Older women and BF

BeachIron

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?

I can't help without seeing what you're talking about. I'm sorry, but this is the internet and I have no way of knowing what part of this puzzle doesn't fit. I will say that if you are at 24% BF then you would be quite lean for your age and gender, but losing fat would still be the way to go as you would have room to move down. It is harder to lose fat as we age. I'm experiencing it myself right now as I'm leaning down to better show my abs and I'm 40.

To explain further, my wife is 40, her body fat percentage is about 21%, and she has very little visible fat. She's lean but curvy with definite hips. At 52, you would look even leaner at the same BF%.

trixiemou

Hi, I have been reading your article and was intrigued as to find out what the answer may be. I am a similar age, slightly different measurements but at 135lbs I still have a 24% body fat. Using the Haybales spreadsheet I would not lose body fat dropping my weight but it would adjust by dropping inches. A 2" loss on hips and waist would give me 21% or less. I assume it would be similar for you.

I would say that to continue what you are doing in your training as you are doing resistance training you should not really drop LBM. They reckon that you should re-*kitten* what you are doing after each 5lb loss and re-evaluate. I do wonder if we can sometimes get bogged down and worried about everything we read.

Apologies if I am stating the obvious.

acogg

I am 52, 5'5" and weigh 126, with muscle definition. I STARTED at 165 lbs., completely out of shape and in denial. I have not found age to matter, it has been more about slowly increasing exercise. I am still not done, my final fitness goal probably won't be reached until this fall. That is 18 months of dedicated diet and exercise changes.

bcattoes

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?

I can't help without seeing what you're talking about. I'm sorry, but this is the internet and I have no way of knowing what part of this puzzle doesn't fit. I will say that if you are at 24% BF then you would be quite lean for your age and gender, but losing fat would still be the way to go as you would have room to move down. It is harder to lose fat as we age. I'm experiencing it myself right now as I'm leaning down to better show my abs and I'm 40.

To explain further, my wife is 40, her body fat percentage is about 21%, and she has very little visible fat. She's lean but curvy with definite hips. At 52, you would look even leaner at the same BF%.

What is your wife's weight? I mean certainly 2 women with BF 24% of any age and height will not look the same if one weighs 162 and the other weighs 142. One will have almost 5 lbs more fat on the same size frame.

I don't understand the obsession with seeing a pic, but since I'm at work right now I could not provide one even if I wanted. So, can we talk in hypotheticals, then? A hypothetical 52 yo woman who weighs 162 lbs and has 24% BF wants to be a thinner version of her current self, but not drop below 22% BF. What would you hypothetically advise?

bcattoes

I am 52, 5'5" and weigh 126, with muscle definition. I STARTED at 165 lbs., completely out of shape and in denial. I have not found age to matter, it has been more about slowly increasing exercise. I am still not done, my final fitness goal probably won't be reached until this fall. That is 18 months of dedicated diet and exercise changes.

What is your BF%?

bcattoes

Hi, I have been reading your article and was intrigued as to find out what the answer may be. I am a similar age, slightly different measurements but at 135lbs I still have a 24% body fat. Using the Haybales spreadsheet I would not lose body fat dropping my weight but it would adjust by dropping inches. A 2" loss on hips and waist would give me 21% or less. I assume it would be similar for you.

I would say that to continue what you are doing in your training as you are doing resistance training you should not really drop LBM. They reckon that you should re-*kitten* what you are doing after each 5lb loss and re-evaluate. I do wonder if we can sometimes get bogged down and worried about everything we read.

Apologies if I am stating the obvious.

But you are healthy, right? Not suffering from too little muscle? But for me to get down to your size, I would need to lose both muscle (LBM) and fat. That is my dilemma.

Losing LBM sounds bad, but if the end result is still a healthy weight and BF% is it really bad? I'm not talking about wasting away all my LBM, I'm talking more about not focusing on losing NONE. Which may not be possible anyway, but if my math is correct I would need to lose fairly equal amounts of both.

acogg

My BF% depends on the method of measurement. Just using height and weight, about 22%. Using calipers about 11%. Whatever it is, I am more healthy and strong than I was. I am healthier than my doctor. lol!

mikejholmes

Not sure this is a good idea, but the best way I can think of to achieve your states goals is to run. Running will encourage catabolism, so you will lose some muscle mass, especially if you're eating at a deficit. The high impact nature should also help with bone density. (I know you say you don't have a problem with it, and that may well be true, but if you try to lose a bunch of weight by diet alone, and without strength training, I strongly suspect that you would eventually have a problem with it....)

But I have to admit, my first thought is that if you're at 24% body fat, you're doing pretty well. Have you considered the possibility you have body dysmorphic disorder?

Iron_Feline

A hypothetical 52 yo woman who weighs 162 lbs and has 24% BF wants to be a thinner version of her current self, but not drop below 22% BF. What would you hypothetically advise?

To change your goals. Honestly that is what I would advise,

You cannot get to 147lbs at a 22% BF without losing LBM. I would never suggest anyone lose LMB. 147lbs and 22% body fat seem to be random numbers you've decided you want to be at. Why? As you have said people are different - why can't you be at 20% BF. I think you are putting to much stock in the theory that you need to be at a certain body fat %, you could be perfectly healthy at 20% - check with your doctor.

Eat a slight deficit, keep on lifting and see what your body wants to do, lose some fat and see how you look/feel and re-*kitten*.

To be blunt though - I doubt you'll agree with anyone who says don't lose LBM, as that is clearly what you want to hear.

Skratchie

What would you hypothetically advise?

That the hypothetical woman speak to her hypothetical doctor to find out if what she wants to do is healthy. Seriously, you're asking folks who don't know you or your medical history to comment on you making a change to your body composition for vanity's sake. No one here really knows whether or not your goals are attainable, or even if they're safe for you to do. If you want to lose 15 lbs, you're going to cut LBM, as others have said, and that's really not a good idea at any age, but particularly past about 45. I suggest you put away your scale and start paying more attention to what you look like and what your body is telling you.

You mentioned a pair of jeans you want to wear again - how old were you the last time they fit?

acogg

I have changed my profile picture to what I looked like at 5'5" and 165 pounds. If you look anything like that, you need to lose weight and exercise.

bcattoes

What would you hypothetically advise?

That the hypothetical woman speak to her hypothetical doctor to find out if what she wants to do is healthy. Seriously, you're asking folks who don't know you or your medical history to comment on you making a change to your body composition for vanity's sake. No one here really knows whether or not your goals are attainable, or even if they're safe for you to do. If you want to lose 15 lbs, you're going to cut LBM, as others have said, and that's really not a good idea at any age, but particularly past about 45. I suggest you put away your scale and start paying more attention to what you look like and what your body is telling you.

You mentioned a pair of jeans you want to wear again - how old were you the last time they fit?

I am paying attention to the way I look. I look firm and fit but too big. My body isn't telling my anything. I am perfectly healthy by all standard medical tests for my age.

The last time the jeans fit was last weekend when I wore them. I want to go a bit further than my original goal.

bcattoes

A hypothetical 52 yo woman who weighs 162 lbs and has 24% BF wants to be a thinner version of her current self, but not drop below 22% BF. What would you hypothetically advise?

To change your goals. Honestly that is what I would advise,

You cannot get to 147lbs at a 22% BF without losing LBM. I would never suggest anyone lose LMB. 147lbs and 22% body fat seem to be random numbers you've decided you want to be at. Why? As you have said people are different - why can't you be at 20% BF. I think you are putting to much stock in the theory that you need to be at a certain body fat %, you could be perfectly healthy at 20% - check with your doctor.

Eat a slight deficit, keep on lifting and see what your body wants to do, lose some fat and see how you look/feel and re-*kitten*.

To be blunt though - I doubt you'll agree with anyone who says don't lose LBM, as that is clearly what you want to hear.

I can appreciate bluntness, but I'd rather someone gave me something other than just learn to be happy with your 162 self.

Or at least showed me some type of evidence that it's actually healthier for me to weigh 162 lbs instead of less (147 is just random goal, but it's far from underweight for someone of my height).

bcattoes

I have changed my profile picture to what I looked like at 5'5" and 165 pounds. If you look anything like that, you need to lose weight and exercise.

It's kind of hard to tell with the apron but I don't carry my weight in my stomach like that. My stomach if pretty flat. I look much thinner when I turn sideways than from straight on.

I am not unfit, fat or flabby (well maybe a little flabby when compared to a 20 yo, but I'm much firmmer than the average 52). I exercise regularly and have been increasing intensity and my BF% is in the fitness range. I AM SIMPLY BIGGER THAN I WANT TO BE.

bcattoes

Not sure this is a good idea, but the best way I can think of to achieve your states goals is to run. Running will encourage catabolism, so you will lose some muscle mass, especially if you're eating at a deficit. The high impact nature should also help with bone density. (I know you say you don't have a problem with it, and that may well be true, but if you try to lose a bunch of weight by diet alone, and without strength training, I strongly suspect that you would eventually have a problem with it....)

But I have to admit, my first thought is that if you're at 24% body fat, you're doing pretty well. Have you considered the possibility you have body dysmorphic disorder?

I weigh 162 lbs. That's not a disorder. That's overweights.

I have been thinking running might be the answer. I stopped running to follow the Turbo Fire schedule (no time for both) but I'll finish that in 4 weeks and I think I may start running a few days a week again. The plyometrics in TF do more for my bones than running every could.

But who knows, maybe these last weeks of "advanced HIIT" in TF will solve my problem for me. <fingers crossed>

acogg

Yes, I definitely carry my weight in my belly. I am apple shaped. What size do you wear? I am in small sixes to large fours. What size do you want to be?

deksgrl

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?

Lifting heavy weight will make you smaller. It may not make you lose weight but you will get smaller.

BeachIron

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?

I can't help without seeing what you're talking about. I'm sorry, but this is the internet and I have no way of knowing what part of this puzzle doesn't fit. I will say that if you are at 24% BF then you would be quite lean for your age and gender, but losing fat would still be the way to go as you would have room to move down. It is harder to lose fat as we age. I'm experiencing it myself right now as I'm leaning down to better show my abs and I'm 40.

To explain further, my wife is 40, her body fat percentage is about 21%, and she has very little visible fat. She's lean but curvy with definite hips. At 52, you would look even leaner at the same BF%.

What is your wife's weight? I mean certainly 2 women with BF 24% of any age and height will not look the same if one weighs 162 and the other weighs 142. One will have almost 5 lbs more fat on the same size frame.

I don't understand the obsession with seeing a pic, but since I'm at work right now I could not provide one even if I wanted. So, can we talk in hypotheticals, then? A hypothetical 52 yo woman who weighs 162 lbs and has 24% BF wants to be a thinner version of her current self, but not drop below 22% BF. What would you hypothetically advise?

No obsession but your numbers don't make sense. I can't keep running in circles here. I'm sorry, but I can't help.

BurtHuttz

Starts thread asking for help. Argues with every. single. response.

Best of luck with your whatever it is you're here for.

BeachGingerOnTheRocks

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?

I can't help without seeing what you're talking about. I'm sorry, but this is the internet and I have no way of knowing what part of this puzzle doesn't fit. I will say that if you are at 24% BF then you would be quite lean for your age and gender, but losing fat would still be the way to go as you would have room to move down. It is harder to lose fat as we age. I'm experiencing it myself right now as I'm leaning down to better show my abs and I'm 40.

To explain further, my wife is 40, her body fat percentage is about 21%, and she has very little visible fat. She's lean but curvy with definite hips. At 52, you would look even leaner at the same BF%.

What is your wife's weight? I mean certainly 2 women with BF 24% of any age and height will not look the same if one weighs 162 and the other weighs 142. One will have almost 5 lbs more fat on the same size frame.

I don't understand the obsession with seeing a pic, but since I'm at work right now I could not provide one even if I wanted. So, can we talk in hypotheticals, then? A hypothetical 52 yo woman who weighs 162 lbs and has 24% BF wants to be a thinner version of her current self, but not drop below 22% BF. What would you hypothetically advise?

No obsession but your numbers don't make sense. I can't keep running in circles here. I'm sorry, but I can't help.

OP is too combative and doesn't really want help unless it fits into some neat, compartmentalized notion she has. DEXA scans can be wrong. Data can be misinterpreted. 162 and 24% is lean. Obsessing over a number on a scale is pointless. BMI isn't important when you're talking about already being lean.

Do what you want, OP.

bcattoes

Yes, I definitely carry my weight in my belly. I am apple shaped. What size do you wear? I am in small sixes to large fours. What size do you want to be?

I am mostly a size 8. Some skinny cut pants/skirts size 10 as I am a pear shape.

bcattoes

Starts thread asking for help. Argues with every. single. response.

Best of luck with your whatever it is you're here for.

I'm discussing my situation. I haven't really received any help. Few posts have even addressed my specific situation, and all they've offered is "don't do it, just learn to love your big self". NO ONE has offered any reason why I shouldn't do it, which seems to me like maybe there isn't.

Let's be honest, if I didn't know my BF% and said I was 5'5" and weighed 162 lbs would anyone say I didn't need to lose weight? So, just because I upped my muscle content I should now be doomed to staying bigger than I'd like? I don't see the logic. Now I think I know why some people want to get to goal weight before they start trying to increase muscle.

If there truly is something wrong with my plan PLEASE point it out. But don't just say "no one should lose LBM". Tell me WHY it would be unhealthy to drop LBM but still have a healthy BF%. That is what I want to know.

bcattoes

No obsession but your numbers don't make sense. I can't keep running in circles here. I'm sorry, but I can't help.

Don't know if you are still reading but what exactly doesn't make sense? That I could be 162 lb with 24% BF?

bcattoes

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?

Lifting heavy weight will make you smaller. It may not make you lose weight but you will get smaller.

Without lowering my BF% by more than 1-2 %?

Iron_Feline

A hypothetical 52 yo woman who weighs 162 lbs and has 24% BF wants to be a thinner version of her current self, but not drop below 22% BF. What would you hypothetically advise?

To change your goals. Honestly that is what I would advise,

You cannot get to 147lbs at a 22% BF without losing LBM. I would never suggest anyone lose LMB. 147lbs and 22% body fat seem to be random numbers you've decided you want to be at. Why? As you have said people are different - why can't you be at 20% BF. I think you are putting to much stock in the theory that you need to be at a certain body fat %, you could be perfectly healthy at 20% - check with your doctor.

Eat a slight deficit, keep on lifting and see what your body wants to do, lose some fat and see how you look/feel and re-*kitten*.

To be blunt though - I doubt you'll agree with anyone who says don't lose LBM, as that is clearly what you want to hear.

I can appreciate bluntness, but I'd rather someone gave me something other than just learn to be happy with your 162 self.

Or at least showed me some type of evidence that it's actually healthier for me to weigh 162 lbs instead of less (147 is just random goal, but it's far from underweight for someone of my height).

Where did I say be happy at 162 or be healthier at 162?

I'll repeat my advice and then I'm out.

Eat a slight deficit, keep on lifting and see what your body wants to do, lose some fat and see how you look/feel and re-*kitten*.

bcattoes

A hypothetical 52 yo woman who weighs 162 lbs and has 24% BF wants to be a thinner version of her current self, but not drop below 22% BF. What would you hypothetically advise?

To change your goals. Honestly that is what I would advise,

You cannot get to 147lbs at a 22% BF without losing LBM. I would never suggest anyone lose LMB. 147lbs and 22% body fat seem to be random numbers you've decided you want to be at. Why? As you have said people are different - why can't you be at 20% BF. I think you are putting to much stock in the theory that you need to be at a certain body fat %, you could be perfectly healthy at 20% - check with your doctor.

Eat a slight deficit, keep on lifting and see what your body wants to do, lose some fat and see how you look/feel and re-*kitten*.

To be blunt though - I doubt you'll agree with anyone who says don't lose LBM, as that is clearly what you want to hear.

I can appreciate bluntness, but I'd rather someone gave me something other than just learn to be happy with your 162 self.

Or at least showed me some type of evidence that it's actually healthier for me to weigh 162 lbs instead of less (147 is just random goal, but it's far from underweight for someone of my height).

Where did I say be happy at 162 or be healthier at 162?

I'll repeat my advice and then I'm out.

Eat a slight deficit, keep on lifting and see what your body wants to do, lose some fat and see how you look/feel and re-*kitten*.

But with losing only fat I can only lose 5 lbs before I enter the BF danger zone for a woman of my age, and only 3 before I reach the lowest BF% I'd be comfortable with (22%). How much difference is 3 lbs likely to make in the mirror?

So, if you are saying concentrate on losing only fat, isn't it the same as saying be happy with only a 3 lb loss?

BurtHuttz

Starts thread asking for help. Argues with every. single. response.

Best of luck with your whatever it is you're here for.

I'm discussing my situation. I haven't really received any help. Few posts have even addressed my specific situation, and all they've offered is "don't do it, just learn to love your big self". NO ONE has offered any reason why I shouldn't do it, which seems to me like maybe there isn't.

Let's be honest, if I didn't know my BF% and said I was 5'5" and weighed 162 lbs would anyone say I didn't need to lose weight? So, just because I upped my muscle content I should now be doomed to staying bigger than I'd like? I don't see the logic. Now I think I know why some people want to get to goal weight before they start trying to increase muscle.

If there truly is something wrong with my plan PLEASE point it out. But don't just say "no one should lose LBM". Tell me WHY it would be unhealthy to drop LBM but still have a healthy BF%. That is what I want to know.

No, I'm not going to help you. You've argued with everyone who has tried and denigrated their efforts.
.

almc170

Starts thread asking for help. Argues with every. single. response.

Best of luck with your whatever it is you're here for.

I'm discussing my situation. I haven't really received any help. Few posts have even addressed my specific situation, and all they've offered is "don't do it, just learn to love your big self". NO ONE has offered any reason why I shouldn't do it, which seems to me like maybe there isn't.

Let's be honest, if I didn't know my BF% and said I was 5'5" and weighed 162 lbs would anyone say I didn't need to lose weight? So, just because I upped my muscle content I should now be doomed to staying bigger than I'd like? I don't see the logic. Now I think I know why some people want to get to goal weight before they start trying to increase muscle.

If there truly is something wrong with my plan PLEASE point it out. But don't just say "no one should lose LBM". Tell me WHY it would be unhealthy to drop LBM but still have a healthy BF%. That is what I want to know.

I don't understand. Why do you think you'd be happier with lower LBM? Remember, bf% is a percentage. A percentage of fat in relation to LBM. If you decrease LBM, you might find yourself with a higher bf%. Thus flabbier than you would like, even if you're at a lower weight. But maybe skinny fat is your goal? I don't know, I think most of us are just kind of confused here.

bcattoes

Starts thread asking for help. Argues with every. single. response.

Best of luck with your whatever it is you're here for.

I'm discussing my situation. I haven't really received any help. Few posts have even addressed my specific situation, and all they've offered is "don't do it, just learn to love your big self". NO ONE has offered any reason why I shouldn't do it, which seems to me like maybe there isn't.

Let's be honest, if I didn't know my BF% and said I was 5'5" and weighed 162 lbs would anyone say I didn't need to lose weight? So, just because I upped my muscle content I should now be doomed to staying bigger than I'd like? I don't see the logic. Now I think I know why some people want to get to goal weight before they start trying to increase muscle.

If there truly is something wrong with my plan PLEASE point it out. But don't just say "no one should lose LBM". Tell me WHY it would be unhealthy to drop LBM but still have a healthy BF%. That is what I want to know.

I don't understand. Why do you think you'd be happier with lower LBM? Remember, bf% is a percentage. A percentage of fat in relation to LBM. If you decrease LBM, you might find yourself with a higher bf%. Thus flabbier than you would like, even if you're at a lower weight. But maybe skinny fat is your goal? I don't know, I think most of us are just kind of confused here.

Right! Exactly! BF% is a percentage. So if I lower that % wouldn't that be better, even if along the way it means I have less LBM than I started?

162 lbs and 24% BF = 123.12 LBM
147 lbs and 22% BF = 114.66 LBM

Is going from the top to the bottom going to make me skinny fat? (or is my math wrong?)

jsd_135

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?

Lifting heavy weight will make you smaller. It may not make you lose weight but you will get smaller.

Without lowering my BF% by more than 1-2 %?

Too obsessed with numbers. Just keep on what you're doing. At some point you're going to hit the limit of the bone structure of your hips. As someone said way upthread, you're not going to get to a crazy low (and perhaps unhealthy) BF percentage by accident. If you really want to know the specific effects and potential dangers of reducing your BF percentage to below 22% (that's your limit, right), see a professional who has the specific expertise in this area. You might have to pay $$$$. The free advice and information you're seeking here is apparently not available.