Women: Something to Consider Regarding BF%

neandermagnon

I would add -- there is evidence that in the period immediately after weaning, women can rebuild bones -- put calcium back into them. Something about the hormone balance of lactation ending actually enables that, and its possible at no other time.

There is a huge difference between hormonal amenorrhea, and starvation-induced amenorrhea.

Though, FWIW, it is true that return to fertility after childbirth and breastfeeding is mediated by body fat percentage. Interesting side note - I remember reading an analysis of the costs of carrying, birthing, and feeding a baby to being able to eat solids (which is NOT age 5, by the way; hunter-gatherer children start eating solid foods as babies and toddlers).

I was talking about the age at which they stopped breastfeeding, not the age at which solids were introduced. I didn't at any point say they had no solid food until age 5 - only that they relied on breast milk for nutrition far more than modern babies do. Not just in terms of calories, but also because no dairy products are/were available. They would not have been able to survive without breastfeeding, whether it's supplemented by solid foods or not, and the studies I've seen of modern hunter gatherers show that most of the time they are breastfeeding enough for ovulation to remain suppressed for years.

On an average-sized woman, the difference in body fat between her ideal percentage and a man's ideal percentage? Just about the same energy required to grow and feed that baby to some level of energy independence.

Composition analysis of bones of babies and children from archaeological digs does suggest that by age 3, most were getting the majority of their nutrition from foods other than breast milk, by the way. They were still nursing, but also eating plenty of food, and no hunter-gatherer woman was likely to have enough stores to provide *most* of a child's nutrition to age 5. Having used up her internal stores, she probably spent the last year of part-time nursing rebuilding those reserves to the point that fertility resumed. Having nursed a large baby to nearly 30 pounds myself, before she was willing to eat much? It was hard for *me* in the modern world to keep up with her

Amounts of food is relative... i.e. what one person describes as "a lot of food" is different to what another says is "a lot of food" - in modern hunter-gatherers (the ones I've studied), they breastfeed enough to stop ovulation for many years, and that's from breastfeeding on demand for around 5 years (I never said exclusively for 5 years). And this is the only birth control they have and they're not pregnant every couple of years... most western women even those who do extended breastfeeding get their regular monthly cycle back much earlier.

The scenario in which we evolved to cope with, is one in which the baby requires a large amount of milk for 5 years, and his or her survival is threatened by another baby being born too soon.... in modern hunter gatherer tribes that I studied, the survival rates of older siblings were lowered when the next baby was born too soon. So breastfeeding resulting in spacing out births (unless there's huge amounts of food available) is critical for the survival of the species (and genus).

And it's also to some extent depends on how much food is available that a baby can eat easily. If you're talking about lower and middle palaeolithic levels of technology, then how much food was really available that a small child can eat? My 3 year old can't eat meat unless it's very well mashed up, she can't chew it. A lot of the vegetables then were much more fibrous. There wouldn't have been much other than soft fruits (which are seasonal and not available year round) that a small child can eat. Pre-chewing of solid food was probably what mothers did to give their kids solid food. That's the era I was thinking about when I wrote that, though of course food availability will vary throughout the ages.... What era were the kids whose bones etc were analysed in the archeaological digs you're talking about? I'm not aware that there are that many child skeletons from the lower and middle palaeolithic era, so I'm assuming they're later than that (but would be extremely interested to read any journal articles if they were done on lower and middle palaeolithic eras... the middle palaeolithic era is the one that interests me the most as I feel that's when we really became "human" (as we understand it, but of course lower palaeolithic humans were still human!!!!))

Re having periods of renourishing the body - I'm sure you're absolutely right about this. And I'm not disputing what you say either, only that from an evolutionary perspective, there would have been a very strong selection pressure in favour of spacing out births, and at earlier time periods there really would not have been as much food that small children could have eaten, and the mechanism for that is through suppression of ovulation while breastfeeding significantly.... which is why it makes no evolutionary sense at all for that suppression of ovulation to be harmful in itself.

And of course my main point was that there's nothing dangerous about breastfeeding for extended amounts of time.

neandermagnon

I'm done arguing semantics and/or minor points which were never to be taken as my intended message. Either you get something out of this post or not--the choice is yours. I don't regret talking about the hell that I've experienced trying to re-regulate my hormones. If you disagree with me that it CAN BE DANGEROUS then disregard this entire post--I am merely trying to help those who might be confronted with similar issues. My one recommendation is that you get off of birth control if you have any desire to keep track of your hormonal response as you reduce your bodyfat levels.

Some constructive criticism.... the arguments were not over minor points or semantics.... unfortunately it's very common on the internet for the intended message to get lost because people correct what seem to you like minor mistakes, or they miss the point... so from the point of view of someone who wants to get the message across, you need to communicate more clearly. That's probably about 95% of what makes a good writer, clear communication. (and we all screw up on that sometimes, but knowing that the blame for that usually lies in how we phrased the message is important)

Also, sorry for going on about the breastfeeding thing, but the comments you made about that could potentially do a lot of damage, because it can put mothers off from breastfeeding or even make them fear it, when the reality is it will in the vast majority of cases benefit their health and their baby's health (there are some medical reasons why some mothers shouldn't breastfeed). There is so much misinformation about breastfeeding, and I come across so many women who say they didn't breastfeed because...and then the reason is something that's a total myth. I'm all for mothers making a choice how to feed their baby based on what's best for them and their baby and for some that will mean formula milk.... but it's not an informed choice if mothers choose formula because they are scared away from breastfeeding by things that are actually total myths. So I basically will challenge breastfeeding myths when I come across them. It's nothing personal.

servilia

Thanks Neandermagnon for clearing up those points. I would hate to see women be misinformed and put off breastfeeding.

.

dixiewhiskey

Not breast feeding generally--breastfeeding for EXTENDED amounts of time. In any case--that point was secondary to the main point of my post. Which was to inform people of the risks associated with low bodyfat--namely low estrogen levels which impairs ovulation AND compromises bone density.

I think you should have avoided even talking about this unless you have breastfed yourself. Low body fat on its own is not the only cause of low estrogen levels - a lot of things can compromise bone density as well.

Nor did I say that it was the only cause. Back to my analogy--if someone wanted to warn that smoking can increase ones risk of lung cancer they probably wouldn't detail the myriad of other factors that might contribute. Other factors are not relevant to me so I chose not to talk about them. My post wasn't intended to provide everyone with a comprehensive list if the causes of low estrogen--only to talk about A SINGLE CAUSE that's within their control.

Poor analogy in comparison to your original post. I'm not going to go there again..

dixiewhiskey

I'm done arguing semantics and/or minor points which were never to be taken as my intended message. Either you get something out of this post or not--the choice is yours. I don't regret talking about the hell that I've experienced trying to re-regulate my hormones. If you disagree with me that it CAN BE DANGEROUS then disregard this entire post--I am merely trying to help those who might be confronted with similar issues. My one recommendation is that you get off of birth control if you have any desire to keep track of your hormonal response as you reduce your bodyfat levels.

Some constructive criticism.... the arguments were not over minor points or semantics.... unfortunately it's very common on the internet for the intended message to get lost because people correct what seem to you like minor mistakes, or they miss the point... so from the point of view of someone who wants to get the message across, you need to communicate more clearly. That's probably about 95% of what makes a good writer, clear communication. (and we all screw up on that sometimes, but knowing that the blame for that usually lies in how we phrased the message is important)

Also, sorry for going on about the breastfeeding thing, but the comments you made about that could potentially do a lot of damage, because it can put mothers off from breastfeeding or even make them fear it, when the reality is it will in the vast majority of cases benefit their health and their baby's health (there are some medical reasons why some mothers shouldn't breastfeed). There is so much misinformation about breastfeeding, and I come across so many women who say they didn't breastfeed because...and then the reason is something that's a total myth. I'm all for mothers making a choice how to feed their baby based on what's best for them and their baby and for some that will mean formula milk.... but it's not an informed choice if mothers choose formula because they are scared away from breastfeeding by things that are actually total myths. So I basically will challenge breastfeeding myths when I come across them. It's nothing personal.

I love the recent posts clearing up potentially discouraging information.. whether it was just a typo or misinformation or neither.

What this post says here is pretty much what I was trying to say but about body fat which OP's post left it open for dissection and misinterpretation. Had the thread been open and said, hey I have a,b,c,d health issues as a result of poor body image and sustained low bf% for a long time, skipped talking about breastfeeding, I probably wouldn't have even stopped here to read. It kinda sucks that someone feels that mine and anyone else who questioned these points semantics.. says a lot about a person. But I move on with my day cause in the end, I don't really care, I don't know you. Just want to make sure people who have sound minds don't veer away from their goals because of a post that wasn't too clear.

