seriously confused!

MoreBean13

I'm with everyone else. The 25% number doesn't seem to be correct.

Also, the number is irrelevant. If you're happy with how you look in the mirror, don't worry about the number. If you aren't happy with how you look, stay in a calorie deficit and keep working out. Doesn't matter if the number says 8% or 48% if you're not satisfied

I'm with you on the spirit of this post- you need to be satisfied with yourself- but there are exaggerated medical risks associated with extreme highs and lows for body fat. Getting to a healthy body fat range is a pretty good idea for everyone.

Always the party pooper.

OP- A moderate calorie deficit and taking steps towards a healthier lifestyle including some cardio and weight lifting should be the takeaway for you from the measurements, no matter what the specific numbers are. You will be successful with that prescription!

scorpio516

Ask your doctor to recalculate. He/she made a mistake.

If you are 200-210, no way you are 25% BF....that is a calculation error.

Just to point out that that is not a true blanket assumption. It might be true for short to average height women, but not everyone.
When I was 220, I was around 25% BF, but I'm a 6' male.

Also, the number is irrelevant. If you're happy with how you look in the mirror, don't worry about the number. If you aren't happy with how you look, stay in a calorie deficit and keep working out. Doesn't matter if the number says 8% or 48% if you're not satisfied

The number, if correct, isn't irrelevant. A woman with 8% BF will be unhealthy and at a risk of her reproductive organs shutting down. Twice that is a healthy minimum.
Men can live a long time at 8% because we don't have those organs. Men can get down to about 5% and still be healthy (though, with they way it's measured, the difference between 5% and 8% is within the margin of error).

jimmmer

Also, the number is irrelevant. If you're happy with how you look in the mirror, don't worry about the number. If you aren't happy with how you look, stay in a calorie deficit and keep working out. Doesn't matter if the number says 8% or 48% if you're not satisfied

The number, if correct, isn't irrelevant. A woman with 8% BF will be unhealthy and at a risk of her reproductive organs shutting down. Twice that is a healthy minimum.
Men can live a long time at 8% because we don't have those organs. Men can get down to about 5% and still be healthy (though, with they way it's measured, the difference between 5% and 8% is within the margin of error).

He can probably defend himself, but I think you're taking the 8-48% range a bit literally. I think the take home message of this post is more to do with coming to terms with being happy and healthy...... and if you're not happy and healthy, what the general way forward would be. I don't think he's advocating that the OP torches herself down to 8%.....

DavPul

Also, the number is irrelevant. If you're happy with how you look in the mirror, don't worry about the number. If you aren't happy with how you look, stay in a calorie deficit and keep working out. Doesn't matter if the number says 8% or 48% if you're not satisfied

The number, if correct, isn't irrelevant. A woman with 8% BF will be unhealthy and at a risk of her reproductive organs shutting down. Twice that is a healthy minimum.
Men can live a long time at 8% because we don't have those organs. Men can get down to about 5% and still be healthy (though, with they way it's measured, the difference between 5% and 8% is within the margin of error).

Is Wednesday now Unreasonable Day? My point was that most people can accurately judge if they are at a healthy weight by just looking at themselves. I'm not saying go try to be 8% just like I'm not saying go be 48%.

cmriverside

Ask your doctor to recalculate. He/she made a mistake.

If you are 200-210, no way you are 25% BF....that is a calculation error.

Just to point out that that is not a true blanket assumption. It might be true for short to average height women, but not everyone.
When I was 220, I was around 25% BF, but I'm a 6' male.

Yeah, and your point? I was speaking to the young lady. I looked at her picture and her weight-loss ticker. Did you do that? Of course she's not a 6' male. SMH. And of course that is possible.

yoovie

Ask your doctor to recalculate. He/she made a mistake.

If you are 200-210, no way you are 25% BF....that is a calculation error.

Just to point out that that is not a true blanket assumption. It might be true for short to average height women, but not everyone.
When I was 220, I was around 25% BF, but I'm a 6' male.

Yeah, and your point? I was speaking to the young lady. I looked at her picture and her weight-loss ticker. Did you do that? Of course she's not a 6' male. SMH. And of course that is possible.

I guessed she was about 5'6 - that her bf% was about 33

scorpio516

Ask your doctor to recalculate. He/she made a mistake.

If you are 200-210, no way you are 25% BF....that is a calculation error.

Just to point out that that is not a true blanket assumption. It might be true for short to average height women, but not everyone.
When I was 220, I was around 25% BF, but I'm a 6' male.

Yeah, and your point? I was speaking to the young lady. I looked at her picture and her weight-loss ticker. Did you do that? Of course she's not a 6' male. SMH. And of course that is possible.

But you said it wasn't possible.

you made a blanket statement that if you are 200-210, there is no way you have 25% BF...