Women: Something to Consider Regarding BF%
Options
Replies
-
same, i got secondary amenorrhea as a result of low bf0
-
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.
Propaganda? Really? Okay, that's your opinion, albeit an inaccurate assessment of my intent. People will be discouraged and susceptible to what? Not becoming under-fat? I see no problem with that at all--you should do your own research and you'd know that there is NOTHING wrong with warning of a common occurrence regardless of whether there are people who don't exhibit the health ramifications I mentioned.0 -
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 have to question your motives with the amount of push back you're giving in regards to something that is extremely well known in the fitness world.0 -
I agree that people need to be carful with how much they lose. ive seen and know a lot of people that because theyre big, they want to lose weight, and when they do, they dont know when to stop. another thing as to why i agree with the bmi being more effective then the scale is because when your working out, you gain lots more muscle and less fat. Muscle weighs more then fat. So if someone wants to be fit and healthy and strong as well, then the bmi is the way to go. people just overlook the fact that its not realistic to be skin and bones, you want muscle on there too. Right now my bmi is at 55. and i was at 62. My goal is to be at 20-22. Once i get there, im going to continue exercising but not be so strict on cutting my calories and focus on evening out my diet.
BMI Calculator and info. site:
http://www.thecalculatorsite.com/health/bmicalculator.php0 -
I make calcium a priority. I eat calcium rich foods and take vitamins. All women that workout hard or breastfeed or just in general should make sure their nurients are there. I got pregnant at 17%bf. All women are different. But def make sure you're consuming all your nutrients!
This. Menopause, breastfeeding are all calcium leeching activities. If you take calcium supplements you should be ok. Having said that a really low BF% is neither healthy nor attractive.0 -
You could also just choose to maintain a healthy weight and skip having kids altogether - you'll be much happier!!0
-
Definitely all individual. Personally I have recently had my BF% as low as 13.8%, professionally tested and 17% or under since June have never had abnormal periods or even missed a period. I'm also 33 and have other medical issues such as Endometriosis and can't not have children so honestly it's not even an issue that concerns me.
But I definitely agree, it's something that needs to be closely watched. So many are concerned with the vanity aspect and want those abs and end up sacrificing too much.0 -
I make calcium a priority. I eat calcium rich foods and take vitamins. All women that workout hard or breastfeed or just in general should make sure their nurients are there. I got pregnant at 17%bf. All women are different. But def make sure you're consuming all your nutrients!
This. Menopause, breastfeeding are all calcium leeching activities. If you take calcium supplements you should be ok. Having said that a really low BF% is neither healthy nor attractive.
According to whose standards? And how can you determine whose healthy or not based on a number?0 -
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.
I agree with you and appreciate you explaining that to me. I tend to forget that people of all shapes and sizes post here, not necessarily just those who have weight to lose.
From my personal experience, having too high of a BF% can actually cause Amenorrhea. Unfortunately, it's most reported from people who suffer from eating disorders rather than the latter.0 -
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.
Propaganda? Really? Okay, that's your opinion, albeit an inaccurate assessment of my intent. People will be discouraged and susceptible to what? Not becoming under-fat? I see no problem with that at all--you should do your own research and you'd know that there is NOTHING wrong with warning of a common occurrence regardless of whether there are people who don't exhibit the health ramifications I mentioned.I have to question your motives with the amount of push back you're giving in regards to something that is extremely well known in the fitness world.
I know I am not the only person here who feels this way, I'm just the only one so far who has the guts to express them. You only gear your "help" to women who are at genetic risk, those who are underweight or have an eating disorder.. I think if you were trying to truly be inclusive to women, you would include facts about how having a high BF% actually puts you at risk for all of the things you mentioned. If your thread is not geared to all women of different sizes, say so in your thread title.
You know what I noticed? You don't like being challenged or questioned. I saw another poster try to tell you the same thing and you sounded defensive. When you post advice, knowledge - expect constructive criticism. And no offense, it's not really that common in young women before or after childbirth.. I've done my research.0 -
Bump to read later.0
-
Excellent post. In my opinion there are a lot of girls and woman who are so obsessed with being thin. Weight, like age is just a number.0
-
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.
I agree with you and appreciate you explaining that to me. I tend to forget that people of all shapes and sizes post here, not necessarily just those who have weight to lose.
From my personal experience, having too high of a BF% can actually cause Amenorrhea. Unfortunately, it's most reported from people who suffer from eating disorders rather than the latter.
