Questions about body fat and frame

zoom2

Here's a perfect illustration of why the same woman with the same body fat percentage is likely to be healthier at the heavier weight:
http://www.leighpeele.com/body-fat-pictures-and-percentages (scroll to the bottom)

Even at relatively high body fat a lot of us have blood work that tells a different story than our exterior and body fat % would suggest. My most recent lipids profile was done when I was 20#s overweight and easily 27% body fat.
Cholesterol: 154
HDL: 70
LDL: 77
Triglycerides: 36
BP is generally ~ 100-110/60-70

Those #s were during marathon training during a year when I logged >1800 miles. There are a LOT of low body fat folks who can't touch that.

tigersword

Honey, I hate to break it to you, but if you really are at a healthy weight, your breasts are not made of fat. Breasts are made of breast tissue and can often be surrounded by fat. The more fat stored, the more fat on the boobies. That's why some people lose weight in their chest area and others don't. It depends on how much breast tissue you have initially, which is genetic. I've fluctuated 30 lbs and my boobs haven't changed. It's because they aren't fat.

Also, I'm in the same boat at about 31% bf based on calculators on the internet. Ones that I trust. And if you look at my pics I would hardly say I'm really "fat". But I have a bit more body fat than I'd like. Also, the categories don't go from "normal" to "obese". Just because you're a little over doesn't turn you from normal into an obese person. It means you have a little excess fat for desirable health. Don't worry about it. Just lift and run and bring your body fat down. And really, don't get mad if someone insinuates that you're "fat". You shouldn't ever have to defend your body. Especially not to someone on the internet.

I'd also like to point out that BMI was created to roughtly estimate a person's body fat based on weight and height....well not even that as it wasn't created for individuals, but it's how we use it now. Therefore arguments about what your BMI is if you know your body fat percentage are completely irrelevant. The person who is telling you that your BMI makes a difference between whether you should lose weight or not if you already know your body fat % has no idea what they're talking about. People who rely on BMI are often talking out of their *kitten*.

All this being said, screw numbers. Base your ideal weight or body fat % on how you look and feel. All the rest is bull$hit.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3066051/
Shows people with BMI's higher than 25 have a higher risk of death, regardless of body fat percentage. Meta analysis performed on 19 long term studies, with 1.5 million subjects.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0033308
Study (just published a few months back) shows that BMI generally UNDERESTIMATES body fat levels on the average American, study conducted on 14,000 people.

As for the "obesity paradox," here's an abstract of a review that puts forth the hypothesis that the paradox is more a cause of medical advances than any specific protective ability of obesity.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23017304

I mean, if you're going to tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about, you should at least have some scientific information to prove your point, rather than baseless insults.

nexangelus

While the most accurate measurements are the most expensive, there is the caliper method which might be slightly more accurate than the scales. I use calipers to measure my "rolls" each month. I am happy with how this is progressing. I have heard the scales are not the best method to use.

Aviva92

Someone can be 110lbs and be 30% bodyfat. Its common when someone does a lot of cardio and no resistance training.

if someone is 110 and 30% bodyfat, but not short, then i'm calling bull**** on bodyfat % meaning jack ****. seems like a great way to shame thin people though. also, i don't know that any method of measuring body fat % is all that accurate to begin with. i'll stick to BMI.

Capt_Apollo

I'm sorry you wasted your money on that scale. They are a scam (ask any scientist...a real scientist). They give you a number, but it is not your body fat %. Possibly it tests how sweaty you are. But, that scale is scientifically impossible to do what it claims to do. You should not be basing medical decisions or how you feel about yourself on that scale. It's no better than a carnival fortune telling machine. Just the fact that it has an athlete and non-athlete setting should be a big clue to anyone that it is nonsense.

this

Aviva92

I'd also like to point out that BMI was created to roughtly estimate a person's body fat based on weight and height....well not even that as it wasn't created for individuals, but it's how we use it now. Therefore arguments about what your BMI is if you know your body fat percentage are completely irrelevant. The person who is telling you that your BMI makes a difference between whether you should lose weight or not if you already know your body fat % has no idea what they're talking about. People who rely on BMI are often talking out of their *kitten*.

I guess I'm the person who you say is talking out of my *kitten*. She doesn't know her body fat percent in the first place for your argument to make any sense. Those scales for body fat % are crap. I sort of think that the tape measure method is crap too though. The only measurement that someone knows for sure is weight.

AZKristi

25-30% is considered healthy for young women, so you really are pretty close that.

Based on your size, I suspect that gaining just a few pounds of muscle would lower your BF% into that range. If I was at that point in my journey, I would be eating at maintenance and doing lots of weight lifting and high intensity interval training to increase lean body mass. Just make sure you are getting enough protein and all of the essential amino acids. If you are not opposed to milk protein, try a post-workout shake with a good whey protein and almond milk.

missmegan831

Try using calipers or tape measure and see what results you get from that. Your bra size shouldn't matter with those tests.

Well said Victoria!!! I agree... I had a scale like that say I was 39% body fat and when I went and got measured turned out I was 31% so I think using calipers or a tape measure would give you more accurate results.

emtjmac

I don't trust any readings from digital scales. I've used a $10 analog scale from Walmart for the last 74 pounds and I've been happy with it.

Aviva92

I don't trust any readings from digital scales. I've used a $10 analog scale from Walmart for the last 74 pounds and I've been happy with it.

for weight, my digital scale seems very accurate. it gives me pretty much exactly the same number as the doctors scale at my gym, but i like that it does it in 1/5th of a pound increments.

Aviva92

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3066051/
Shows people with BMI's higher than 25 have a higher risk of death, regardless of body fat percentage. Meta analysis performed on 19 long term studies, with 1.5 million subjects.

hmmm, i didn't read that whole thing because it's long and boring, but it seems to say that people who are on the low end of normal with a BMI of 18.5-19.9 have a higher mortality rate at 1.14% compared to overweight people at 25-29.9 having a mortality rate of 1.13%. What am I missing? Is being overweight better than being on the low end of normal?

tigersword

They addressed that, basically that needs more study, but from the data they had, it appeared that the mortality rate on the lower end of the BMI may have been affected by preexisting diseases that caused the low weight in the first place, as ther majority of the low weight deaths occurred within 5 years.

victoria4321

As for the "obesity paradox," here's an abstract of a review that puts forth the hypothesis that the paradox is more a cause of medical advances than any specific protective ability of obesity.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23017304

My question then would have to be why dont the lower weight people get the same benefit from the advances in medicine?

BinaryPulsar

1.14% and 1.13% is such a small difference. Isn't that considered statistically insignificant? Especially when compared with all the other data that pushes it in the other direction (plus the point about the people that are at a low weight due to a pre-existing illness).

Azdak

Someone can be 110lbs and be 30% bodyfat. Its common when someone does a lot of cardio and no resistance training.

Oddly enough, I have done thousands of body composition assessments over almost 30 years. I have seen every frame size imaginable. While I have not worked with many people who have suffered from eating disorders, I have worked with plenty of folks who have followed all manner of "diet" plans, including gastric bypass surgeries. I have NEVER, ever seen someone who had an overly high body fat % due to their ratio of cardio to resistance training. I have seen a number of men and women who would be considered "skinny fat"-- who had an unexpectedly high BF% based on their scale weight and appearance (e.g. a 5'4" woman who weighed 110lbs and had 28% body fat).

In most cases, the measurements were due to the individual's genetic body type. Most were measured at the beginning of their exercise program and few, if only, had ever dieted. The primary exceptions were those who were recovering from a serious injury, illness, cancer treatment, etc.

And while not rare, they are not "common" by any means. This is one of those cliches that's gets thrown around a lot these days, but, like many cliches, however, it doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.

Aviva92

Another thing to keep in mind with these scales is that they depend upon a person having ideal hydration and not being used immediately after a workout and consistently used under similar conditions. A lot of people don't use them as instructed...so even the best electronic impedance device can read way off.

I haven't noticed much of a difference whether or not I'm hydrated. Consumer Reports does not rate body fat % scales because they state that none of them are accurate.

Aviva92

Someone can be 110lbs and be 30% bodyfat. Its common when someone does a lot of cardio and no resistance training.

Oddly enough, I have done thousands of body composition assessments over almost 30 years. I have seen every frame size imaginable. While I have not worked with many people who have suffered from eating disorders, I have worked with plenty of folks who have followed all manner of "diet" plans, including gastric bypass surgeries. I have NEVER, ever seen someone who had an overly high body fat % due to their ratio of cardio to resistance training. I have seen a number of men and women who would be considered "skinny fat"-- who had an unexpectedly high BF% based on their scale weight and appearance (e.g. a 5'4" woman who weighed 110lbs and had 28% body fat).

In most cases, the measurements were due to the individual's genetic body type. Most were measured at the beginning of their exercise program and few, if only, had ever dieted. The primary exceptions were those who were recovering from a serious injury, illness, cancer treatment, etc.

And while not rare, they are not "common" by any means. This is one of those cliches that's gets thrown around a lot these days, but, like many cliches, however, it doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.

I believe this. Some people are just naturally muscular and others are not. I know one woman who has never worked out a day in her life and she has a 6 pack.

I always though that losing muscle due to dieting was mostly a myth. It wasn't as though gaining weight put on any muscle to begin with.

tigersword

1.14% and 1.13% is such a small difference. Isn't that considered statistically insignificant? Especially when compared with all the other data that pushes it in the other direction (plus the point about the people that are at a low weight due to a pre-existing illness).

I would agree that 1.14 and 1.13 would be statistically insignificant, but that's not what the researchers were comparing. They were comparing mortality rates between BMI ranges and what they found were that people with BMIs between 18.5 and 19.9 had a higher mortality rate than people with BMIs between 20 and 24.9 (1.14 vs 1.00.) They weren't comparing BMIs from the low end of the range with overweight, specifically. That was just Victoria pointing out an interesting statistic. Another interesting statistic is that people with underweight BMIs (under 18.5) had almost the same mortality rate as people with a BMI between 30-34.9 (1.47 vs 1.44.)

Aviva92

1.14% and 1.13% is such a small difference. Isn't that considered statistically insignificant? Especially when compared with all the other data that pushes it in the other direction (plus the point about the people that are at a low weight due to a pre-existing illness).

I would agree that 1.14 and 1.13 would be statistically insignificant, but that's not what the researchers were comparing. They were comparing mortality rates between BMI ranges and what they found were that people with BMIs between 18.5 and 19.9 had a higher mortality rate than people with BMIs between 20 and 24.9 (1.14 vs 1.00.) They weren't comparing BMIs from the low end of the range with overweight, specifically. That was just Victoria pointing out an interesting statistic. Another interesting statistic is that people with underweight BMIs (under 18.5) had almost the same mortality rate as people with a BMI between 30-34.9 (1.47 vs 1.44.)

In looking at that study it shows the mortality rate for 18.5 through 19.9 and then 20 through 22.4. Then it skips to 25 to 29.9. Where is 22.4 through 24.9? Or is that a typo and 22.4 should say 24.9?

Ejourneys

I use this (in addition to my scale, tape measure, and mirror):
http://www.accumeasurefitness.com/

tigersword

1.14% and 1.13% is such a small difference. Isn't that considered statistically insignificant? Especially when compared with all the other data that pushes it in the other direction (plus the point about the people that are at a low weight due to a pre-existing illness).

I would agree that 1.14 and 1.13 would be statistically insignificant, but that's not what the researchers were comparing. They were comparing mortality rates between BMI ranges and what they found were that people with BMIs between 18.5 and 19.9 had a higher mortality rate than people with BMIs between 20 and 24.9 (1.14 vs 1.00.) They weren't comparing BMIs from the low end of the range with overweight, specifically. That was just Victoria pointing out an interesting statistic. Another interesting statistic is that people with underweight BMIs (under 18.5) had almost the same mortality rate as people with a BMI between 30-34.9 (1.47 vs 1.44.)

In looking at that study it shows the mortality rate for 18.5 through 19.9 and then 20 through 22.4. Then it skips to 25 to 29.9. Where is 22.4 through 24.9? Or is that a typo and 22.4 should say 24.9?

22.5-24.9 was their reference category. They used that to determine their baseline mortality. It just happened to turn out that 20-22.4 had the same mortality rate, hence the ratio of 1.00 (baseline.)

RhineDHP

I haven't read too many of the other comments, but I have read some of yours, and I guess I could throw in my two cents.


There's a good chance that scale is mostly right. Why? Because at 5'0 you're 125 pounds. I'm 5'1, and 126-7 pounds at the moment. I checked my BMI a long time ago, when I was....maybe 118, and it told me mine was 28%. I too have tig ol bitties (haha, 34DD), and I know I have more fat than muscle at this point.

Bravo on fitting into a size 2 btw, I think on a good day only one skirt from a certain store that's now gone I can fit into it...mayybe.


But hey, I could be wrong and the BMI given to me back then was inaccurate. I'll say this, you're definitely a lot more active than I am. Maybe that's all 125 pounds of muscle. And boob.

RobynLB

Body fat percentage has nothing to do with your height. It's a percentage, so that's already taken into account. Also, women are already given a higher healthy body fat percentage to allow for breasts (and other womanly fat deposits) so that's already taken into account. If you're on the borderline of over fat... it is what it is... you aren't being betrayed by some system that doesn't take into account your frame, gender, and height.

Those scales are pretty worthless though. Someone suggested using the athlete setting, but the athlete setting is not for light exercisers, it is for people who do intense training for 10+ hours a week. Intense training does not mean Zumba.