Also, Neandermagnon to you especially.. no apologies are really required. I think OP has some issues that impair her understanding, just like she unfortunately had body image issues that led to her developing serious health problems, I think her understanding of what others write to her online really bothers her. It's fairly easy to think everyone is jumping on you but OP, you need to know it's not personal.

Lots of love and best wishes to you

WendyTerry420

I'm done arguing semantics and/or minor points which were never to be taken as my intended message. Either you get something out of this post or not--the choice is yours. I don't regret talking about the hell that I've experienced trying to re-regulate my hormones. If you disagree with me that it CAN BE DANGEROUS then disregard this entire post--I am merely trying to help those who might be confronted with similar issues. My one recommendation is that you get off of birth control if you have any desire to keep track of your hormonal response as you reduce your bodyfat levels.

:flowerforyou:

HealthyBodySickMind

The average woman does not become amenorrheic at 17 percent. In the past, the minimum suggested for women has been 12 percent, although most women won't get anywhere near that.

I wish I could find a reference for this.

Bioelectric impedance analysis (the handheld thingy) put me at 12.8%, military tape puts me at 13.2%, and I most frequently do a 7 point caliper measurement that puts me at about 12.5 - 13.8%. If I look at pictures, I think I look most like the 15-17%'s. While none of those assessment methods are perfect, I would guess I am at most 15% BF and have never been above that. When I first became aware that I had what some people would consider abnormally low body fat, I looked into the health risks associated with it. I don't think I am at risk for any of the risks that I found. I eat plenty, I get cycles (both on and off birth control), and if I had to guess, I bet my bone density is awesome. I have considered getting a dexa scan to confirm this.

OP, I thought I saw in an earlier post that you were getting a dexa scan to check out your bone density? I'm curious, since you were nice enough to share your previous experiences, how did it turn out?

love4fitnesslove4food_wechange

The average woman does not become amenorrheic at 17 percent. In the past, the minimum suggested for women has been 12 percent, although most women won't get anywhere near that.

I wish I could find a reference for this.

Bioelectric impedance analysis (the handheld thingy) put me at 12.8%, military tape puts me at 13.2%, and I most frequently do a 7 point caliper measurement that puts me at about 12.5 - 13.8%. If I look at pictures, I think I look most like the 15-17%'s. While none of those assessment methods are perfect, I would guess I am at most 15% BF and have never been above that. When I first became aware that I had what some people would consider abnormally low body fat, I looked into the health risks associated with it. I don't think I am at risk for any of the risks that I found. I eat plenty, I get cycles (both on and off birth control), and if I had to guess, I bet my bone density is awesome. I have considered getting a dexa scan to confirm this.

OP, I thought I saw in an earlier post that you were getting a dexa scan to check out your bone density? I'm curious, since you were nice enough to share your previous experiences, how did it turn out?

Thanks for asking. Unfortunately, I have osteopenia.

dixiewhiskey

This thread will never die

BinaryPulsar

The average woman does not become amenorrheic at 17 percent. In the past, the minimum suggested for women has been 12 percent, although most women won't get anywhere near that.

I wish I could find a reference for this.

Bioelectric impedance analysis (the handheld thingy) put me at 12.8%, military tape puts me at 13.2%, and I most frequently do a 7 point caliper measurement that puts me at about 12.5 - 13.8%. If I look at pictures, I think I look most like the 15-17%'s. While none of those assessment methods are perfect, I would guess I am at most 15% BF and have never been above that. When I first became aware that I had what some people would consider abnormally low body fat, I looked into the health risks associated with it. I don't think I am at risk for any of the risks that I found. I eat plenty, I get cycles (both on and off birth control), and if I had to guess, I bet my bone density is awesome. I have considered getting a dexa scan to confirm this.

OP, I thought I saw in an earlier post that you were getting a dexa scan to check out your bone density? I'm curious, since you were nice enough to share your previous experiences, how did it turn out?

Thanks for asking. Unfortunately, I have osteopenia.

I hope this is something you will be able to reverse or at least stop from progressing. Sorry this has happened.

love4fitnesslove4food_wechange

Me too. I think continuing to lift weights will at minimum stop the progression but I'm not sure it can reverse the damage.

servilia

OP you mentioned having trouble gaining weight? Is that despite a calorie surplus?

bcattoes

Me too. I think continuing to lift weights will at minimum stop the progression but I'm not sure it can reverse the damage.

Weight lifting can increase bone density as long as you are also getting enough calcium and vitamin D. Did your doctor recommend supplements for either of these? Calcium is pretty easy to get through diet, especially if you use why protein powder, but depending on where you live you might need at least a D supplement. Most people don't get enough through diet so if you don't live in a climate where you are out in the sunshine year round, a supplement may help. If your doctor didn't discuss it, I'd ask.

love4fitnesslove4food_wechange

Me too. I think continuing to lift weights will at minimum stop the progression but I'm not sure it can reverse the damage.

Weight lifting can increase bone density as long as you are also getting enough calcium and vitamin D. Did your doctor recommend supplements for either of these? Calcium is pretty easy to get through diet, especially if you use why protein powder, but depending on where you live you might need at least a D supplement. Most people don't get enough through diet so if you don't live in a climate where you are out in the sunshine year round, a supplement may help. If your doctor didn't discuss it, I'd ask.

I haven't seen my doctor about this yet. I just got the scan last week--he has to review the results and then meet with me. So, we shall see what happens. I already take vitamin D and calcium but maybe they'll give me a higher dose.

love4fitnesslove4food_wechange

OP you mentioned having trouble gaining weight? Is that despite a calorie surplus?

I've gained ~15 pounds in the past year.

jennaworksout

I recently went paleo, and dropped from 19%bf to 16% bf, my period is nonexistant now, I am not pregnant, but beginning to think my new diet and excessive exercising, as I starting weight lifting as well when I changed diets, has me messed up, I am concerned. Can 't win :indifferent:

learnerdriver

Best wishes with increasing your bone density.

My BF lost her keys on a night out, and decided to break into her house. It all went well until she fell and landed on her wrist. The scan revealed that she has osteoporosis- she is 40 years old.

love4fitnesslove4food_wechange

I recently went paleo, and dropped from 19%bf to 16% bf, my period is nonexistant now, I am not pregnant, but beginning to think my new diet and excessive exercising, as I starting weight lifting as well when I changed diets, has me messed up, I am concerned. Can 't win :indifferent:

Sorry to hear this! Maybe it's time to loosen the reigns a bit. The issues are rather serious--I'll need medical assistance to get pregnant now and my bone density may or may not improve. I think it's worth correcting the behaviors that led to this for mental and physical health!

HIITMe

I recently went paleo, and dropped from 19%bf to 16% bf, my period is nonexistant now, I am not pregnant, but beginning to think my new diet and excessive exercising, as I starting weight lifting as well when I changed diets, has me messed up, I am concerned. Can 't win :indifferent:

Do a search for "Go Kaleo"

squirrelzzrule22

Very interesting stuff. My best friend ran division 1 cross country in college, and among some of her teammates it was a badge of pride to get so thin you stopped having a period. She found it concerning (as do I!) and I can't help but wonder if in a few years years those women are going to find themselves having great difficulty conceiving.

Nothing wrong with preferring the look of less body fat, and for many women fertility is simply not a concern, but always best to consider what effect looks may have on your health in either direction- too much fat or not enough. Very important point OP!

love4fitnesslove4food_wechange

Very interesting stuff. My best friend ran division 1 cross country in college, and among some of her teammates it was a badge of pride to get so thin you stopped having a period. She found it concerning (as do I!) and I can't help but wonder if in a few years years those women are going to find themselves having great difficulty conceiving.

Nothing wrong with preferring the look of less body fat, and for many women fertility is simply not a concern, but always best to consider what effect looks may have on your health in either direction- too much fat or not enough. Very important point OP!

Thank you. For far too long i allowed my aesthetic ideal to compromise my health and now I'm laying for it--emotionally, financially, and physically. I wish I had known better.

jennaworksout

I recently went paleo, and dropped from 19%bf to 16% bf, my period is nonexistant now, I am not pregnant, but beginning to think my new diet and excessive exercising, as I starting weight lifting as well when I changed diets, has me messed up, I am concerned. Can 't win :indifferent:

Do a search for "Go Kaleo"

Interesting but i didn't lose weight, just fat, I think I gained weight in muscle. we will see what the doc says ! and I eat...alot!!!