained what those meant, at least not in a way that was easy for me to understand. I just Googled, and makes me feel great to know I am smack in the middle of the healthy body fat percentage range for my age. So thank you!
Healthy BF % is based on sex and age, however there isn't a real large difference based on age (probably close to the error of the measurement as you can see by the chart). I was also told the same thing when I recently did a scan. The person administering the test is a PhD in Exercise Science, a professor and had managed the exercising testing lab at a major university (he opened a side testing business) so I have pretty good faith in his views.
https://www.dexafit.com/blog2/what-is-the-ideal-body-fat-percentage
4 -
cupcakesandproteinshakes wrote: »OP you look great to me. You don’t look to me on the basis of the pic to need to lose any more weight, if you do not want to.
I would say get on an established resistance training programme if you aren’t already. Recomp. There’s a whole thread on it.
Ignore the machine. You aren’t skinny fat in my opinion but that phrase seems to be bandied about a lot and I don’t want to get into an argument with anyone about it!!
I used a Boditrax at my gym. When I was 145 pounds it had me at about 30 percent. I’m currently 136 and it says 23 percent. I’m 5 ft 8.5. So a reasonably small weight loss gets the fat figure down white a lot.
I’ve been recomping for about 3 years. I would recommend it for people who have a history of yo yo dieting (like me) and want to look a bit more muscular. I’m pleased with the results. I’m not ripped but I look ‘firmer’ in my lower body and a little muscular in my upper body. I still have fat in my bum legs and tummy though, but in a good light you can see definition.
Congratulations on your new body, it looks fab.
Just using your numbers, the body fat % change represents a loss of about 12lb of fat but also a lean mass gain of 3lbs. Since the scale weighs everything, your “reasonably small” scale weight loss masks a more significant body fat change (which, obviously was the whole point of your recomp). Not everyone would see your (great) results with just a scale change alone.
But I am wondering why you consider your Boditrax results legitimate but not the OP’s (“ignore the machine”) when they use essentially the same technology.
Thanks, all I meant was that the OP should take it with a pinch of salt. As I did the boditrax. It’s a machine that gives data and bit something to live or die by.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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