Yeah, I have read about that also. Too high and too low bodyfat can cause infertility (sometimes temporary). That is a good point.0 -
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.
Calling this thread "propaganda" is a bit of hyperbole. One comment does not make an entire thread. Why not join the conversation and simply correct factual errors rather than denigrate all the posters?0 -
25% it is! I had not really thought about what my goal bf would be but looking at this I think 25% is the most attractive
I think Oshii's point about distribution is important. I am probably 21% now. And I don't look as good as the girl in the 25% pic. Why? I have no friggin' clue. My body isnt hers and I'm no model. I wish I automatically looked that way by having her bf %. Heck, I wouldn't mind looking like the 30% girl in that pic!
here's another 25%er that looks different:
I think I'm at 35%-ish , and look like that girl in the third picture. Based on the photos posted, I'll be quite happy at 20-25%.
0 -
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.
OP was *not* talking about people who want to have a BF% in the fitness range. She is talking about how she "screwed up" her body, implying that in her past she was on a quest to get rid of any and all fat on her body. She is reminding women that there *is* and essential amount of fat that we need on our bodies. And she posted some links and encouraged people to research the issue.
Sure lots of people misread posts, but someone with poor reading skills can't be helped much by any thread on MFP, now can they?0 -
Excellent post. In my opinion there are a lot of girls and woman who are so obsessed with being thin. Weight, like age is just a number.
:drinker:0 -
bump to read all the pages later. thanks for the thread!!!0
-
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
Incorrect. The OP was simply sharing what happened to her. And if it happened to them, then it could happen to others. That is not fear mongering.
And while BF% is a good variable to know, it's not the only thing that matters for health or looks. A lot (I would guess most) healthy people go through life without ever knowing their BF%.0 -
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.
OP was *not* talking about people who want to have a BF% in the fitness range. She is talking about how she "screwed up" her body, implying that in her past she was on a quest to get rid of any and all fat on her body. She is reminding women that there *is* and essential amount of fat that we need on our bodies. And she posted some links and encouraged people to research the issue.
Sure lots of people misread posts, but someone with poor reading skills can't be helped much by any thread on MFP, now can they?
Except that some of the information in the OP was blatantly incorrect, and needed to be corrected, such as putting breastfeeding in the same category as anorexia. Both do cause ovulation to stop, but through very different physiological mechanisms. It's *normal* for breastfeeding to stop ovulation, and this does not put a woman at risk of brittle bones in and of itself. Insufficient calcium intake while breastfeeding does, but that's not the same thing at all. Ovulation stopping while breastfeeding is normal human physiology, brittle bones from not eating enough calcium is a nutritional deficiency. The implication in the post was very clearly that anyone who breastfeeds for long enough to stop ovulation for a long time is putting their bones at risk because they are not ovulating.... that's completely false, you're not supposed to ovulate while breastfeeding exclusively, it's the body's way of preventing you from getting pregnant before the child's ready to be weaned, which in evolutionary terms is about 5 or 6 years of age. Eating insufficient calcium while breastfeeding is a totally different issue. The take home message should be "if you breastfeed it's vital that you get enough calcium" - however from the post many will get the message "if you breastfeed for too long and you don't ovulate for too long, then you're at risk" instead. There's enough misinformation about breastfeeding out there already, we don't need more of it.
As much as the OP may have intended simply to tell women that trying to stay at 13% body fat for too long, or trying to get below that will cause health problems, she mixed the whole issue up when she included breastfeeding stopping ovulation in the mix. Additionally, when someone claims something that's scientifically incorrect (and in this case if it were true the human race would not have evolved and probably a whole bunch of other mammals wouldn't have either) it makes people doubt the rest of what she was saying. It's well known in the fitness world that it's a bad idea to stay at 13% body fat long term, female bodybuilders go up to around 17% body fat during the off season. Saying so is nothing contraversial. However the way the OP was phrased made it seem like she was telling everyone not to go below 22% (which I ignored) and also that breastfeeding stopping ovulation put women at risk too, which I had to say something about because it's blatantly false and that kind of misinformation puts women off breastfeeding, which then has implications for their baby's health not just theirs (research suggests that breastfeeding benefits the health of both mother and baby - the issue with calcium is purely that you need to ensure you get enough calcium to meet your needs and your baby's needs in order to protect the health of your bones. Breastfeed and consume enough calcium, and there's no danger!!).0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 996 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions