don't just rely on BF%

2»

Replies

  • BusyRaeNOTBusty
    BusyRaeNOTBusty Posts: 7,166 Member
    So the weight on the scale isn't a good measuring criteria, BMI is irrelevant and now BF % shouldn't matter either....

    ::Look in mirror::
    Do I like or dislike?

    That's how I measure.
  • chrisdavey
    chrisdavey Posts: 9,834 Member
    So the weight on the scale isn't a good measuring criteria, BMI is irrelevant and now BF % shouldn't matter either....

    not saying BF% doesn't matter. It is just saying that the same %'s can look totally different depending on total weight and LBM.
  • kieranjlee
    kieranjlee Posts: 4
    In terms of health, waist measurements and body fat are pretty good indicators for excess visceral fat. BMI is fairly good for the general population but obviously people with a lot of muscle mass need to take that into consideration. It's also important to understand that numbers can also vary across age groups, gender and race.

    As mentioned, 15% body fat for a female could potentially be unhealthily low so if you're looking to hit those numbers best to consult a medical professional.
  • bumblebums
    bumblebums Posts: 2,181 Member
    I wanna know what a woman in the low 20s for body fat with a good deal of lean mass looks like.

    I think it looks like me but I'm not sure. For some reason those picture collages never include "fatter" women with muscles.

    If the pic in your avatar is you at your current bf, then I think you're right in your estimation--as long as I am right in mine. I recently estimated my body fat to be in the low 20s, and I have a great deal of muscle. I don't look too different from your pic. [And no, my avatar isn't me. It's a still from Million Dollar Baby.]

    Btw, low 20's is what I have seen recommended as optimal for athletic women. One may not look like a VS model at that percentage, but it's good for your health and is more sustainable for the average person.
  • TallGlassOfQuirky
    TallGlassOfQuirky Posts: 282 Member
    I wanna know what a woman in the low 20s for body fat with a good deal of lean mass looks like.

    I think it looks like me but I'm not sure. For some reason those picture collages never include "fatter" women with muscles.

    I was about 20(ish)% BF at the end of last spring at 5'10" and just a bit under 160 pounds so I would have fit your "low 20s ... good deal of lean mass" request pretty well.
    I looked like this (no bikini shot - I cover up a bit more than during my final rebellious CoryIda days):
    c25b6243-a34e-4ea9-80cf-8c15e1ade93c_zps40a5af93.jpg
    timeline10.jpg

    Now, I am in the mid 20's and 10-15 pounds heavier. I look closer to the 25% picture now than when I was really focused on fitness, but perhaps a bit more firm (except for the loose tummy skin).

    Anyway - I think the point of the article is to show that you shouldn't base your goal just off of a number - whether a number on the scale or a BF %. Base it on how you want to look, but even more importantly, base it off of how you want to feel and what you want to be able to accomplish.
  • SmartAlec03211988
    SmartAlec03211988 Posts: 1,896 Member
    This is why I don't even pay attention to BF%. I'll get to my preferred body when I get there. I don't need it to be a specific number.

    I look nothing like any of those guys, and my BF% is anywhere from 16 to 23 percent according to all the various online calculators. I don't care anymore.
  • NavyKnightAh13
    NavyKnightAh13 Posts: 1,394 Member
    Bump though once I get to my preferred body, I will be happy.
  • astrovivi
    astrovivi Posts: 183 Member
    lol Chris, but the great unwashed will always just make it a "which looks better" disregarding context :p
  • astrovivi
    astrovivi Posts: 183 Member
    only the total kg of fat mass and lbm matter ... are they a) in a healthy range for your age, height etc blah blah and b) look at your goals if you are seeking to be shredded/strong/whatever.

    % like any statistic when viewed as one number in isolation is ALWAYS a poor indicator of anything. primarily because it is a relative measurement but when viewed alone you lose the relative nature of it and so it becomes misleading.
  • dixiewhiskey
    dixiewhiskey Posts: 3,333 Member
    Awesome read! Thanks for posting!
  • JoanB5
    JoanB5 Posts: 610 Member
    Here's another, for reference (I think the 20-22% looks healthier here, my goal for now): http://www.builtlean.com/2012/09/24/body-fat-percentage-men-women/

    Also, the chart at the bottom of this article takes age into consideration for body fat recommendations, for what that's worth to anyone. I want to have a little more fat reserve for illness than I used to. http://www.builtlean.com/2010/08/03/ideal-body-fat-percentage-chart/

Categories