Women: Something to Consider Regarding BF%

Options
1…810121314

Replies

  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    women who are ttc should eat full fat foods. Never eat fat free or low fat. Fat is an essential nutrient that we all need, esp if you are trying to conceive.

    What does "ttc" mean?
  • carrieous
    carrieous Posts: 1,024 Member
    Options
    Trying To Conceive
  • freelancejouster
    freelancejouster Posts: 478 Member
    Options
    25 - 40% body fat on most women is extremely appealing to most men... Myself included... Less than that and it is not good as was mentioned for reproductive health and it really isn't as appealing to most men either...

    Women don't usually lose weight or look a certain way for men. We do it for ourselves.

    Thanks, though.
  • servilia
    servilia Posts: 3,452 Member
    Options
    My doctor said I need to gain some fat back. I recently weighed in at 113 pounds around 22% BF. My husband and I have been trying to get pregnant for years but I'm afraid to gain weight so I don't eat any oil or egg yolks. My hormones were so low that I'm on progesterone cream twice a day. So I guess this has taught me that too low of BF causes more harm than good but how can I overcome my fear of needing to gain healthy fat without gaining weight? It's really good to hear about your friend getting pregnant! :smile:

    You just have to ask yourself what's more important--your weight or having a baby with the man you love. Start by eating the yolk f your eggs--then start cooking things in oil or eating nuts and seeds for snacks. You can overcome this If you want it badly enough!

    This! Also (to the originally quoted woman ie 113lbs) if you have an all encompassing fear of gaining weight to the point that it may be compromising your ability to get pregnant (something you want very much) maybe you need counseling for that. I say that in the nicest way possible. It would be for the best, especially since you should have a healthy outlook on healthy weight gain during pregnancy in order to provide the best start to your baby. Kind of off topic but over the counter progesterone creams are useless. Go see a Reproductive Endocronologist to get a full workup and if you need progesterone supplementation ask for prometrium or suppositories. Good luck.
  • spicy618
    spicy618 Posts: 2,117 Member
    Options
    It's actually an interesting read. I've been seeing a nutritionist who has worked in the business for 30 years. His wife is 9% body fat and still regularly menstruates and has had no other health issues. I am working on lowering my body fat now - currently he's measuring me at 16.5%, and I am on a regular 45 day cycle. It's funny, when I was at 22% during the start, I did not get regular menstrual cycles. Once I dropped down to 18% body fat, BAM, regular cycles of 45 days. Maybe it's different for everyone?

    45 days is a regualr cycle? I thought it was 28.
    :flowerforyou:
  • joleenl
    joleenl Posts: 739 Member
    Options
    Thanks for the post!
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    It's actually an interesting read. I've been seeing a nutritionist who has worked in the business for 30 years. His wife is 9% body fat and still regularly menstruates and has had no other health issues. I am working on lowering my body fat now - currently he's measuring me at 16.5%, and I am on a regular 45 day cycle. It's funny, when I was at 22% during the start, I did not get regular menstrual cycles. Once I dropped down to 18% body fat, BAM, regular cycles of 45 days. Maybe it's different for everyone?

    45 days is a regualr cycle? I thought it was 28.
    :flowerforyou:

    28 days is the typical or average cycle. I believe in this case "regular" just means at regular intervals.
  • 12by311
    12by311 Posts: 1,716 Member
    Options
    It's actually an interesting read. I've been seeing a nutritionist who has worked in the business for 30 years. His wife is 9% body fat and still regularly menstruates and has had no other health issues. I am working on lowering my body fat now - currently he's measuring me at 16.5%, and I am on a regular 45 day cycle. It's funny, when I was at 22% during the start, I did not get regular menstrual cycles. Once I dropped down to 18% body fat, BAM, regular cycles of 45 days. Maybe it's different for everyone?

    How are you being tested?

    I get tested with calipers on stomach, arm, and thigh. It can be plus or minus anywhere up to 3%.

    Is your picture current?
  • CorvusCorax77
    CorvusCorax77 Posts: 2,536 Member
    Options

    We also know that women who don't have periods for long stretches of time because of anorexia, or because they breastfeed for a long time or go in to an early menopause, are at risk. Heavy smokers and very underweight women are also more prone."

    Incorrect...

    I'm surprised at how many people are saying how informative this thread is.. Basically, this thread is sharing a personal experience that most likely won't affect a lot of people. Bf% is a much better variable to set goals for than a number on the scale.

    This thread is fear mongering.. straight up

    :flowerforyou:
  • love4fitnesslove4food_wechange
    love4fitnesslove4food_wechange Posts: 6,897 Member
    Options
    You couldn't tell it by looking at me now, but when I was trying to get pregnant with my first son, we had no luck for about a year and a half. I gained about 20 lbs, and got pregnant as soon as I hit the "normal" weight range for my height.

    Thank you for sharing this.
  • love4fitnesslove4food_wechange
    love4fitnesslove4food_wechange Posts: 6,897 Member
    Options
    I was thinking about this post last night. Wouldn't it be the amount of fat on your body, rather than the percent that mattered most for health risks?

    What I mean is, if someone lowered their BF% without losing any fat (by gaining muscle), their risk of disease wouldn't really increase would it?

    Well it's lot bodyfat % per se that causes the issues--it's the endocrine issues in response to inadequate fat stores. If you don't have that effect then you're not at risk.
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 Member
    Options
    body-fat-percentage-women.jpg

    Seriously? I'm at 32% and I look a lot more like the lady in the 40% picture. When I was under 20%, I didn't look like that one either - more like the 25% picture - and I exercised all the time.

    It also depends on where you carry your fat. I was tested at 30% when I was a teenager. Back then, I was a year-round athlete, very fit, and in excellent health. I had killer legs from years of soccer and running, and was wearing an open-belly swimsuit. (They called it a peek-a-boo swimsuit back then) Now that I'm older and have had two c-sections, and recently lost 60 pounds of what I had gained over the years, I'm probably around 45%. I am shooting for 30% as my goal now.

    But the 35% picture is almost exactly what I looked like at 30% when I was 15 years old. I have always carried most of my fat in my hips and thighs.
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 Member
    Options

    We also know that women who don't have periods for long stretches of time because of anorexia, or because they breastfeed for a long time or go in to an early menopause, are at risk. Heavy smokers and very underweight women are also more prone."

    Incorrect...

    I'm surprised at how many people are saying how informative this thread is.. Basically, this thread is sharing a personal experience that most likely won't affect a lot of people. Bf% is a much better variable to set goals for than a number on the scale.

    This thread is fear mongering.. straight up

    Good thing I don't scare easily. :laugh:

    Personally, I've found this to be an interesting discussion. I think if people are frightened by any of these posts, then perhaps they have low self-esteem or body image issues. I've enjoyed this thread.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    body-fat-percentage-women.jpg

    Seriously? I'm at 32% and I look a lot more like the lady in the 40% picture. When I was under 20%, I didn't look like that one either - more like the 25% picture - and I exercised all the time.

    It also depends on where you carry your fat. I was tested at 30% when I was a teenager. Back then, I was a year-round athlete, very fit, and in excellent health. I had killer legs from years of soccer and running, and was wearing an open-belly swimsuit. (They called it a peek-a-boo swimsuit back then) Now that I'm older and have had two c-sections, and recently lost 60 pounds of what I had gained over the years, I'm probably around 45%. I am shooting for 30% as my goal now.

    But the 35% picture is almost exactly what I looked like at 30% when I was 15 years old. I have always carried most of my fat in my hips and thighs.

    And these are just one example of each. Not every woman with XX% BF will look that same. Basice body type, age, height, total weight, muscle %,etc. all have an affect.
  • BinaryPulsar
    BinaryPulsar Posts: 8,927 Member
    Options
    Yeah, I agree that maybe some info in the original OP is not fully accurate and also applies differently to different people.

    But, I also am glad the Op posted this because this did happen to her and could happen to other people. I know I have a tendency towards lower and lower is better. But, I am at 18 percent and I am happy here and can not see myself going lower, only maintaining and building muscles and whatever happens happens. I don't think I need to gain weight or increase my bf%, but I also think I do not need to make it lower either. This is a good thread for the people that it could benefit and it's always a fine idea to check in with a doctor if you are at the low end of the bodyfat spectrum. I have checked in with my doctor and she has assured me that I am fully healthy in my weight, bodyfat, lean body mass, nutrition, and hormones.

    So, while this info applies differently to different people, I am very glad the OP shared this. If it does not impact you personally then it's not a problem, but there may be another young women out there that could benefit from taking this info into consideration.
  • love4fitnesslove4food_wechange
    love4fitnesslove4food_wechange Posts: 6,897 Member
    Options
    There are exceptions to EVERY health finding and recommendation. There are people who smoke 2 packs of cigarettes a day and never develop any smoking related diseases but yet we warn of lung cancer all the time. Why do we do this? Because its a very real concern--better to inform and err on the side of caution. Right?
  • BinaryPulsar
    BinaryPulsar Posts: 8,927 Member
    Options
    There are exceptions to EVERY health finding and recommendation. There are people who smoke 2 packs of cigarettes a day and never develop any smoking related diseases but yet we warn of lung cancer all the time. Why do we do this? Because its a very real concern--better to inform and err on the side of caution. Right?

    Yeah! :flowerforyou:
  • dixiewhiskey
    dixiewhiskey Posts: 3,333 Member
    Options
    Absolutely, nothing wrong with sharing knowledge but this info should be taken with a grain of salt. The first link posted was a blurb from a much larger study that we don't have direct access to. It's very important to read all aspects of a study, not bits and pieces. Continuing on, this is a personal experience shared by someone who has a history of unnamed health issues, many of which most of us don't have. There are a ton of variables that affect what OP is sharing - we would have to have her entire regime from the day she started becoming fit to today to even begin to interpret whether the factors she mentioned weren't already an issue. How was your calcium? Your age? Get what I'm saying..

    Like I said earlier, most people here think by eating under cals and exercising that they will lose weight - when in reality, their true goal is to reduce their fat. OP's post can be easily interpreted as a means to focus less on our true goals and back to being a slave to the number on the scale.. just because of her genetic susceptibility to specific health issues, etc or the very high possibility that she is suffering from some kind of eating disorder, poor self-esteem or that she became deficient in crucial nutrients while 'trying to get fit'.

    While I believe OP probably meant well, most people will not get to the athlete BF% because that is not their goal. You've indirectly without any solid evidence tried to discourage (with the potential to do worse) a lot of people from focusing on BF%. You should always be seeing a doctor during weight or fat loss efforts to rule out or prevent issues from developing. That's just common sense and that should be the message you are trying to send.
  • dixiewhiskey
    dixiewhiskey Posts: 3,333 Member
    Options

    We also know that women who don't have periods for long stretches of time because of anorexia, or because they breastfeed for a long time or go in to an early menopause, are at risk. Heavy smokers and very underweight women are also more prone."

    Incorrect...

    I'm surprised at how many people are saying how informative this thread is.. Basically, this thread is sharing a personal experience that most likely won't affect a lot of people. Bf% is a much better variable to set goals for than a number on the scale.

    This thread is fear mongering.. straight up

    Good thing I don't scare easily. :laugh:

    Personally, I've found this to be an interesting discussion. I think if people are frightened by any of these posts, then perhaps they have low self-esteem or body image issues. I've enjoyed this thread.

    That's my point love.. people who DO have low self-esteem and body issues will not necessarily be frightened but rather discouraged. Also people who have difficulty researching will also be susceptible. This thread is propaganda, again based on the OP's first post but it's nice to know you enjoyed it.
  • BinaryPulsar
    BinaryPulsar Posts: 8,927 Member
    Options
    Absolutely, nothing wrong with sharing knowledge but this info should be taken with a grain of salt. The first link posted was a blurb from a much larger study that we don't have direct access to. It's very important to read all aspects of a study, not bits and pieces. Continuing on, this is a personal experience shared by someone who has a history of unnamed health issues, many of which most of us don't have. There are a ton of variables that affect what OP is sharing - we would have to have her entire regime from the day she started becoming fit to today to even begin to interpret whether the factors she mentioned weren't already an issue. How was your calcium? Your age? Get what I'm saying..

    Like I said earlier, most people here think by eating under cals and exercising that they will lose weight - when in reality, their true goal is to reduce their fat. OP's post can be easily interpreted as a means to focus less on our true goals and back to being a slave to the number on the scale.. just because of her genetic susceptibility to specific health issues, etc or the very high possibility that she is suffering from some kind of eating disorder, poor self-esteem or that she became deficient in crucial nutrients while 'trying to get fit'.

    While I believe OP probably meant well, most people will not get to the athlete BF% because that is not their goal. You've indirectly without any solid evidence tried to discourage (with the potential to do worse) a lot of people from focusing on BF%. You should always be seeing a doctor during weight or fat loss efforts to rule out or prevent issues from developing. That's just common sense and that should be the message you are trying to send.

    I didn't perceive the OP to be saying that people should not focus on lowering bodyfat. I just thought she was sharing her personal experience of getting down into the 13-16 range, for an extended period of time, at a young age, before childbearing, so that other people (that may be in a similiar situation and young) could evaluate this for their own situation. I've seen other people do this before in the forums (share their own experiences to help others that may be in a similiar situation).

    But, I agree that if a person has a past history of eating disorders, that is a factor in these types of issues (early bone health problems and endocrine problems).

    I would think this thread would be a catalyst for people to do more research.

Categories