Women: Something to Consider Regarding BF%
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions