Women: Something to Consider Regarding BF%
Replies
-
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:
0 -
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...
Well that means pretty much every model/actress is going to have a terrible time getting a date. Clearly no one finds any of them attractive!
Seriously though, 32-40% is obese, and I find it hard to believe that is ideal to most men as you claim. Being obese isn't good for reproductive health either. 21-24 percent is supposed to be the fit range (as opposed to average or overweight), so I'm not sure why you would consider above that to be better.0 -
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.
Well and we are also back to how we measure. On scales, I was told I was 30% but a hydrostatic test told me I was 19. The hydro is more accurate, and made sense given how hard I had been working at the time (and how I looked).
Which makes me think your BF may have been lower than 19 at the time. Or not.0 -
For a comparison, here is one I found at Google that lists WHO body fat standards:
***image removed by me****
From what I can tell, if the last one is accurate it's not terribly far off from the other. The WHO healthy range falls between the high end of the athletic range on the ACE chart, and the high end of healthy on the ACE chart. Wouldn't this range be where "most" should ideally be? Below that, you're talking about athletes, and people who are at a level below the bare essential fat level for health.
***Right-click the WHO chart and select view to see the whole thing.
ETA: In all fairness, I couldn't find anything differentiating between men and women's levels with the WHO chart, so it might be off.
One last edit: Due to my jacked-up reading comprehension, the second chart was for BMI and not body fat. I have nothing else legit to offer.
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)
You'd just want to make sure you don't have low estrogen levels. If you're on hormonal birth control you can't get an accurate reading.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.
If that's what you intend to do then why post? I'm giving you the research--athletes who don't starve themselves still suffer the adverse consequences--HOW you got to a low body fat % isn't really relevant. Yes, starving yourself is obviously going to cause other issues but no one is disputing that.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.
YES!!!0 -
I agree that many women get caught up in certain numbers. We see threads every day here with women asking stats of others with similar builds. Regarding the topic, though, bodyfat is indeed a contributing metric; but that's only one side of the picture. Think of it as the chicken and the egg riddle - for most women, low energy availability due to chronically restricting calories long enough to disrupt LH pulsatility and ovarian function is the primary cause of amenorrhea and occurs before low body fat becomes an issue. Anne B Loucks is among the leading researchers in this area and all her studies, especially this landmark one, support the above.I agree except that there are certain numbers that are more often than not WRONG..even if that number makes you happy. For example, I like being 13-15% bodyfat...I feel confident and sexy BUT this is wrong. It's dangerous and has health consequences that make it less than ideal. So, if your happiness is tied with something unhealthy then it's best to find some way to restructure your thinking and gain some inner peace that transcends the body discontentment that you feel.
http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/88/1/297.full
Just like there is individual ranges in energy threshold which, when crossed, leads to this disruption, the same is true for body fat ranges. A few of my very lean female friends maintain regular menses being between 14 and 17% body fat. According to them, none have ever restricted calories to any significant degree during any part of their lives despite being endurance athletes (which is rare in their respective sports).
Eating disorders, namely AN, are quite devastating in a multitude of ways. When it comes to bone density, young girls may never reach peak bone density if they fall victim to unhealthy behaviors before the physically mature.0 -
Not that I'm anywhere near 20% bf let alone any dangerous level, this is good info!! Thanks
BUMP0 -
For a comparison, here is one I found at Google that lists WHO body fat standards:
From what I can tell, if the last one is accurate it's not terribly far off from the other. The WHO healthy range falls between the high end of the athletic range on the ACE chart, and the high end of healthy on the ACE chart. Wouldn't this range be where "most" should ideally be? Below that, you're talking about athletes, and people who are at a level below the bare essential fat level for health.
***Right-click the WHO chart and select view to see the whole thing.
ETA: In all fairness, I couldn't find anything differentiating between men and women's levels with the WHO chart, so it might be off.
This is BMI, not BF%0 -
DERP! I was too busy looking at the percentages. Everything I found from the WHO was BMI related.0
-
If that's what you intend to do then why post? I'm giving you the research--athletes who don't starve themselves still suffer the adverse consequences--HOW you got to a low body fat % isn't really relevant. Yes, starving yourself is obviously going to cause other issues but no one is disputing that.
