Women: Something to Consider Regarding BF%
Replies
-
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?0 -
Trying To Conceive0
-
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.0 -
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!
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.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?
45 days is a regualr cycle? I thought it was 28.
:flowerforyou:0 -
Thanks for the post!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?
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.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%.
Is your picture current?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
:flowerforyou:0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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?0
-
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: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.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.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.0 -
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
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