Questions about body fat and frame
kosher87
Posts: 4
Hi, I have a quick question:
I just bought a scale that measures muscle mass, fat mass, bone mass but I seem to be getting a weird reading and I wonder if it's because of my frame.
I am 5 feet tall, I go to the gym 4-6 times a week for 1-3 hours at a time varying my work out between weight lifting, yoga, dance and very occasional cardio (because I hate it), eat a vegetarian diet that is high in vegetables and fruit with very few processed items. I consider myself pretty healthy. I am a US size 2 but my body fat is reading at 31.1%! Yikes! Here's the issue: While have a very small waist, I have hips and (gasp) breasts. I'm a 34 D and I wonder what is a healthy fat mass for a woman with this type of frame? I am trying my best to be healthy so I want to monitor these factors but I need to know what I'm looking for.
Anyone have any ideas?
I just bought a scale that measures muscle mass, fat mass, bone mass but I seem to be getting a weird reading and I wonder if it's because of my frame.
I am 5 feet tall, I go to the gym 4-6 times a week for 1-3 hours at a time varying my work out between weight lifting, yoga, dance and very occasional cardio (because I hate it), eat a vegetarian diet that is high in vegetables and fruit with very few processed items. I consider myself pretty healthy. I am a US size 2 but my body fat is reading at 31.1%! Yikes! Here's the issue: While have a very small waist, I have hips and (gasp) breasts. I'm a 34 D and I wonder what is a healthy fat mass for a woman with this type of frame? I am trying my best to be healthy so I want to monitor these factors but I need to know what I'm looking for.
Anyone have any ideas?
0
Replies
-
big booty + big boobs= perfect :flowerforyou: :flowerforyou: :flowerforyou:
as far as what you can do... keep eating the way you are and add some cardio into your workout to get your body fat down if that is your goal0 -
Is there an athlete setting on your scale? The one we have has that setting for a person who typically works out for 10 hours+/week.
These scales tend not to be perfectly accurate, but that sounds way off. Ours always shows a reasonable figure and the relative changes seem spot-on. I'm built a lot like you (same bra size, even).0 -
1. Those scales are horribly inaccurate (usually off by about 10% either way.)Hi, I have a quick question:
I just bought a scale that measures muscle mass, fat mass, bone mass but I seem to be getting a weird reading and I wonder if it's because of my frame.
I am 5 feet tall, I go to the gym 4-6 times a week for 1-3 hours at a time varying my work out between weight lifting, yoga, dance and very occasional cardio (because I hate it), eat a vegetarian diet that is high in vegetables and fruit with very few processed items. I consider myself pretty healthy. I am a US size 2 but my body fat is reading at 31.1%! Yikes! Here's the issue: While have a very small waist, I have hips and (gasp) breasts. I'm a 34 D and I wonder what is a healthy fat mass for a woman with this type of frame? I am trying my best to be healthy so I want to monitor these factors but I need to know what I'm looking for.
Anyone have any ideas?
2. Breast size doesn't really matter as far as body fat ranges are concerned. Women with larger breasts will store less fat in other areas, so the same body fat ranges apply, although a woman with a larger chest will probably closer to the top end of the range, which for women runs anywhere from 14-31% as normal.
3. Nobody can really give any kind of informed suggestions because you didn't mention your weight. 31% body fat at 120 pounds is fine for someone 5' tall. 31% body fat at 130 pounds for someone 5' tall would be overweight. Of course, that's assuming that the body fat percentage from your scale is accurate, which it probably isn't.0 -
Mine is horribly inaccurate on BF%. My BF% reading goes up by 5% on days I lift. I use it for ballpark only and just rely on the weight, which is accurate.0
-
3. Nobody can really give any kind of informed suggestions because you didn't mention your weight. 31% body fat at 120 pounds is fine for someone 5' tall. 31% body fat at 130 pounds for someone 5' tall would be overweight. Of course, that's assuming that the body fat percentage from your scale is accurate, which it probably isn't.
Wait, what...? A percent is a percent. Assuming that the # is correct (with any testing method), 31% is on the high end of healthy for any woman, regardless of height or weight. If a woman of a given height loses weight but her BF remains stable, then she has lost equal amounts of fat and muscle and water. If she loses weight and her BF drops, then she can assume that she has lost fat and retained muscle. Body fat percentage ranges are not height-specific. What is overweight/healthy/underweight is the same for a 5' woman as it is for a 6' woman.0 -
I think those scales are crap. Mine shows a ridiculously low body fat percent for me at like 18%. There is no way I'm that low since I'm not muscular at all. It would be nice though.
As someone else said, the weight is accurate on the scale. I only really look at that. I don't think there is any good way to really measure body fat percent.0 -
31% is borderline obese for a woman, it's the cutoff between normal and obese. 130 pounds for someone 5' tall is a BMI of over 25, which is in the overweight category. Therefore, someone with a borderline body fat percentage at a healthy weight per BMI is fine, but someone with a borderline body fat percentage with an overweight BMI should probably work on losing a few more pounds of fat. Not everyone is healthy at the high end of the range, just like not everyone is healthy at the low end of the range. That's why there is a range, to account for various builds and body types.3. Nobody can really give any kind of informed suggestions because you didn't mention your weight. 31% body fat at 120 pounds is fine for someone 5' tall. 31% body fat at 130 pounds for someone 5' tall would be overweight. Of course, that's assuming that the body fat percentage from your scale is accurate, which it probably isn't.
Wait, what...? A percent is a percent. Assuming that the # is correct (with any testing method), 31% is on the high end of healthy for any woman, regardless of height or weight. If a woman of a given height loses weight but her BF remains stable, then she has lost equal amounts of fat and muscle and water. If she loses weight and her BF drops, then she can assume that she has lost fat and retained muscle. Body fat percentage ranges are not height-specific. What is overweight/healthy/underweight is the same for a 5' woman as it is for a 6' woman.0 -
Oh and I don't think that saying that you're a US size 2 necessarily means that you're not overweight. If you have small hips, but are overweight by BMI you can still be overweight. What do you weigh?
I have big hips and will be a larger size even at a low weight.
That being said, I still think the scale is crap for body fat percent and should be ignored.0 -
Sorry, I forgot to add that!
I'm 125 right now0 -
31% is borderline obese for a woman, it's the cutoff between normal and obese. 130 pounds for someone 5' tall is a BMI of over 25, which is in the overweight category. Therefore, someone with a borderline body fat percentage at a healthy weight per BMI is fine, but someone with a borderline body fat percentage with an overweight BMI should probably work on losing a few more pounds of fat. Not everyone is healthy at the high end of the range, just like not everyone is healthy at the low end of the range. That's why there is a range, to account for various builds and body types.3. Nobody can really give any kind of informed suggestions because you didn't mention your weight. 31% body fat at 120 pounds is fine for someone 5' tall. 31% body fat at 130 pounds for someone 5' tall would be overweight. Of course, that's assuming that the body fat percentage from your scale is accurate, which it probably isn't.
Wait, what...? A percent is a percent. Assuming that the # is correct (with any testing method), 31% is on the high end of healthy for any woman, regardless of height or weight. If a woman of a given height loses weight but her BF remains stable, then she has lost equal amounts of fat and muscle and water. If she loses weight and her BF drops, then she can assume that she has lost fat and retained muscle. Body fat percentage ranges are not height-specific. What is overweight/healthy/underweight is the same for a 5' woman as it is for a 6' woman.
BMI ≠ body fat. Read what you said above. You claimed above that the same woman with the SAME bodyfat % was healthy at one weight, but not another. If she is heavier, but is also carrying more muscle (which would explain higher weight and same BF %), then she will only appear "overweight" based upon BMI (which could in theory happen if she put on a ton of muscle). Her bodyfat % is still healthy. Height still has 0 bearing on body fat percentage. This is why it's a percent.0 -
Try this online body fat calculator. When I use it I get a body fat percentage that is within about 3 pounds (heavier) than what my home Weight Watchers scale tells me. I don't know which is correct, but my scale has been pretty consistent--I always weigh myself right when I get up in the morning and before eating or drinking anything except the glass of water that I take to bed at night. The body fat pwecentage on the scale has been dropping as I have been losing weight. I am 5' 4.5" and 123 lbs. and the online calculator puts me at about 25% body fat. I work out for about an hour three days per week. Still don't have a lot of muscle definition.
http://www.calculator.net/army-body-fat-calculator.html0 -
Try this online body fat calculator. When I use it I get a body fat percentage that is within about 3 pounds (heavier) than what my home Weight Watchers scale tells me. I don't know which is correct, but my scale has been pretty consistent--I always weigh myself right when I get up in the morning and before eating or drinking anything except the glass of water that I take to bed at night. The body fat pwecentage on the scale has been dropping as I have been losing weight. I am 5' 4.5" and 123 lbs. and the online calculator puts me at about 25% body fat. I work out for about an hour three days per week. Still don't have a lot of muscle definition.
http://www.calculator.net/army-body-fat-calculator.html
That online calculator seems to be crap for women who have a naturally wide frame imo. It doesn't count fat in boobs at all. That just seems wrong to me. Why shouldn't boobs count?0 -
I am also 5 feet and have a similar scale
Bump to see what other people have to say0 -
31% is borderline obese for a woman, it's the cutoff between normal and obese. 130 pounds for someone 5' tall is a BMI of over 25, which is in the overweight category. Therefore, someone with a borderline body fat percentage at a healthy weight per BMI is fine, but someone with a borderline body fat percentage with an overweight BMI should probably work on losing a few more pounds of fat. Not everyone is healthy at the high end of the range, just like not everyone is healthy at the low end of the range. That's why there is a range, to account for various builds and body types.3. Nobody can really give any kind of informed suggestions because you didn't mention your weight. 31% body fat at 120 pounds is fine for someone 5' tall. 31% body fat at 130 pounds for someone 5' tall would be overweight. Of course, that's assuming that the body fat percentage from your scale is accurate, which it probably isn't.
Wait, what...? A percent is a percent. Assuming that the # is correct (with any testing method), 31% is on the high end of healthy for any woman, regardless of height or weight. If a woman of a given height loses weight but her BF remains stable, then she has lost equal amounts of fat and muscle and water. If she loses weight and her BF drops, then she can assume that she has lost fat and retained muscle. Body fat percentage ranges are not height-specific. What is overweight/healthy/underweight is the same for a 5' woman as it is for a 6' woman.
BMI ≠ body fat. Read what you said above. You claimed above that the same woman with the SAME bodyfat % was healthy at one weight, but not another. If she is heavier, but is also carrying more muscle (which would explain higher weight and same BF %), then she will only appear "overweight" based upon BMI (which could in theory happen if she put on a ton of muscle). Her bodyfat % is still healthy. Height still has 0 bearing on body fat percentage. This is why it's a percent.
No to mention being small and overfat is a bigger health risk0 -
Again, you're missing the point. 31% is BORDERLINE healthy. 30.9% is healthy, 31.1% is unhealthy. If someone is at a body fat that is right on the border of being over fat, AND overweight according to BMI, that's a potential health risk. Someone who is right on the border of being overfat but not overweight according to BMI has a less significant health risk. If we are talking these same scenarios with 20% body fat than I'd say it wouldn't matter one way or the other, but when someone is borderline either way, it can be an issue.
31% is borderline obese for a woman, it's the cutoff between normal and obese. 130 pounds for someone 5' tall is a BMI of over 25, which is in the overweight category. Therefore, someone with a borderline body fat percentage at a healthy weight per BMI is fine, but someone with a borderline body fat percentage with an overweight BMI should probably work on losing a few more pounds of fat. Not everyone is healthy at the high end of the range, just like not everyone is healthy at the low end of the range. That's why there is a range, to account for various builds and body types.3. Nobody can really give any kind of informed suggestions because you didn't mention your weight. 31% body fat at 120 pounds is fine for someone 5' tall. 31% body fat at 130 pounds for someone 5' tall would be overweight. Of course, that's assuming that the body fat percentage from your scale is accurate, which it probably isn't.
Wait, what...? A percent is a percent. Assuming that the # is correct (with any testing method), 31% is on the high end of healthy for any woman, regardless of height or weight. If a woman of a given height loses weight but her BF remains stable, then she has lost equal amounts of fat and muscle and water. If she loses weight and her BF drops, then she can assume that she has lost fat and retained muscle. Body fat percentage ranges are not height-specific. What is overweight/healthy/underweight is the same for a 5' woman as it is for a 6' woman.
BMI ≠ body fat. Read what you said above. You claimed above that the same woman with the SAME bodyfat % was healthy at one weight, but not another. If she is heavier, but is also carrying more muscle (which would explain higher weight and same BF %), then she will only appear "overweight" based upon BMI (which could in theory happen if she put on a ton of muscle). Her bodyfat % is still healthy. Height still has 0 bearing on body fat percentage. This is why it's a percent.0 -
Again, you're missing the point. 31% is BORDERLINE healthy. 30.9% is healthy, 31.1% is unhealthy. If someone is at a body fat that is right on the border of being over fat, AND overweight according to BMI, that's a potential health risk. Someone who is right on the border of being overfat but not overweight according to BMI has a less significant health risk. If we are talking these same scenarios with 20% body fat than I'd say it wouldn't matter one way or the other, but when someone is borderline either way, it can be an issue.
They both have pretty similar health risks. The thinner person is a lot worse off usually when something such as diabetes actually happens. Slightly heavier people fare a lot better than a thin person who is just as overfat.
Both should strive toward the 22% ideal if anything. A 30% bodyfat for women from what I remember isn't healthy. It's not obese at 35% but its definitely over fat.0 -
Again, you're missing the point. 31% is BORDERLINE healthy. 30.9% is healthy, 31.1% is unhealthy. If someone is at a body fat that is right on the border of being over fat, AND overweight according to BMI, that's a potential health risk. Someone who is right on the border of being overfat but not overweight according to BMI has a less significant health risk. If we are talking these same scenarios with 20% body fat than I'd say it wouldn't matter one way or the other, but when someone is borderline either way, it can be an issue.
BMI ≠ body fat. Read what you said above. You claimed above that the same woman with the SAME bodyfat % was healthy at one weight, but not another. If she is heavier, but is also carrying more muscle (which would explain higher weight and same BF %), then she will only appear "overweight" based upon BMI (which could in theory happen if she put on a ton of muscle). Her bodyfat % is still healthy. Height still has 0 bearing on body fat percentage. This is why it's a percent.
[/quote]
I'm not worried that I am fat. Anyone who even wants to say that I'm borderline overweight is crazy which would lead me to believe that this conventional fat calculation doesn't really apply to me. Again, I am 125 pounds and a size 2 but I am trying to use other factors besides weight to monitor to be my most healthy. I have extra fat because I am naturally large chested in a place that is not really related to my diet and work out routine (believe me, I've been trying to go down a cup size). I want to find out if there is a fat percentage that has been agreed upon for someone my size and with my frame.
Also, BMI is crap which, again, doesn't take into account my frame.0 -
Again, you're missing the point. 31% is BORDERLINE healthy. 30.9% is healthy, 31.1% is unhealthy. If someone is at a body fat that is right on the border of being over fat, AND overweight according to BMI, that's a potential health risk. Someone who is right on the border of being overfat but not overweight according to BMI has a less significant health risk. If we are talking these same scenarios with 20% body fat than I'd say it wouldn't matter one way or the other, but when someone is borderline either way, it can be an issue.
BMI ≠ body fat. Read what you said above. You claimed above that the same woman with the SAME bodyfat % was healthy at one weight, but not another. If she is heavier, but is also carrying more muscle (which would explain higher weight and same BF %), then she will only appear "overweight" based upon BMI (which could in theory happen if she put on a ton of muscle). Her bodyfat % is still healthy. Height still has 0 bearing on body fat percentage. This is why it's a percent.
I'm not worried that I am fat. Anyone who even wants to say that I'm borderline overweight is crazy which would lead me to believe that this conventional fat calculation doesn't really apply to me. Again, I am 125 pounds and a size 2 but I am trying to use other factors besides weight to monitor to be my most healthy. I have extra fat because I am naturally large chested in a place that is not really related to my diet and work out routine (believe me, I've been trying to go down a cup size). I want to find out if there is a fat percentage that has been agreed upon for someone my size and with my frame.
Also, BMI is crap which, again, doesn't take into account my frame.
Believe me I understand about the chest issues. You should try the caliper methods and see if they agree. You can buy them for around $10 on amazon and do a comparison. I'd bet money your bf will come up lower with that method.0 -
Again, you're missing the point. 31% is BORDERLINE healthy. 30.9% is healthy, 31.1% is unhealthy. If someone is at a body fat that is right on the border of being over fat, AND overweight according to BMI, that's a potential health risk. Someone who is right on the border of being overfat but not overweight according to BMI has a less significant health risk. If we are talking these same scenarios with 20% body fat than I'd say it wouldn't matter one way or the other, but when someone is borderline either way, it can be an issue.
BMI ≠ body fat. Read what you said above. You claimed above that the same woman with the SAME bodyfat % was healthy at one weight, but not another. If she is heavier, but is also carrying more muscle (which would explain higher weight and same BF %), then she will only appear "overweight" based upon BMI (which could in theory happen if she put on a ton of muscle). Her bodyfat % is still healthy. Height still has 0 bearing on body fat percentage. This is why it's a percent.
I'm not worried that I am fat. Anyone who even wants to say that I'm borderline overweight is crazy which would lead me to believe that this conventional fat calculation doesn't really apply to me. Again, I am 125 pounds and a size 2 but I am trying to use other factors besides weight to monitor to be my most healthy. I have extra fat because I am naturally large chested in a place that is not really related to my diet and work out routine (believe me, I've been trying to go down a cup size). I want to find out if there is a fat percentage that has been agreed upon for someone my size and with my frame.
Also, BMI is crap which, again, doesn't take into account my frame.
I don't think anyone called you fat but a 30% bodyfat is considered overfat as in you have too much fat dispersed in your muscles and around your organs. It may not necessarily make you look fat but it is a health risk. It doesn't have much to do with your weight either. Someone can be 110lbs and be 30% bodyfat. Its common when someone does a lot of cardio and no resistance training.0 -
Again, you're missing the point. 31% is BORDERLINE healthy. 30.9% is healthy, 31.1% is unhealthy. If someone is at a body fat that is right on the border of being over fat, AND overweight according to BMI, that's a potential health risk. Someone who is right on the border of being overfat but not overweight according to BMI has a less significant health risk. If we are talking these same scenarios with 20% body fat than I'd say it wouldn't matter one way or the other, but when someone is borderline either way, it can be an issue.
BMI ≠ body fat. Read what you said above. You claimed above that the same woman with the SAME bodyfat % was healthy at one weight, but not another. If she is heavier, but is also carrying more muscle (which would explain higher weight and same BF %), then she will only appear "overweight" based upon BMI (which could in theory happen if she put on a ton of muscle). Her bodyfat % is still healthy. Height still has 0 bearing on body fat percentage. This is why it's a percent.
I'm not worried that I am fat. Anyone who even wants to say that I'm borderline overweight is crazy which would lead me to believe that this conventional fat calculation doesn't really apply to me. Again, I am 125 pounds and a size 2 but I am trying to use other factors besides weight to monitor to be my most healthy. I have extra fat because I am naturally large chested in a place that is not really related to my diet and work out routine (believe me, I've been trying to go down a cup size). I want to find out if there is a fat percentage that has been agreed upon for someone my size and with my frame.
Also, BMI is crap which, again, doesn't take into account my frame.
I don't think anyone called you fat but a 30% bodyfat is considered overfat as in you have too much fat dispersed in your muscles and around your organs. It may not necessarily make you look fat but it is a health risk. It doesn't have much to do with your weight either. Someone can be 110lbs and be 30% bodyfat. Its common when someone does a lot of cardio and no resistance training.
@heather thanks! I will try that!
@victoria4321...I'm pretty sure my fat is on my chest and not around my organs which would change the health risk. As I said, I hate cardio and rarely do it unless I'm dancing and I mostly weight lift (I use large weights mostly, no teeny wimpy little things here), yoga and dance. Resistance training isn't what I am lacking here since I'm not one of those girls who spend all their time on the treadmill. Again, my fat concentration is not where this calculation is assuming it is (ie not concentrated around the organs). Since the assumption of the test is wrong, in my case, the percentage must be different to account for this fat that is not related to fat around my organs or in other spots. This fat is mostly unrelated to diet or fitness.0 -
[/quote]
Again, you're missing the point. 31% is BORDERLINE healthy. 30.9% is healthy, 31.1% is unhealthy. If someone is at a body fat that is right on the border of being over fat, AND overweight according to BMI, that's a potential health risk. Someone who is right on the border of being overfat but not overweight according to BMI has a less significant health risk. If we are talking these same scenarios with 20% body fat than I'd say it wouldn't matter one way or the other, but when someone is borderline either way, it can be an issue.