I didn't realize I wasn't allowed to post my thoughts on your thread. Please include a caveat that no one is allowed to disagree with you on future threads.0 -
I agree about energy availability and ive researched that as well; however, given that this is a calorie counting website id assume that those here are restricting their calories to some extent (of course there are exceptions). I'd rather deal with the rule rather than the exception and provide the information for those consciously trying to reach potentially unhealthy levels of bodyfat via caloric restriction.0
-
If that's what you intend to do then why post? I'm giving you the research--athletes who don't starve themselves still suffer the adverse consequences--HOW you got to a low body fat % isn't really relevant. Yes, starving yourself is obviously going to cause other issues but no one is disputing that.
I didn't realize I wasn't allowed to post my thoughts on your thread. Please include a caveat that no one is allowed to disagree with you on future threads.
You're more than welcome to disagree with me but I'd appreciate a bit more tact in doing so instead of being outright dismissive. I took offense to the way you expressed your disagreement--not the fact that you disagree.0 -
you said: "Well, the jury is out on this one but 17% minimum (for menstruation--22% for fertility) has some support in the scientific community (see study link below). "
The link you linked to said:
"The problem of menstrual dysfunction in athletes was recognised at about the same time as a theory was developed that a critical fat level was necessary for the onset and maintenance of menstrual function (17% and 22% of bodyweight, respectively). This theory was acceptable because of the frequency of leanness in athletes experiencing menstrual dysfunction .....The probability of finding menstrual dysfunction in very lean athletes is high, but not absolute, and there is no assurance that dysfunction will improve merely by increasing bodyweight. Perhaps of more concern, however, is recent research on very lean, long term amenorrhoeic athletes who train intensely and show a loss of bone mineral, apparently related to low oestrogen levels..."
DOES NOT ADD UP.
My point: there is more going on here than just BF%. If you don't want to start a debate, cite a source that supports your claims,a and doesn't just recognize the existence of a THEORY.
Jamie Eason is pregnant. I wonder what her bf% was.
ETA: this lack of support in your citation is why i disagree with you. Also, that i was skinny as heck when I got knocked up.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.
This last comment perplexes me. I can't remember ever hearing a negative comment from men about how I look. That doesn't mean I believe every man has always thought I was appealing. There are few circumstances under which it would not be extremely rude to tell someone you thought they were unappealing.0 -
I agree about energy availability and ive researched that as well; however, given that this is a calorie counting website id assume that those here are restricting their calories to some extent (of course there are exceptions). I'd rather deal with the rule rather than the exception and provide the information for those consciously trying to reach potentially unhealthy levels of bodyfat via caloric restriction.
one of the claims you made (or quoted from what you researched) in the opening post, if it was true, the human race would not have evolved. i.e. that extended breastfeeding suppressing ovulation puts women at risk of these problems
I understand your concerns regarding everyone staying healthy, but I would like to see the actual journal articles and any case studies that this is based on, because there are a number of different factors that can contribute to low bone density, and you can't really put female athletes with very low body fat percentages, anorexic women and women who do full term breastfeeding in the same category, as whoever has presented this research originally has done. Maybe you're right about female athletes with very low body body fat percentages (and every bodybuilding source of information I've come across advise women and men to only get down to the extreme low levels of body fat percentage for contests, then they go back up to a more manageable level) - but breastfeeding is a totally different issue and in this case the reproductive system is not shut down (as it is in anorexia or premature menopause), it's in lactation mode, rather than pregnancy mode or time to get pregnant mode.
Given that inaccuracy, I find it hard to trust the rest of the information.0 -
Oops! Missed an edit!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)
you are pretty much what I want to be.0 -
you said: "Well, the jury is out on this one but 17% minimum (for menstruation--22% for fertility) has some support in the scientific community (see study link below). "
The link you linked to said:
"The problem of menstrual dysfunction in athletes was recognised at about the same time as a theory was developed that a critical fat level was necessary for the onset and maintenance of menstrual function (17% and 22% of bodyweight, respectively). This theory was acceptable because of the frequency of leanness in athletes experiencing menstrual dysfunction .....The probability of finding menstrual dysfunction in very lean athletes is high, but not absolute, and there is no assurance that dysfunction will improve merely by increasing bodyweight. Perhaps of more concern, however, is recent research on very lean, long term amenorrhoeic athletes who train intensely and show a loss of bone mineral, apparently related to low oestrogen levels..."
DOES NOT ADD UP.
My point: there is more going on here than just BF%. If you don't want to start a debate, cite a source that supports your claims,a and doesn't just recognize the existence of a THEORY.
Jamie Eason is pregnant. I wonder what her bf% was.
ETA: this lack of support in your citation is why i disagree with you. Also, that i was skinny as heck when I got knocked up.
And you have no idea what it took for her to get pregnant. I never claimed that EVERYONE will have issues at a certain bf% either. It's something to consider though when you're making goals. If for MOST women it's problematic then Id rather be safe than sorry.0 -
I agree about energy availability and ive researched that as well; however, given that this is a calorie counting website id assume that those here are restricting their calories to some extent (of course there are exceptions). I'd rather deal with the rule rather than the exception and provide the information for those consciously trying to reach potentially unhealthy levels of bodyfat via caloric restriction.
one of the claims you made (or quoted from what you researched) in the opening post, if it was true, the human race would not have evolved. i.e. that extended breastfeeding suppressing ovulation puts women at risk of these problems
I understand your concerns regarding everyone staying healthy, but I would like to see the actual journal articles and any case studies that this is based on, because there are a number of different factors that can contribute to low bone density, and you can't really put female athletes with very low body fat percentages, anorexic women and women who do full term breastfeeding in the same category, as whoever has presented this research originally has done. Maybe you're right about female athletes with very low body body fat percentages (and every bodybuilding source of information I've come across advise women and men to only get down to the extreme low levels of body fat percentage for contests, then they go back up to a more manageable level) - but breastfeeding is a totally different issue and in this case the reproductive system is not shut down (as it is in anorexia or premature menopause), it's in lactation mode, rather than pregnancy mode or time to get pregnant mode.
Given that inaccuracy, I find it hard to trust the rest of the information.
The breast feeding bit was addressing causes of low bone density/osteoporosis.0 -
I agree about energy availability and ive researched that as well; however, given that this is a calorie counting website id assume that those here are restricting their calories to some extent (of course there are exceptions). I'd rather deal with the rule rather than the exception and provide the information for those consciously trying to reach potentially unhealthy levels of bodyfat via caloric restriction.
A lot of people are restricting their calories to some extent... I am too - I'm restricting them to 2000.
I think the reason CorvusCorax77 and I stepped in was to offer a bit of alternate perspective. Not to derail the thread, but to show that the world doesn't necessarily have to end if you drop below 20%.
If you are at a low body fat, but are eating protein and getting your vitamins, you are in a much better position than if you are at a low body fat because you are starving yourself.
When I read the original post, my first reaction was fear that I was all of a sudden unhealthy. I wasn't going to post that until a number of people started escalating as to the dangers of low body fat (which started to look like fearmongering).
All I wanted to do was offer a bit of balance.
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?
I get tested with calipers on stomach, arm, and thigh. It can be plus or minus anywhere up to 3%.0 -
...or because they breastfeed for a long time or go in to an early menopause, are at risk.
This is not true (regarding breastfeeding)!
Breastfeeding decreases chances of maternal osteoporosis in later life
The odds that a woman with osteoporosis did not breastfeed her baby was 4 times higher than for a control woman. Blaauw, R. et al. "Risk factors for development of osteoporosis in a South African population." SAMJ 1994; 84:328-32
Dr. Alan Lucas, MRC Childhood Nutrition Research Center of London, found that 8-year-olds who were fed formula rather than breast fed as infants, had less developed bone mineralization than those fed breast milk.
Melton LJ, Bryant SC, Wahner HW, et al. "Influence of breastfeeding and other reproductive factors on bone mass later in life." Osteoporos Int. 1993;22:684-691
Also, check out this article that talks about the flawed study that would suggest otherwise: http://voices.yahoo.com/extended-breastfeeding-osteoporosis-7168290.html0 -
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...
Once again, men must make it all about themselves. Because everything a woman does is obviously to seek the approval of men.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.
Maybe he did say 10. Sorry for any errors. But the way he measures is can be 3% upward. Not sure. I honestly didn't write it down and am really new to this body fat thing.0 -
I agree about energy availability and ive researched that as well; however, given that this is a calorie counting website id assume that those here are restricting their calories to some extent (of course there are exceptions). I'd rather deal with the rule rather than the exception and provide the information for those consciously trying to reach potentially unhealthy levels of bodyfat via caloric restriction.
one of the claims you made (or quoted from what you researched) in the opening post, if it was true, the human race would not have evolved. i.e. that extended breastfeeding suppressing ovulation puts women at risk of these problems
I understand your concerns regarding everyone staying healthy, but I would like to see the actual journal articles and any case studies that this is based on, because there are a number of different factors that can contribute to low bone density, and you can't really put female athletes with very low body fat percentages, anorexic women and women who do full term breastfeeding in the same category, as whoever has presented this research originally has done. Maybe you're right about female athletes with very low body body fat percentages (and every bodybuilding source of information I've come across advise women and men to only get down to the extreme low levels of body fat percentage for contests, then they go back up to a more manageable level) - but breastfeeding is a totally different issue and in this case the reproductive system is not shut down (as it is in anorexia or premature menopause), it's in lactation mode, rather than pregnancy mode or time to get pregnant mode.
Given that inaccuracy, I find it hard to trust the rest of the information.
The breast feeding bit was addressing causes of low bone density/osteoporosis.
This is quite interesting (including the assumption that you SHOULD be giving formula after 6 months, which I don't believe the WHO was trying to say):
http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69O4LL20101025?irpc=932
And this:
http://www.lalecheleague.org/release/osteo.html0 -
I agree with neandermagnon about extended breastfeeding. Most women's bodies were not constantly cycling until very recently. Most women were either pregnant or breastfeeding during their fertile years. Here is a study about breast cancer and menstrual cycling that is very interesting:
http://www.pinniped.net/strassmann1999.pdf
From the abstract: "Dogon women menstruated regularly only if they were sterile. Otherwise, women aged 20-34 years had a median of only two menses each over the 2-year study period. The median number of menses per lifetime was approximately 100, about a third as many as experienced by an American woman who had three live births."
Personally, I have only had one "real" period in the past 4 years (I've had two pregnancies spaced a year apart as well as lactational amenorrhea.) My youngest child is 16 months old, still nursing, and I have no sign of fertility or menses returning. My body fat was on 18.5% according to the scale, but I am not sure how accurate it really is. My son still nurses frequently and I mostly met the requirements for "ecological breastfeeding" when he was younger. I think it's great not having periods :drinker:
For those worried about fertility, I've always had longer cycles. I got (oops) pregnant with my first from a one time slip-up and had about 19% body fat. As soon as I got my cycle back after weaning at about 1 year postpartum, I regained my fertility and pregnant again on the very first cycle we tried.
I think it would be an interesting study to see if lower body fat percentages increases the length of lactational amenorrhea in women - for example, many EBFing women still get their periods back pretty early on, despite frequent night and day feedings.
Here is a study on bone density and breastfeeding, although it is on adolescents:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23386396
"At 1 year postpartum, adolescent mothers exhibited BMD similar to those of nulliparous adolescents."
I am not worried about breastfeeding affecting my bone density.0 -
...or because they breastfeed for a long time or go in to an early menopause, are at risk.
This is not true (regarding breastfeeding)!
Breastfeeding decreases chances of maternal osteoporosis in later life
The odds that a woman with osteoporosis did not breastfeed her baby was 4 times higher than for a control woman. Blaauw, R. et al. "Risk factors for development of osteoporosis in a South African population." SAMJ 1994; 84:328-32
Dr. Alan Lucas, MRC Childhood Nutrition Research Center of London, found that 8-year-olds who were fed formula rather than breast fed as infants, had less developed bone mineralization than those fed breast milk.
Melton LJ, Bryant SC, Wahner HW, et al. "Influence of breastfeeding and other reproductive factors on bone mass later in life." Osteoporos Int. 1993;22:684-691
Also, check out this article that talks about the flawed study that would suggest otherwise: http://voices.yahoo.com/extended-breastfeeding-osteoporosis-7168290.html
Fair enough. I'm sure you can find studies to dispute every point in the original post. That's completely fine. I didn't post this to fight or argue.0 -
You should read Jillian Michaels' book "master your metabolism". Even though she talks about it being a diet book (it's really clean eating), she goes into great deal about hormones. She wrecked her endocrine system as well. It was great that someone so fitness focused was able to be honest about how important being HEALTHY is.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions