We are pleased to announce that on March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor will be introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the upcoming changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!

The Dreaded Skinny-Fat

mgaither
mgaither Posts: 115
edited December 2024 in Fitness and Exercise
This morning, the scale read 115.1 pounds. When I got off of it, I called myself "fat". My husband of course looked at me like I was crazy (he's sweet...and an endurance athlete with little to no fat on his body). At 5 feet tall, there's not many people in North America today that would call me fat. The problem is, the scale also informed me that my BF is at 26% (I know, not always super accurate, but close enough).

Time to fix that.
My ultimate goal weight would be around 108.
Maybe I just need to make a goal BF% number?
Time to start seriously lifting weights?

Not sure what to do now. My BMR isn't very high (around 1150), so I'm terrified of upping my calorie intake by much (currently netting 1200/day).
Any advice?

Replies

  • qtiekiki
    qtiekiki Posts: 1,490 Member
    I would do a combo of weight lifting and HIIT. HIIT to burn the fat and weight lifting to preserve muscle. I think a BF % goal is probably better for you as you are in a healthy weight already. Good luck.
  • nikkiprickett
    nikkiprickett Posts: 412 Member
    I would def focus on the body fat number rather than actual weight because the weight isn't the problem, the bf is right?

    I was also scared to up my cal intake but I've been eating 1600 (from 1200) for a week and I still lost my 2lbs a week!!



    here's the link to calculate what you should be eating in cals...make sure to gradually increase it though, like start out by eating 1500 for a month or so then keep increasing it, if you'll be lifting and what not go get rid of bf and build muscle you'll need a lot of fuel!
    good luck :)

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/538943-how-to-calculate-calorie-goals-according-to-nrolfw
  • mgaither
    mgaither Posts: 115
    I would def focus on the body fat number rather than actual weight because the weight isn't the problem, the bf is right?

    I was also scared to up my cal intake but I've been eating 1600 (from 1200) for a week and I still lost my 2lbs a week!!



    here's the link to calculate what you should be eating in cals...make sure to gradually increase it though, like start out by eating 1500 for a month or so then keep increasing it, if you'll be lifting and what not go get rid of bf and build muscle you'll need a lot of fuel!
    good luck :)

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/538943-how-to-calculate-calorie-goals-according-to-nrolfw

    Thanks for the link! Definitely going to check it out.
    The more and more I read, the more I'm convinced that using weight as the only metric is a horrible idea.
  • kdiamond
    kdiamond Posts: 3,329 Member
    I would do a combo of weight lifting and HIIT. HIIT to burn the fat and weight lifting to preserve muscle. I think a BF % goal is probably better for you as you are in a healthy weight already. Good luck.

    I would agree. I actually started lifting weights when I was 102 pounds...gained 8 pounds, still fit in the same clothes but actually, they fit better. I was definitely skinny fat. Had I freaked out over the scale readings I wouldn't look as I do today...fit. Throw out the scale and start lifting! Go by your clothes and the mirror. Oh, and now I eat almost twice what I was eating at that time. WAY BETTER!
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Yes, you don't really have a "fat" problem, you have a "muscle" problem--i.e. too little of it.

    Your example is a good one to use as an example of why people shouldn't jump to conclusions based on scale weight. If someone had just read the first two sentences of your post, you'd have a number of people instantly hectoring you about having a poor body image and perhaps even an eating disorder.

    But that's not the case--you just have a small frame. Whether that's due to smaller bone size, decreased muscle mass, or a combination of the two, we can't say. It just points our again that everyone is unique in their physical makeup.

    The course of action is the same no matter what--an emphasis on strength training. Unless you are training for a specific purpose, you don't need a lot of cardio. You can go with more lifting, or with more of a type of "metabolic training" -- higher intensity circuit training, for example--and just a little endurance cardio for balance. But I think you will do better with a more aggressive approach to your training, rather than a more conventional "diet and exercise" approach.
  • mgaither
    mgaither Posts: 115
    Thanks for the advice folks! I'm relieved to hear that there is a path forward that doesn't rely on starvation and ultimately hitting a goal weight, but just looking like a skinnier version of the body I have now. Definitely not my goal!

    Going to look into some strength training options for sure!
This discussion has been closed.