BMI ≠ body fat. Read what you said above. You claimed above that the same woman with the SAME bodyfat % was healthy at one weight, but not another. If she is heavier, but is also carrying more muscle (which would explain higher weight and same BF %), then she will only appear "overweight" based upon BMI (which could in theory happen if she put on a ton of muscle). Her bodyfat % is still healthy. Height still has 0 bearing on body fat percentage. This is why it's a percent.
No...a 5' 120# woman with 31% bodyfat has the same *percentage* (note, we're not talking about the difference in actual weight) of bodyfat as a 5' 130# woman with 31% bodyfat. Her BMI is what has changed, not her percentage of body fat relative to her weight.
31% is 31%...regardless of age, weight, gender, height, species. And accurate bodyfat readings are a far better measure of health and fitness than BMI.0 -
Try using calipers or tape measure and see what results you get from that. Your bra size shouldn't matter with those tests.0
-
The best measure, but a PITA and relatively $$ is a water displacement test in a lab. I know very few people who have gone to the trouble. The calipers are good, assuming the person doing the measurements is using the calipers correctly.0
-
I'm sorry you wasted your money on that scale. They are a scam (ask any scientist...a real scientist). They give you a number, but it is not your body fat %. Possibly it tests how sweaty you are. But, that scale is scientifically impossible to do what it claims to do. You should not be basing medical decisions or how you feel about yourself on that scale. It's no better than a carnival fortune telling machine. Just the fact that it has an athlete and non-athlete setting should be a big clue to anyone that it is nonsense.0
-
Another thing to keep in mind with these scales is that they depend upon a person having ideal hydration and not being used immediately after a workout and consistently used under similar conditions. A lot of people don't use them as instructed...so even the best electronic impedance device can read way off.0
-
31% is borderline obese for a woman, it's the cutoff between normal and obese. 130 pounds for someone 5' tall is a BMI of over 25, which is in the overweight category. Therefore, someone with a borderline body fat percentage at a healthy weight per BMI is fine, but someone with a borderline body fat percentage with an overweight BMI should probably work on losing a few more pounds of fat. Not everyone is healthy at the high end of the range, just like not everyone is healthy at the low end of the range. That's why there is a range, to account for various builds and body types.3. Nobody can really give any kind of informed suggestions because you didn't mention your weight. 31% body fat at 120 pounds is fine for someone 5' tall. 31% body fat at 130 pounds for someone 5' tall would be overweight. Of course, that's assuming that the body fat percentage from your scale is accurate, which it probably isn't.
Wait, what...? A percent is a percent. Assuming that the # is correct (with any testing method), 31% is on the high end of healthy for any woman, regardless of height or weight. If a woman of a given height loses weight but her BF remains stable, then she has lost equal amounts of fat and muscle and water. If she loses weight and her BF drops, then she can assume that she has lost fat and retained muscle. Body fat percentage ranges are not height-specific. What is overweight/healthy/underweight is the same for a 5' woman as it is for a 6' woman.
BMI ≠ body fat. Read what you said above. You claimed above that the same woman with the SAME bodyfat % was healthy at one weight, but not another. If she is heavier, but is also carrying more muscle (which would explain higher weight and same BF %), then she will only appear "overweight" based upon BMI (which could in theory happen if she put on a ton of muscle). Her bodyfat % is still healthy. Height still has 0 bearing on body fat percentage. This is why it's a percent.
No to mention being small and overfat is a bigger health risk
How so?
Also, people often do the math wrong. A person at a low weight and 15% body fat has less muscle and less fat than someone at a higher weight with 15% body fat. Most people think only the muscle changes. But, that is a misunderstanding of math. I'm just using 15 as an example.0 -
I think those scales are crap. Mine shows a ridiculously low body fat percent for me at like 18%. There is no way I'm that low since I'm not muscular at all. It would be nice though.
As someone else said, the weight is accurate on the scale. I only really look at that. I don't think there is any good way to really measure body fat percent.
Yeah, most people don't realize that looking in the mirror is more accurate than those scales. If a person is over fat, they will see excess fat on their body, not firm, defined, muscles and a slender body. Common sense is a good thing.0 -
Honey, I hate to break it to you, but if you really are at a healthy weight, your breasts are not made of fat. Breasts are made of breast tissue and can often be surrounded by fat. The more fat stored, the more fat on the boobies. That's why some people lose weight in their chest area and others don't. It depends on how much breast tissue you have initially, which is genetic. I've fluctuated 30 lbs and my boobs haven't changed. It's because they aren't fat.
Also, I'm in the same boat at about 31% bf based on calculators on the internet. Ones that I trust. And if you look at my pics I would hardly say I'm really "fat". But I have a bit more body fat than I'd like. Also, the categories don't go from "normal" to "obese". Just because you're a little over doesn't turn you from normal into an obese person. It means you have a little excess fat for desirable health. Don't worry about it. Just lift and run and bring your body fat down. And really, don't get mad if someone insinuates that you're "fat". You shouldn't ever have to defend your body. Especially not to someone on the internet.
I'd also like to point out that BMI was created to roughtly estimate a person's body fat based on weight and height....well not even that as it wasn't created for individuals, but it's how we use it now. Therefore arguments about what your BMI is if you know your body fat percentage are completely irrelevant. The person who is telling you that your BMI makes a difference between whether you should lose weight or not if you already know your body fat % has no idea what they're talking about. People who rely on BMI are often talking out of their *kitten*.
All this being said, screw numbers. Base your ideal weight or body fat % on how you look and feel. All the rest is bull$hit.0 -
31% is borderline obese for a woman, it's the cutoff between normal and obese. 130 pounds for someone 5' tall is a BMI of over 25, which is in the overweight category. Therefore, someone with a borderline body fat percentage at a healthy weight per BMI is fine, but someone with a borderline body fat percentage with an overweight BMI should probably work on losing a few more pounds of fat. Not everyone is healthy at the high end of the range, just like not everyone is healthy at the low end of the range. That's why there is a range, to account for various builds and body types.3. Nobody can really give any kind of informed suggestions because you didn't mention your weight. 31% body fat at 120 pounds is fine for someone 5' tall. 31% body fat at 130 pounds for someone 5' tall would be overweight. Of course, that's assuming that the body fat percentage from your scale is accurate, which it probably isn't.
Wait, what...? A percent is a percent. Assuming that the # is correct (with any testing method), 31% is on the high end of healthy for any woman, regardless of height or weight. If a woman of a given height loses weight but her BF remains stable, then she has lost equal amounts of fat and muscle and water. If she loses weight and her BF drops, then she can assume that she has lost fat and retained muscle. Body fat percentage ranges are not height-specific. What is overweight/healthy/underweight is the same for a 5' woman as it is for a 6' woman.
BMI ≠ body fat. Read what you said above. You claimed above that the same woman with the SAME bodyfat % was healthy at one weight, but not another. If she is heavier, but is also carrying more muscle (which would explain higher weight and same BF %), then she will only appear "overweight" based upon BMI (which could in theory happen if she put on a ton of muscle). Her bodyfat % is still healthy. Height still has 0 bearing on body fat percentage. This is why it's a percent.
No to mention being small and overfat is a bigger health risk
How so?
Also, people often do the math wrong. A person at a low weight and 15% body fat has less muscle and less fat than someone at a higher weight with 15% body fat. Most people think only the muscle changes. But, that is a misunderstanding of math. I'm just using 15 as an example.
Look up "obesity paradox". For some unknown reason when obese people develope chronic diseases caused by being fat their survival outcome is a lot better and so is their recovery. An obese type 2 diabetic does much better in treatment than a normal weight type 2. The big issue for the smaller people is being overfat gives them the same health risks for diseases that overweight people get since they're metabolically unhealthy but lifestyle changes don't help as much.0 -
Sorry for the bad news but..... I am 5'1" and at 100 lbs my body fat is around 22%, so while I think the scale may be erring on the high side, it doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me. After my injury, I am about 105 to 107 lbs (weighing in right now would just make me morbid because I have only yesterday been given the OK to go back to the gym) & I would expect my body fat to be around 25% or higher.... This is just the way I am made. Like you, I eat a low fat non-processed lacto-ovo vegetarian diet. When I am not injured, I do 1/2 hour of cardio 6 days a week, abs for at least 10 minutes every day, heavy lifting 3 days a week.
I guess the point is..... we should always strive to be healthy and trim, but we need to stop comparing ourselves in pernicious ways to other people....
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 435 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions