Older women and BF

2456

Replies

  • 5ftnFun
    5ftnFun Posts: 948 Member
    I am 57yrs old- 5'5" At 158 lbs my primary care doc ( a lady in her 50's ) told me I was 20 lbs over weight.

    With all due respect, this is not about you! You may very well be overweight & need to drop a few. The OP says that she had a body scan that indicates she is in the normal range for HER. Her questions are (though confusing but I think I'm following) are about losing some vanity lbs and how it may/may not affect hormones, and how she can do this without losing more muscle. And she had a question about building muscle & how it may make the scale go up, which is not what she wants. If I'm wrong, someone correct me.

    Perhaps she is trying to make the OP's numbers make sense, to her. It helps to understand better when determining how to answer. TBH, I'm in a similar quandary which is why I think pictures would be helpful here.

    Yeah, you are right. I see what you are saying.
  • PetulantOne
    PetulantOne Posts: 2,131 Member
    Why wouldn't you just set a goal bf%??
  • LoraF83
    LoraF83 Posts: 15,694 Member
    I, too, am confused. Why don't you just shoot to be a certain size? That way you can focus on losing bodyfat, ditch the scale, and get where you want to be without worrying about some arbitrary number.

    Losing LBM just to see a certain # on the scale seems foolhardy and counterproductive.

    Agreed. You can achieve a goal body fat % without having to worry about the scale. Especially if you are at a healthy weight. Muscle loss would not be ideal however, even if you aren't too concerned with it.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Oops... you misunderstood. I meant, you seem to want to dictate to your body what to loose (or where to lose from). i don't think it works that way. you either lose BF and gain muscle, or lose both... Why is the weight so important to you if you loose the BF and gain lean muscle? Muscle takes up less space than fat, that's why measuring and tracking inches works better for some. I hope I make myself clear, silly ESL....

    Um, what??? What gave you the idea I wanted to dictate where my body lost weight? The weight is important because I'm too big. I want to be smaller. I don't want my BF to drop. I already measure and I'm well aware that muscle weighs more. I put all that in the OP.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Why wouldn't you just set a goal bf%??

    I did. But it would mean losing LBM to meet it and lose weight. I want to be smaller than I am.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Please do not lose any LBM! In fact your measurements seem very healthy to me for an older woman - I don't think you need to lose anything. If you indeed carry your weight in your butt and thighs then its a good thing because you don't carry your fat around your organs which is worse for your health.

    Why do you still feel that you need to be smaller? I would seriously ask myself this question if I were you.

    I don't need to be smaller. I want to be smaller.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Look, OP, hold on to as much LBM as you can. You'll lose bone density if you start losing too much LBM. If you don't believe me, as an orthopedist.

    24% on a 52 year old woman is very little visible fat.

    Not when your weight is 162. That's almost 39 lbs of fat. It's visible. Not bad, but visible. My bone density is good and unlikely to be lowered by losing weight.
  • DaniH826
    DaniH826 Posts: 1,335 Member
    I don't need to be smaller. I want to be smaller.

    Then that's a personal decision and a matter of preference, and you're going to have to deal with the consequences of achieving your desires, however those may end up working themselves out. You gotta be happy with it, in the end, because you have to live with it. I would caution you, though, that from where I sit, your issue seems to be with your mind rather than your body, but I understand how overwhelming body image can be, especially when it gets to the point where you're just not comfortable in your own skin.

    I'd personally rather weigh a bit more and maintain strength and health, going into my latter years, to prevent actual health problems such as strength/independency loss, osteoporosis and so forth, but to each their own.

    On the other hand, maybe it might help if you begin focusing on what your body can do, rather than how it looks, and focus on fitness goals rather than scale numbers, etc. It's the only thing that's working for me, truth be told. Find your inner BAMF she-beast and let her come out and play, and see where that gets you. :smile:

    At 52, with everything you've said so far, as far as your health goes, I'd say thank your lucky stars and maybe don't push it too hard, because you're miles ahead of the game already, comparatively speaking, by not having any health issues on your hands to speak of. That may not seem like an achievement to you, but it nonetheless is one. You've obviously either taken very good care of yourself or have great genes (or both), and so maybe don't tempt fate in your pursuit of some ideal that's not realistic to achieve without giving up something that's going to cost you more than you bargained for in the end.

    Cheers. :flowerforyou:
  • Sublog
    Sublog Posts: 1,296 Member
    HMmmmm not sure.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Why wouldn't you just set a goal bf%??

    I did. But it would mean losing LBM to meet it and lose weight. I want to be smaller than I am.

    How does losing LBM help decrease BF%? I am even more confused.
  • Iron_Feline
    Iron_Feline Posts: 10,750 Member
    Why wouldn't you just set a goal bf%??

    I did. But it would mean losing LBM to meet it and lose weight. I want to be smaller than I am.

    How does losing LBM help decrease BF%? I am even more confused.

    Because she wants to be a certain BF% AND a certain weight - but to do that she must lose LBM as if she loses only fat her BF% will go lower than what she wants.

    Honestly op I think you are focusing too much on an arbitrary number on the scales. I would keep all the LBM I could and focus on losing a vanity inches - not pounds, choosing to lose LBM at 52 is madness. I recently lost 8" but not a single lb - but I look a damn sight better. I'd take inches over lbs any day. NO one can see your scale weight bar you - so ditch the scale and let how you look and how your clothes fit be your guide.
  • BeachIron
    BeachIron Posts: 6,490 Member
    Look, OP, hold on to as much LBM as you can. You'll lose bone density if you start losing too much LBM. If you don't believe me, as an orthopedist.

    24% on a 52 year old woman is very little visible fat.

    Not when your weight is 162. That's almost 39 lbs of fat. It's visible. Not bad, but visible. My bone density is good and unlikely to be lowered by losing weight.

    If you have visible fat then work on getting that off, and then worry about the details. I'm afraid that you have the cart before the horse here.
  • ArroganceInStep
    ArroganceInStep Posts: 6,239 Member
    If you want to be smaller, eat less (but not too little)
    If you want to bulk up, eat more (but not too much)

    If you want to be physically fit, do some kind of resistance training and some kind of cardiovascular training (yes, yes, I know there are studies showing it's not needed, I still think it's important). Increase the difficulty in each as you get better.

    Track your progress and adjust in small increments as needed. Be careful not to become too extreme with either diet or exercise.

    It really is that simple, the rules don't suddenly change once you qualify for AARP.
  • Buddhasmiracle
    Buddhasmiracle Posts: 925 Member
    OP, you seem to disagree with every response given so far.

    So what do *you* think the answer is?


    This! Geeez.

    Lift weights as heavy as you can. I'm 60 and lifting is an integral part of my fitness. Lifting stimulates your metabolism, helps increase bone mass and stabilize your skeletal structure. Read, "Younger Next Year"
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    This is honestly one of those situations where with just the stats you've given it is difficult to figure out why you are unhappy. PIctures would help in this situation.

    I promised my husband no pics and honestly I don't see why it would help. I'm not asking for anyone elses opinion of whether they think I need to lose or not. I want to be thinner.

    I do not undereat (obviously since I've been gaining muscle). I am actually quite proud of the progress I've made, but I would still like to be thinner. I'm a size 8, and if the cut is very narrow, a size 10 in pants (I'm hippy). I have a healthy BF% and I'm happy with that, but I wish the % was of a smaller number.

    I think ideally I'd like to be about 22-23% BF but if I don't also lose LBM that would mean only losing 2-3 lbs and that's not going to make me much thinner.
  • Iron_Feline
    Iron_Feline Posts: 10,750 Member
    This is honestly one of those situations where with just the stats you've given it is difficult to figure out why you are unhappy. PIctures would help in this situation.

    I promised my husband no pics and honestly I don't see why it would help. I'm not asking for anyone elses opinion of whether they think I need to lose or not. I want to be thinner.

    I do not undereat (obviously since I've been gaining muscle). I am actually quite proud of the progress I've made, but I would still like to be thinner. I'm a size 8, and if the cut is very narrow, a size 10 in pants (I'm hippy). I have a healthy BF% and I'm happy with that, but I wish the % was of a smaller number.

    I think ideally I'd like to be about 22-23% BF but if I don't also lose LBM that would mean only losing 2-3 lbs and that's not going to make me much thinner.

    The problem is that your wants aren't really compatible.

    You can't be the BF% and goal weight you want without losing LBM - which everyone seems to agree is a bad idea. You will either have to lose LMB (why would you do that!) or change your goals.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    OP, you seem to disagree with every response given so far.

    So what do *you* think the answer is?


    This! Geeez.

    Lift weights as heavy as you can. I'm 60 and lifting is an integral part of my fitness. Lifting stimulates your metabolism, helps increase bone mass and stabilize your skeletal structure. Read, "Younger Next Year"

    I'm not trying to be disagreeable but it seems as if no one is getting my point. Many seem to not even have read my original post or any of my responses. I DO NOT NEED TO GAIN MUSCLE. I DO NOT NEED TO IMPROVE BONE MASS.

    These things are fine. I am simply too big. I'm asking if anyone knows any other way to get smaller safely without losing muscle. I simply want to be a smaller version of my current self.

    If my goal is to be thinner and around 22-23% BF it seems to be the only way to do that is to lose both fat and LBM. The only LBM that it's safe to lose is muscle. When I lost this muscle I'd still have a higher BF% than I do now.

    Can anyone offer a different solution to reach MY goal?
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    The problem is that your wants aren't really compatible.

    You can't be the BF% and goal weight you want without losing LBM - which everyone seems to agree is a bad idea. You will either have to lose LMB (why would you do that!) or change your goals.

    But why does everyone agree it's a bad idea. I agree it sounds bad in theory, but if I go from 162 lbs and 24% BF to 147 lbs and 22% BF, what exactly is bad about that?

    Less weight = less strain on my system. Lower BF% but still in healthy range = good. Right?
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    At our age we are already losing muscle - and need to be retaining and gaining as much as possible! Have you done any working out with weights? If not, I think it would be a very good idea.

    Is there any evidence for that? That we should gain as much muscle as possible, even if our BF% drops very low?

    It's by gaining muscle that I dropped by BF%. But that actually increased my weight. So you believe if I keep all this muscle while losing weight I'll be healthier even though my BF% may be too low?

    Is there evidence of this? Of course there is. There isn't even any controversy about whether or not this happens. There is even a name for it - it's called sarcopenia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcopenia).

    As for evidence that you should retain your LBM and do more strength training:

    http://rd.springer.com/article/10.2165/00007256-200030040-00002
    http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1470126
    https://www.thieme-connect.com/ejournals/abstract/10.1055/s-2007-973024
    http://jap.physiology.org/content/78/4/1425.short
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749379703001776

    And you think that at 162 lbs and 24% BF I need to reverse sarcopenia?? Seriously?
  • toutmonpossible
    toutmonpossible Posts: 1,580 Member
    There's nothing wrong in trying to lose only body fat, but you have to follow a very careful eating (often high protein, low carb) and exercise program. Women usually don't have to worry about amenorrhea (periods stopping) unless they get down to a very low body percentage, say, 10% or less. It is extremely hard for a non-elite athlete to get that low, much less a middle-aged woman.

    You shouldn't abandon some strength training because as we age we lose a certain amount of muscle each year. But it doesn't have to be heavy lifting.

    I sometimes get the impression that some people here think that fat converts to muscle. Not true. It's a different substance.

    You should have some method of estimating body composition (scale, calipers) and get a DXA scan if you can at the outset so you can track your progress.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    There's nothing wrong in trying to lose only body fat, but you have to follow a very careful eating (often high protein, low carb) and exercise program. Women usually don't have to worry about amenorrhea (periods stopping) unless they get down to a very low body percentage, say, 10% or less. It is extremely hard for a non-elite athlete to get that low, much less a middle-aged woman.

    You shouldn't abandon some strength training because as we age we lose a certain amount of muscle each year. But it doesn't have to be heavy lifting.

    I sometimes get the impression that some people here think that fat converts to muscle. Not true. It's a different substance.

    You should have some method of estimating body composition (scale, calipers) and get a DXA scan if you can at the outset so you can track your progress.

    So you think that at age 52 it would be perfectly safe for me to drop my BF to 16%?
  • ArroganceInStep
    ArroganceInStep Posts: 6,239 Member
    There's nothing wrong in trying to lose only body fat, but you have to follow a very careful eating (often high protein, low carb) and exercise program. Women usually don't have to worry about amenorrhea (periods stopping) unless they get down to a very low body percentage, say, 10% or less. It is extremely hard for a non-elite athlete to get that low, much less a middle-aged woman.

    You shouldn't abandon some strength training because as we age we lose a certain amount of muscle each year. But it doesn't have to be heavy lifting.

    I sometimes get the impression that some people here think that fat converts to muscle. Not true. It's a different substance.

    You should have some method of estimating body composition (scale, calipers) and get a DXA scan if you can at the outset so you can track your progress.

    So you think that at age 52 it would be perfectly safe for me to drop my BF to 16%?

    Super low BF levels are unlikely to happen on accident. In trying to maintain LBM you'll still likely lose some on a cut.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    There's nothing wrong in trying to lose only body fat, but you have to follow a very careful eating (often high protein, low carb) and exercise program. Women usually don't have to worry about amenorrhea (periods stopping) unless they get down to a very low body percentage, say, 10% or less. It is extremely hard for a non-elite athlete to get that low, much less a middle-aged woman.

    You shouldn't abandon some strength training because as we age we lose a certain amount of muscle each year. But it doesn't have to be heavy lifting.

    I sometimes get the impression that some people here think that fat converts to muscle. Not true. It's a different substance.

    You should have some method of estimating body composition (scale, calipers) and get a DXA scan if you can at the outset so you can track your progress.

    So you think that at age 52 it would be perfectly safe for me to drop my BF to 16%?

    Super low BF levels are unlikely to happen on accident. In trying to maintain LBM you'll still likely lose some on a cut.

    Did you read my OP?
  • BeachIron
    BeachIron Posts: 6,490 Member
    OP - like someone else stated earlier, you're arguing with everyone who posts and insist that your numbers are correct without posting pictures. I'm out. Good luck with all of your health and fitness goals.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    OP - like someone else stated earlier, you're arguing with everyone who posts and insist that your numbers are correct without posting pictures. I'm out. Good luck with all of your health and fitness goals.

    Well, that's too bad because I'm only trying to get an answer to my question. I've had a DEXA so I know the BF% is correct (and that I have no bone loss). If the math is wrong I'd be happy to have someone correct it.

    But I gotta admit all the "lift weights" "focus on losing fat" "just pick a BF%" and others that don't address my question at all are getting a little annoying.

    I'm looking for advice or alternatives to my specific situation, not canned responses.
  • ArroganceInStep
    ArroganceInStep Posts: 6,239 Member
    Did you read my OP?
    Yes, the point I was making is that it's unlikely you'll hit 16% on a normal cut at your age on accident. It would take a tremendous amount of effort. Aiming to lose LBM on top of what you'll lose already is unlikely to make you look better.
  • BeachIron
    BeachIron Posts: 6,490 Member
    OP - like someone else stated earlier, you're arguing with everyone who posts and insist that your numbers are correct without posting pictures. I'm out. Good luck with all of your health and fitness goals.

    Well, that's too bad because I'm only trying to get an answer to my question. I've had a DEXA so I know the BF% is correct (and that I have no bone loss). If the math is wrong I'd be happy to have someone correct it.

    But I gotta admit all the "lift weights" "focus on losing fat" "just pick a BF%" and others that don't address my question at all are getting a little annoying.

    I'm looking for advice or alternatives to my specific situation, not canned responses.

    You don't want a canned response? Your numbers don't make sense. You are either one of the special snowflake women who are truly "bulky" or your BF% is wrong. If you're in your 50s and have a 24% BF and yet are complaining about visible fat, then I'm guessing the latter. That's as honest as I can be.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Did you read my OP?
    Yes, the point I was making is that it's unlikely you'll hit 16% on a normal cut at your age on accident. It would take a tremendous amount of effort. Aiming to lose LBM on top of what you'll lose already is unlikely to make you look better.

    So you think a woman would look better at 162 lbs with 24% BF than I would at 147 with 22% BF?
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    OP - like someone else stated earlier, you're arguing with everyone who posts and insist that your numbers are correct without posting pictures. I'm out. Good luck with all of your health and fitness goals.

    Well, that's too bad because I'm only trying to get an answer to my question. I've had a DEXA so I know the BF% is correct (and that I have no bone loss). If the math is wrong I'd be happy to have someone correct it.

    But I gotta admit all the "lift weights" "focus on losing fat" "just pick a BF%" and others that don't address my question at all are getting a little annoying.

    I'm looking for advice or alternatives to my specific situation, not canned responses.

    You don't want a canned response? Your numbers don't make sense. You are either one of the special snowflake women who are truly "bulky" or your BF% is wrong. If you're in your 50s and have a 24% BF and yet are complaining about visible fat, then I'm guessing the latter. That's as honest as I can be.

    So, at 5'5" and 24% you think that I should have no visible body fat even if my total weight is 162 lbs? 24% of 162 = 38.88. I'm not flabby and "fat" but I have visible fat.

    I never know what people mean by "special snowflake" but I do put on muscle rather easily. At least it seems easy to me, though I realize "easy" is just opinion. I am not 'bulky' but I am pretty solid, under a layer of fat. Most of the fat is in my legs and booty. I'm okay with ratio and even the placement of the fat, I would just like the sum total to be less. Does that make sense?

    ETA: If I were younger I'd probably try to drop the BF% lower, but my question is age specific. At the age when estrogen production is naturally slowing it doesn't seem safe to drop too much lower. What little info I could find on the internet seem to back this up. Charts that differentiate by age list 21% as the lower safe limit for older women.

    So it seems to me that my only options are to lose both muscle and fat, or stay this size. Do you disagree?
  • ArroganceInStep
    ArroganceInStep Posts: 6,239 Member
    Did you read my OP?
    Yes, the point I was making is that it's unlikely you'll hit 16% on a normal cut at your age on accident. It would take a tremendous amount of effort. Aiming to lose LBM on top of what you'll lose already is unlikely to make you look better.

    So you think a woman would look better at 162 lbs with 24% BF than I would at 147 with 22% BF?

    What are you talking about? I didn't say anything of the sort.

    I'm saying the following:

    1) You're 162lbs, 24% BF and want to be smaller

    2) Cut weight and do resistance training.

    3) When/if you get to 147 you'll have lost LBM along with fat. I don't know what specific BF% you'll be, it might be 20% or it might be 22% or whatever, you're not going to hit 16% on accident though. Trying to cut LBM on top of what you'll lose naturally is silly.

Categories