Women: Something to Consider Regarding BF%
Replies
-
Thank you for clarifyng this. I will now reassess my goals so my body can be appealing to most men. Maybe then, someone will finally marry me and my grandmother won't think i'm a failure anymore.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...0 -
very interesting topic....i recently just hit 20% BF, started at around 27%. I don't plan on going any lower than this as I am pretty happy in my skin right now. I am wondering though, if I am on the pill, would I even notice any irregularities in my menstrual cycle? How am I supposed to know if my current BF % is too low for me? Is there seomthing I should be testing (some kind of blood analysis or something)?
Your GYN can test your estrogen levels with a simple blood test.0 -
very interesting topic....i recently just hit 20% BF, started at around 27%. I don't plan on going any lower than this as I am pretty happy in my skin right now. I am wondering though, if I am on the pill, would I even notice any irregularities in my menstrual cycle? How am I supposed to know if my current BF % is too low for me? Is there seomthing I should be testing (some kind of blood analysis or something)?
Your GYN can test your estrogen levels with a simple blood test.
It wouldn't be accurate if she's taking a hormonal BC pill that contains estrogen.0 -
This is scary to me because I have always had this incessant fear that I would not be fertile when it came time to have children with my husband. This is fueling it even more. Ahhh.
I am currently at 25% body fat and originally I wanted to get down to 18. Maybe I will readjust and make it so that I don't go below 22. My husband and I definitely want to have kids someday and I would be devastated if I ruined the chances of that because I wanted six pack abs and 18% body fat at the time.
Thanks for the post, OP.0 -
very interesting topic....i recently just hit 20% BF, started at around 27%. I don't plan on going any lower than this as I am pretty happy in my skin right now. I am wondering though, if I am on the pill, would I even notice any irregularities in my menstrual cycle? How am I supposed to know if my current BF % is too low for me? Is there seomthing I should be testing (some kind of blood analysis or something)?
Your GYN can test your estrogen levels with a simple blood test.
It wouldn't be accurate if she's taking a hormonal BC pill that contains estrogen.
Oh, that makes sense. The things you forget when you haven't had to worry about that for a few years. :ohwell:0 -
0
-
thanks! :-)0
-
Thank you for clarifyng this. I will now reassess my goals so my body can be appealing to most men. Maybe then, someone will finally marry me and my grandmother won't think i'm a failure anymore.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...
Funny, I think I've heard one negative to about a thousand positives from men when it comes to my current look.
With respect to the OP, I am sorry you are struggling so, and it does cause me to want to research further.
I am not concerned with fertility (I'm done having kids), and my cycles are bang on 28 days (almost to the hour). For the first time in my life, they're manageable and don't keep me in bed for a week because I'm flowing so heavy I can't even go to work.
But if there are other damages that could pose problematic, I'd like to know them.
When I went for my last physical, my doc didn't express any concerns.. so I'm hoping she knows a bit too.
And I believe I am around 17% if not lower now (based on clear ab definition)0 -
I changed my goal from being a scale weight to being 25% body fat. I am also heavy lifting to ensure that as well as keeping my muscles as I grow older, they will be more dense and therefore stronger.
I am just a short way off my goal, but am already in the size clothes I wanted to be in and am happy with my body shape. I little more toning and loss of body fat and I am done and staying there this time. :laugh:0 -
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?
Was wondering this as well. A 45 day cycle is extremely long and you may not be ovulating.
And thank you OP. I think if you stop menstruating it is a sign that your body fat might be too low for optimal health and reproductive fitness. Some women may value health over aesthetics and be unaware of this. Historically I stop menstruating if I go below around 19%, which even my doctor commented is not *that* thin.0 -
Interesting read. I'm sitting at about 17% BF and lost my period about 9 months ago. Saw the doc after about 6 months and he actually diagnosed me with PCOS. He said that between the low BF and PCOS, he was not surprised that I was not having a period. Told me that it wasn't doing any harm to not have a period and if I hadn't had one for over a year, they could force my body to have one. Seemed legit to me.
I had no idea that osteoporosis could be a factor. I'm definitely going to be looking into this.
FYI, I'm a long distance runner training for a marathon and also do a lot of strength training in order to compete in the mud runs I love (Tough Mudder and Spartans). So while I do understand that my BF % is lower than desirable for men (according to previous post), I will say screw being hot to men in order to accomplish my goals of running and playing in the mud!0 -
LOL, I have a 24 day cycle. But I've been charting on and off for 6+ years (in between having kids) and this has always been my normal. 24 day cycle with 7 day AF. On the pill was the only time it was 28 days.0
-
personally i take this with a grain of salt. As i said, my goal is 16% bf. How can I think 16% bf might be "ok" for me when a study shows it's not? Well, because 16% bf is not the same as 16% bf when one person is barely eating and the other one works out like a beast. This is what I mean:
There are other factors to consider than just BF%. If I starve myself until I'm too fatigued to do anything and I am not getting proper nutrition, I wouldn't be surprised if there were negative health consequences.
but I think a woman who eats well over 1800 calories a day and works out hard can achieve a perfectly healthy 16% bodyfat.
And that's exactly what I intend to do. Weight lifting has shown to be GOOD for your bones:
http://fitness.holplus.com/Exercise/Powerlifting/The-Hidden-Benefits-For-Women-To-Weight-Lift.html
So if I eat 1800+ calories a day, I work out like a beast, my bf goes down to 16%, i'm getting proper nutrition, I think that's ok.0 -
Which so doesn't fit what seems to be healthy for the majority. Personally, I see it as excellent marketing: a woman comes to the gym in the fitness range, wanting to lose fat, so you point her in the athletic direction; already in the athletic range? Well, essential's not impossible... I prefer the WHO one, although I can't find a direct source for it. I understand there is evidence that BF% may not be as to blame for infertility as we think, BUT, with something like that, I think it's better to play safe.0 -
^ this is what I follow. I will not go anywhere near essential fat levels. This is why I asked about the one lady whose doctor said his wife was 9% bf. She should be in the hospital.0 -
I am very much like the third picture, and I am happy with that. I don't want to be any more muscular. My abs are reeeeeal close to that last pic, and I like to have a tiny bit of softness vs. rock hard all the way through to me.
I had guessed myself to be around 20%. But I've never been measured.0 -
Which so doesn't fit what seems to be healthy for the majority. Personally, I see it as excellent marketing: a woman comes to the gym in the fitness range, wanting to lose fat, so you point her in the athletic direction; already in the athletic range? Well, essential's not impossible... I prefer the WHO one, although I can't find a direct source for it. I understand there is evidence that BF% may not be as to blame for infertility as we think, BUT, with something like that, I think it's better to play safe.
I think you are misunderstanding it. "Essential fat" is the bare minimum to survive. I don't think anyone is pushing women into that range. Its like if you go into that range, it better be temporary and for a competition. Then GTFO.0 -
Bump0
-
I am very much like the third picture, and I am happy with that. I don't want to be any more muscular. My abs are reeeeeal close to that last pic, and I like to have a tiny bit of softness vs. rock hard all the way through to me.
I had guessed myself to be around 20%. But I've never been measured.
Good for you! I'm glad you are happy with your body.
I want to be like the middle pic. I want to have abs that show. I also want to be able to do amazing stuff, so my goals aren't just aesthetic.0 -
Thanks so much for sharing this info. As a woman who wants a million babies, this is very important to me!
0 -
Thanks so much for sharing this info. As a woman who wants a million babies, this is very important to me!
A million babies!! You're so cute. I have 3, but am done. But if I could afford to/wouldn't drive DH nuts, I'd have more. 0 -
Which so doesn't fit what seems to be healthy for the majority. Personally, I see it as excellent marketing: a woman comes to the gym in the fitness range, wanting to lose fat, so you point her in the athletic direction; already in the athletic range? Well, essential's not impossible... I prefer the WHO one, although I can't find a direct source for it. I understand there is evidence that BF% may not be as to blame for infertility as we think, BUT, with something like that, I think it's better to play safe.
I think you are misunderstanding it. "Essential fat" is the bare minimum to survive. I don't think anyone is pushing women into that range. Its like if you go into that range, it better be temporary and for a competition. Then GTFO.
I understand this perfectly well, but I've seen women on mfp who don't and I suspect they are the tip of the iceberg. I, personally, believe that at some point there should be 'potentially underfat' cut off point, and that this chart is misused by many.0 -
I last tested at 19.2% bf, but I don't look as good at the 20% bf lady in this pic. I might have loose skin or some other issue (like i'm too hard on myself)0 -
thank you for posting this...i was shooting for 21% BF but want to have kids probably in the next year or so, so that's probably not a great idea!0
-
Which so doesn't fit what seems to be healthy for the majority. Personally, I see it as excellent marketing: a woman comes to the gym in the fitness range, wanting to lose fat, so you point her in the athletic direction; already in the athletic range? Well, essential's not impossible... I prefer the WHO one, although I can't find a direct source for it. I understand there is evidence that BF% may not be as to blame for infertility as we think, BUT, with something like that, I think it's better to play safe.
I think you are misunderstanding it. "Essential fat" is the bare minimum to survive. I don't think anyone is pushing women into that range. Its like if you go into that range, it better be temporary and for a competition. Then GTFO.
I understand this perfectly well, but I've seen women on mfp who don't and I suspect they are the tip of the iceberg. I, personally, believe that at some point there should be 'potentially underfat' cut off point, and that this chart is misused by many.
that sucks that people don't get that
I thought it was common sense. I consider the essential fat range to be the underfat range. Maybe they should change it from "essential" to "bare minimum to survive" for those who don't understand this is what is meant by the word "essential." This is the range of fat that a person needs to guard their organs and function properly. It's a range because everyone is different. But for me, I consider 13% bf to be dangerously low on me. If I was ever there, I would be concerned. Lucky for me, I can barely get below 19! 0 -
I last tested at 19.2% bf, but I don't look as good at the 20% bf lady in this pic. I might have loose skin or some other issue (like i'm too hard on myself)
:laugh:
I do wish I looked as good as the 35% or 30% when I had that body fat, but I'm not an hourglass shape since having my son, more an apple.
I think that's another element: BF distribution. At an 'average' BF% my waist to hip ratio is positively scary.0 -
I last tested at 19.2% bf, but I don't look as good at the 20% bf lady in this pic. I might have loose skin or some other issue (like i'm too hard on myself)
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 attractive0 -
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."
Are you sure about the extended breastfeeding bit? Because I've studied this in anthropology, and hunter-gatherers breastfeed their kids until their baby teeth fall out, usually on demand for that time, and this acts as birth control, i.e. women tend to get pregnant about once every five years, and the rest of the time they are breastfeeding and clearly not menstruating otherwise they'd be constantly pregnant (no birth control for hunter-gatherers... extended breastfeeding is their birth control)
never heard of a hunter-gatherer tribe having a problem with osteoporosis in the elderly, in fact elderly people from hunter-gatherer tribes tend to be significantly healthier than industrial people. That's part of where the whole paleo diet concept came from in the first place, and sometimes people mistakenly suggest that lack of dairy = stronger bones, because hunter-gatherers don't eat dairy and have strong bones. (however that's the correlation does not mean causation error)
Data collected on modern hunter gatherer tribes put the survival rate of children who have a younger sibling when they're two years old (as opposed to more like 5 or 6) at only a 1 in 7 chance. If that's for modern hunter-gatherers, there'd be a much lower chance of survival for middle and lower palaeolithic people, therefore they must have done the same, i.e. breastfeeding acted to suppress ovulation and this was a form of birth control, spacing out babies so the mothers could make enough milk for each child. So women throughout human history would have gone long periods without ovulating, due to breastfeeding so much. If it was dangerous, we would simply not have evolved.....
Given all that I think that extended breastfeeding stopping ovulation will *not* put women at a greater risk of osteoporosis. It is not remotely the same as suffering from anorexia or being the victim of a prolongued food shortage. Extended breastfeeding, and ovulation suppression while breastfeeding, is normal human physiology.
Lack of exercise + lack of calcium inthe diet will lower bone density in anyone, and if there are breastfeeding women who have low bone density, then it'll be the lack of exercise and lack of calcium, in fact this will happen more quickly when breastfeeding as the calcium in the baby's milk will come from the bones if her diet is deficient in calcium. Hunter-gatherers get plenty of exercise, and they ate all the edible parts of an animal including whatever they can of the bones, plus green plants provide a fair bit of calcium, so it's unlikely hunter-gatherers would be deficient in calcium.0 -
Bump to read later0
-
Which so doesn't fit what seems to be healthy for the majority. Personally, I see it as excellent marketing: a woman comes to the gym in the fitness range, wanting to lose fat, so you point her in the athletic direction; already in the athletic range? Well, essential's not impossible... I prefer the WHO one, although I can't find a direct source for it. I understand there is evidence that BF% may not be as to blame for infertility as we think, BUT, with something like that, I think it's better to play safe.
I think you are misunderstanding it. "Essential fat" is the bare minimum to survive. I don't think anyone is pushing women into that range. Its like if you go into that range, it better be temporary and for a competition. Then GTFO.
I understand this perfectly well, but I've seen women on mfp who don't and I suspect they are the tip of the iceberg. I, personally, believe that at some point there should be 'potentially underfat' cut off point, and that this chart is misused by many.
that sucks that people don't get that I thought it was common sense. I consider the essential fat range to be the underfat range. Maybe they should change it from "essential" to "bare minimum to survive" for those who don't understand this is what is meant by the word "essential." This is the range of fat that a person needs to guard their organs and function properly. It's a range because everyone is different. But for me, I consider 13% bf to be dangerously low on me. If I was ever there, I would be concerned. Lucky for me, I can barely get below 19!
My silly scales reckoned I was at 19%, and warned me not to be :laugh: I gained because I wanted to be pregnant. When I've got my periods back again I might consider playing with a lower BF%, just to see if I like it, but if I missed a period I'd be back in gaining mode.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions