Older women and BF
Replies
-
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.
I am sorry, I guess I don't get it. You are :
fit
not fat
not flabby
BF% in the fitness range
Yet, you are bigger than you want to be.
Are you trying to change your frame? Large to medium or medium to small? If that's the case, you are doomed. I'm with the others, I'm out of here. I was very interested at first because I'm almost 52 also. But you've had some very good advice from knowledgeable folks here, and yet, you argue with all of them.
Unfortunately, I've received little advice other than "don't do it" with absolutely no reason why someone in my position should not do it. :grumble:
I've been fit and smaller before but I didn't start out bigger. I guess the lack of reasons not to drop my weight and BF% at the same time is my answer.
Doing it the way you are thinking wil also reduce muscle mass. Whenever you lose weight not all is fat, and depending on how you eat, and what you eat, you can lose significant muscle mass instead of body fat. At our age, it's hard enough to build muscle mass and retain it, never mind doing things that reduce it. You need muscle mass!! I'm 5'4" and 161 and lifting heavy weights, and cutting only 100 cals daily. I'm not losing fast, actually I'm not really losing weight at all right at the moment however, my body has changed significantly adn will continue to I'm sure as I continue my weight training. I do some cardio, but lift more than cardio. Read more about muscle mass for older people, and especially oder women.0 -
Your question is for an alternative to get thinner or near YOUR goal (YOUR way), right?
The answer from most people here seems to be "Non existant". It's not that you haven't been answered, you're not listening because it's not the ansewer you want to hear.0 -
Call me all the names you want. You won't answer my questions and I'm not giving you a pic. Yet you are still here.
You have started this thread specifically with the intention of arguing with everyone who responds and you basically have done so. It's been over 100 replies and you've spent 90% of your responses arguing and being hostile, 5% of your time saying that no one is being helpful, and 5% of your time actually engaging in a dialogue about your objectives. It's not name-calling to say that you're trolling.0 -
Call me all the names you want. You won't answer my questions and I'm not giving you a pic. Yet you are still here.
You have started this thread specifically with the intention of arguing with everyone who responds and you basically have done so. It's been over 100 replies and you've spent 90% of your responses arguing and being hostile, 5% of your time saying that no one is being helpful, and 5% of your time actually engaging in a dialogue about your objectives. It's not name-calling to say that you're trolling.
No, I'm sure it was meant as a compliment.0 -
Well, I for one can see how a 30" waist and 39" hips could result in someone feeling like they'd prefer to be smaller. I guess I just don't see what the big debate is about - lose 10 or 15 lbs, see if you're happy with the results, make adjustments as needed. You have no way of knowing for sure where the weight will come off - you might lose a proportionate amount of LBM and fat and be a smaller version of what you are now (which I think is what you're hoping for), or you might lose all fat and end up looking like a piece of beef jerky, or you might lose mostly LBM and look softer than you do now. Whichever way, you'll be smaller. You can try to influence where the weight comes off by what type of diet and exercise you do during the process, but in the end you have to just cross bridges when you get to them.0
-
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.
I am sorry, I guess I don't get it. You are :
fit
not fat
not flabby
BF% in the fitness range
Yet, you are bigger than you want to be.
Are you trying to change your frame? Large to medium or medium to small? If that's the case, you are doomed. I'm with the others, I'm out of here. I was very interested at first because I'm almost 52 also. But you've had some very good advice from knowledgeable folks here, and yet, you argue with all of them.
Unfortunately, I've received little advice other than "don't do it" with absolutely no reason why someone in my position should not do it. :grumble:
I've been fit and smaller before but I didn't start out bigger. I guess the lack of reasons not to drop my weight and BF% at the same time is my answer.
Doing it the way you are thinking wil also reduce muscle mass. Whenever you lose weight not all is fat, and depending on how you eat, and what you eat, you can lose significant muscle mass instead of body fat. At our age, it's hard enough to build muscle mass and retain it, never mind doing things that reduce it. You need muscle mass!! I'm 5'4" and 161 and lifting heavy weights, and cutting only 100 cals daily. I'm not losing fast, actually I'm not really losing weight at all right at the moment however, my body has changed significantly adn will continue to I'm sure as I continue my weight training. I do some cardio, but lift more than cardio. Read more about muscle mass for older people, and especially oder women.
What is your BF%. I realize that I need muscle mass, that's why I asked the question.
Do you have any resources that address dropping weight and BF% for older women who already have a healthy BF% but whose weight is high? I have been able to find little to no information on my situation.0 -
Unfortunately, I've received little advice other than "don't do it" with absolutely no reason why someone in my position should not do it. :grumble:
I've been fit and smaller before but I didn't start out bigger. I guess the lack of reasons not to drop my weight and BF% at the same time is my answer.
People have said losing muscle mass is bad, since as you age you lose it already and it's needed for mobility and such when you get older. How is that not a reason?
Perhaps I asked the wrong question, though I've tried to reword it several times.
So, what is the answer to this question: Would it be bad for a 52 yo woman to set a goal of going from #1 to #2 (below). And if yes, why?
1. 162 lbs and 24% BF
2. 147 lbs and 22% BF
What is wrong with:
3. 156 lb and 21% BF? (just as an example)
In 1 - 38.88lb fat, 123.12lb LBM
In 2 - 32.34lb fat, 114.66 LBM
In 3 - 32.76lb fat, 123.24lb LBM
I do not get why #2 seems preferable to #3 to you.0 -
OMG, bcattoes.
How have you spent so much time on this site and not picked up any real knowledge?
See an endo for your hormone questions.
See a physical therapist or sports therapist for your "muscle/bf" issues. You are the most argumentative person I've ever seen.
BTW the sky is blue.
Yes, huh.0 -
Unfortunately, I've received little advice other than "don't do it" with absolutely no reason why someone in my position should not do it. :grumble:
I've been fit and smaller before but I didn't start out bigger. I guess the lack of reasons not to drop my weight and BF% at the same time is my answer.
People have said losing muscle mass is bad, since as you age you lose it already and it's needed for mobility and such when you get older. How is that not a reason?
Perhaps I asked the wrong question, though I've tried to reword it several times.
So, what is the answer to this question: Would it be bad for a 52 yo woman to set a goal of going from #1 to #2 (below). And if yes, why?
1. 162 lbs and 24% BF
2. 147 lbs and 22% BF
What is wrong with:
3. 156 lb and 21% BF? (just as an example)
In 1 - 38.88lb fat, 123.12lb LBM
In 2 - 32.34lb fat, 114.66 LBM
In 3 - 32.76lb fat, 123.24lb LBM
I do not get why #2 seems preferable to #3 to you.
I'd really rather not drop below 22% BF since from what I've read, 21% is the very lowest safe % for women my age. I'm not 100% set on any certain weight. 147 is just the weight I was the last time I remember being the size I want to get to. It is likely that I'll weigh more now because I am more muscular, and I'll be fine with that.
The BF% though is pretty important because of my age.0 -
OMG, bcattoes.
How have you spent so much time on this site and not picked up any real knowledge?
See an endo for your hormone questions.
See a physical therapist or sports therapist for your "muscle/bf" issues. You are the most argumentative person I've ever seen.
BTW the sky is blue.
Yes, huh.
The sky here is gray.0 -
Obviously, you are having some mental issues and body image issues. Work on your self esteem first because obviously you will never be happy with what you have. Sorry to be blunt.
I tell you why, losing LBM means your BF % will increase, not only that later on you can lose bone density. That is what we mean by skinny fat, you will be smaller but have more bf%. Do you want to be that? It doesn't matter what weight you are as long as your lean. Your genes determine your frame and shape. From what you told us, you obviously worked with what you have and you want to be slightly smaller? This is where people are confused. We have all have given you good advice, but you don't want to listen. It is because it's not what you want to hear. Having more LBM is better for your metabolism, you will look leaner and have strong bones. As we age, we lose them.0 -
Obviously, you are having some mental issues and body image issues. Work on your self esteem first because obviously you will never be happy with what you have. Sorry to be blunt.
I'm in good health and mighty glad of it, and I'm more fit than anyone else I know my age and like that. My booty is mega firm and I like that and that my husband loves it (though we do disagree on exactly how big it should be). I never really thought my wanting to improve more could mean self esteem or body image issues, but perhaps you are right.0 -
#freeyoovie
I'm sorry, I don't know what that means.0 -
Unfortunately, I've received little advice other than "don't do it" with absolutely no reason why someone in my position should not do it. :grumble:
I've been fit and smaller before but I didn't start out bigger. I guess the lack of reasons not to drop my weight and BF% at the same time is my answer.
People have said losing muscle mass is bad, since as you age you lose it already and it's needed for mobility and such when you get older. How is that not a reason?
Perhaps I asked the wrong question, though I've tried to reword it several times.
So, what is the answer to this question: Would it be bad for a 52 yo woman to set a goal of going from #1 to #2 (below). And if yes, why?
1. 162 lbs and 24% BF
2. 147 lbs and 22% BF
What is wrong with:
3. 156 lb and 21% BF? (just as an example)
In 1 - 38.88lb fat, 123.12lb LBM
In 2 - 32.34lb fat, 114.66 LBM
In 3 - 32.76lb fat, 123.24lb LBM
I do not get why #2 seems preferable to #3 to you.
I'd really rather not drop below 22% BF since from what I've read, 21% is the very lowest safe % for women my age. I'm not 100% set on any certain weight. 147 is just the weight I was the last time I remember being the size I want to get to. It is likely that I'll weigh more now because I am more muscular, and I'll be fine with that.
The BF% though is pretty important because of my age.
You would rather not go to 21% BF but are OK with losing muscle? Check with your doctor.
I think you are getting too caught up in the % and not in the actual amount of fat. At 147lb and 22%, your BF would be 32.34lb. At the 156lb and 21%, your BF would be 32.76lb. I am not sure how the latter is actually 'unhealthier' than the former.0 -
Unfortunately, I've received little advice other than "don't do it" with absolutely no reason why someone in my position should not do it. :grumble:
I've been fit and smaller before but I didn't start out bigger. I guess the lack of reasons not to drop my weight and BF% at the same time is my answer.
People have said losing muscle mass is bad, since as you age you lose it already and it's needed for mobility and such when you get older. How is that not a reason?
Perhaps I asked the wrong question, though I've tried to reword it several times.
So, what is the answer to this question: Would it be bad for a 52 yo woman to set a goal of going from #1 to #2 (below). And if yes, why?
1. 162 lbs and 24% BF
2. 147 lbs and 22% BF
What is wrong with:
3. 156 lb and 21% BF? (just as an example)
In 1 - 38.88lb fat, 123.12lb LBM
In 2 - 32.34lb fat, 114.66 LBM
In 3 - 32.76lb fat, 123.24lb LBM
I do not get why #2 seems preferable to #3 to you.
I'd really rather not drop below 22% BF since from what I've read, 21% is the very lowest safe % for women my age. I'm not 100% set on any certain weight. 147 is just the weight I was the last time I remember being the size I want to get to. It is likely that I'll weigh more now because I am more muscular, and I'll be fine with that.
The BF% though is pretty important because of my age.
You would rather not go to 21% BF but are OK with losing muscle? Check with your doctor.
I think you are getting too caught up in the % and not in the actual amount of fat. At 147lb and 22%, your BF would be 32.34lb. At the 156lb and 21%, your BF would be 32.76lb. I am not sure how the latter is actually 'unhealthier' than the former.
Now that's more or less what I've been asking. So, it's really the amount of fat I have that makes the most difference, not the percent. That sounds logical, but then why is there so much focus on BF%?0 -
22% bodyfat at your age is NOT unhealthy. Even at my heaviest during a bulk I am not at 22%.
My goal right now, is cutting back down to 16% or so....maybe a bit lower if I decide to compete.0 -
Obviously, you are having some mental issues and body image issues. Work on your self esteem first because obviously you will never be happy with what you have. Sorry to be blunt.
I tell you why, losing LBM means your BF % will increase, not only that later on you can lose bone density. That is what we mean by skinny fat, you will be smaller but have more bf%. Do you want to be that? It doesn't matter what weight you are as long as your lean. Your genes determine your frame and shape. From what you told us, you obviously worked with what you have and you want to be slightly smaller? This is where people are confused. We have all have given you good advice, but you don't want to listen. It is because it's not what you want to hear. Having more LBM is better for your metabolism, you will look leaner and have strong bones. As we age, we lose them.
I don't know if you read my OP, but in the scenario I proffered dropping my LBM would increase my BF%. I would be smaller and have a lower BF%.0 -
22% bodyfat at your age is NOT unhealthy. Even at my heaviest during a bulk I am not at 22%.
My goal right now, is cutting back down to 16% or so....maybe a bit lower if I decide to compete.
Do you have something to support a BF% < 21 being healthy for a 52 yo woman? I have not been able to find anything.0 -
Unfortunately, I've received little advice other than "don't do it" with absolutely no reason why someone in my position should not do it. :grumble:
I've been fit and smaller before but I didn't start out bigger. I guess the lack of reasons not to drop my weight and BF% at the same time is my answer.
People have said losing muscle mass is bad, since as you age you lose it already and it's needed for mobility and such when you get older. How is that not a reason?
Perhaps I asked the wrong question, though I've tried to reword it several times.
So, what is the answer to this question: Would it be bad for a 52 yo woman to set a goal of going from #1 to #2 (below). And if yes, why?
1. 162 lbs and 24% BF
2. 147 lbs and 22% BF
What is wrong with:
3. 156 lb and 21% BF? (just as an example)
In 1 - 38.88lb fat, 123.12lb LBM
In 2 - 32.34lb fat, 114.66 LBM
In 3 - 32.76lb fat, 123.24lb LBM
I do not get why #2 seems preferable to #3 to you.
I'd really rather not drop below 22% BF since from what I've read, 21% is the very lowest safe % for women my age. I'm not 100% set on any certain weight. 147 is just the weight I was the last time I remember being the size I want to get to. It is likely that I'll weigh more now because I am more muscular, and I'll be fine with that.
The BF% though is pretty important because of my age.
You would rather not go to 21% BF but are OK with losing muscle? Check with your doctor.
I think you are getting too caught up in the % and not in the actual amount of fat. At 147lb and 22%, your BF would be 32.34lb. At the 156lb and 21%, your BF would be 32.76lb. I am not sure how the latter is actually 'unhealthier' than the former.
Now that's more or less what I've been asking. So, it's really the amount of fat I have that makes the most difference, not the percent. That sounds logical, but then why is there so much focus on BF%?
I think because it is a good gauge in general with regard to body composition, but as with everything, like the scale, it is only one data point. I think that everything needs to be booked at as a big picture. There is no 'hard and fast' cut off as to what is healthy and not healthy from a BF% perspective as it really depends on the individual, but logically, someone with the same fat in pounds cannot be less healthy than another person, just because that person has less muscle (within reason).0 -
I am 49 5'6" weigh 129 lbs bodyfat of 16%, lose the weight if that is what make you happy!! I drink several protein shakes a day along with lean protein, I follow a high protein diet, and so far so good, not worried about lower estrogen levels, do what you want, I choose to stay lean and lower bodyfat I very healthy and happy at this weight. I would not worry about %%% to much ..0
-
22% bodyfat at your age is NOT unhealthy. Even at my heaviest during a bulk I am not at 22%.
My goal right now, is cutting back down to 16% or so....maybe a bit lower if I decide to compete.
Do you have something to support a BF% < 21 being healthy for a 52 yo woman? I have not been able to find anything.
I'm guessing you found some info states it is dangerous...so maybe you shouldn't drop your BF%.
To each their own...I am healthy at a lower bodyfat %, feel great as do many other women near our age. If you are afraid you defintely shouldn't do it.
0 -
22% bodyfat at your age is NOT unhealthy. Even at my heaviest during a bulk I am not at 22%.
My goal right now, is cutting back down to 16% or so....maybe a bit lower if I decide to compete.
Do you have something to support a BF% < 21 being healthy for a 52 yo woman? I have not been able to find anything.
I'm guessing you found some info states it is dangerous...so maybe you shouldn't drop your BF%.
To each their own...I am healthy at a lower bodyfat %, feel great as do many other women near our age. If you are afraid you defintely shouldn't do it.
Just a few charts that show an increased lower safe level based on age for women. Honestly I'm not unhappy with my current BF%. I like the little layer of fat over the muscles. I would reduce it in my thighs more if I could spot reduce. It's really just my overall size I'm unhappy with.
I've seen posts on MFP telling people they if they don't do X or Y they will just become a smaller version of their current self, as if that would a horrible thing (and I'm sure in some cases it would be). I'm just trying to find out how exactly to become a smaller version of my current self. Not skinny fat, not unhealthy, just like I am now only smaller.0 -
Unfortunately, I've received little advice other than "don't do it" with absolutely no reason why someone in my position should not do it. :grumble:
I've been fit and smaller before but I didn't start out bigger. I guess the lack of reasons not to drop my weight and BF% at the same time is my answer.
People have said losing muscle mass is bad, since as you age you lose it already and it's needed for mobility and such when you get older. How is that not a reason?
Perhaps I asked the wrong question, though I've tried to reword it several times.
So, what is the answer to this question: Would it be bad for a 52 yo woman to set a goal of going from #1 to #2 (below). And if yes, why?
1. 162 lbs and 24% BF
2. 147 lbs and 22% BF
What is wrong with:
3. 156 lb and 21% BF? (just as an example)
In 1 - 38.88lb fat, 123.12lb LBM
In 2 - 32.34lb fat, 114.66 LBM
In 3 - 32.76lb fat, 123.24lb LBM
I do not get why #2 seems preferable to #3 to you.
I'd really rather not drop below 22% BF since from what I've read, 21% is the very lowest safe % for women my age. I'm not 100% set on any certain weight. 147 is just the weight I was the last time I remember being the size I want to get to. It is likely that I'll weigh more now because I am more muscular, and I'll be fine with that.
The BF% though is pretty important because of my age.
You would rather not go to 21% BF but are OK with losing muscle? Check with your doctor.
I think you are getting too caught up in the % and not in the actual amount of fat. At 147lb and 22%, your BF would be 32.34lb. At the 156lb and 21%, your BF would be 32.76lb. I am not sure how the latter is actually 'unhealthier' than the former.
Now that's more or less what I've been asking. So, it's really the amount of fat I have that makes the most difference, not the percent. That sounds logical, but then why is there so much focus on BF%?
I think because it is a good gauge in general with regard to body composition, but as with everything, like the scale, it is only one data point. I think that everything needs to be booked at as a big picture. There is no 'hard and fast' cut off as to what is healthy and not healthy from a BF% perspective as it really depends on the individual, but logically, someone with the same fat in pounds cannot be less healthy than another person, just because that person has less muscle (within reason).
Thank you! That is very helpful.0 -
If I got to my perfect ideal physique and met your example, I would have lost 7.268 lbs of LBM. Which I would be fine with, but it would seem everyone else on this thread would think it unhealthy.
I've stated a few times that 147 is a random, though not unrealistic number. I'm not married to it. I just want to be thinner.
Yes, but people have also said that you will lose LBM already when you cut. You don't need to plan for it. Assuming that your goal weight is still healthy, you should be fine cutting weight. Just don't plan to lose LBM on top of what you'll lose naturally when you cut.
I don't exactly know what is involved in a "cut". I'm just looking to lose some weight.
A cut is just the process of losing weight. You have completely disregarded the point I made.0 -
Your question is for an alternative to get thinner or near YOUR goal (YOUR way), right?
The answer from most people here seems to be "Non existant". It's not that you haven't been answered, you're not listening because it's not the ansewer you want to hear.
No, that was not my question. My questions were "Is there any other way (i.e. what alternative is there but to lose LBM?)" and "Is this way unhealthy and if so, why?"
Here's the answer: No there is no other way. Yes it is unhealthy because you'll deprive yourself of nutrients needed to live a long and heatlhy life. Although it is not unhealthy in the short run, that won't help you because you'll gain it back guaranteed.
Hope this helps.
Now for an alternative that does work: lift weights and build muscles. Although this will increase your weight, it will satisfy your vanity because you will loose inches and look awesome.0 -
Your question is for an alternative to get thinner or near YOUR goal (YOUR way), right?
The answer from most people here seems to be "Non existant". It's not that you haven't been answered, you're not listening because it's not the ansewer you want to hear.
No, that was not my question. My questions were "Is there any other way (i.e. what alternative is there but to lose LBM?)" and "Is this way unhealthy and if so, why?"
Here's the answer: No there is no other way. Yes it is unhealthy because you'll deprive yourself of nutrients needed to live a long and heatlhy life. Although it is not unhealthy in the short run, that won't help you because you'll gain it back guaranteed.
Hope this helps.
Now for an alternative that does work: lift weights and build muscles. Although this will increase your weight, it will satisfy your vanity because you will loose inches and look awesome.
Sorry, but this makes no sense to me. How will I deprive myself of nutrients by losing weight? And gaining more muscle is not likely, but even if it were it would only make the problem worse since I'd have to eat a surplus to do it and I'd end up being even larger and heavier.0 -
Sorry, you beat me. I give up and happily too!0
-
OMG, bcattoes.
How have you spent so much time on this site and not picked up any real knowledge?
See an endo for your hormone questions.
See a physical therapist or sports therapist for your "muscle/bf" issues. You are the most argumentative person I've ever seen.
BTW the sky is blue.
Yes, huh.
:flowerforyou:0 -
22% bodyfat at your age is NOT unhealthy. Even at my heaviest during a bulk I am not at 22%.
My goal right now, is cutting back down to 16% or so....maybe a bit lower if I decide to compete.
Do you have something to support a BF% < 21 being healthy for a 52 yo woman? I have not been able to find anything.
I'm guessing you found some info states it is dangerous...so maybe you shouldn't drop your BF%.
To each their own...I am healthy at a lower bodyfat %, feel great as do many other women near our age. If you are afraid you defintely shouldn't do it.
I've been searching online a bit more trying to find more info on amount of body fat vs bodt fat % (couldn't find any) but I found more charts and guidelines for older women and some say not to drop below 24%.
This is a persoal question so feel free to ignore but I'm curious if you take hormone replacement therapy.0 -
I've been searching online a bit more trying to find more info on amount of body fat vs bodt fat % (couldn't find any) but I found more charts and guidelines for older women and some say not to drop below 24%.
This is a persoal question so feel free to ignore but I'm curious if you take hormone replacement therapy.
What charts/guidelines?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions