Women: Something to Consider Regarding BF%

Excellent post. In my opinion there are a lot of girls and woman who are so obsessed with being thin. Weight, like age is just a number.

We also know that women who don't have periods for long stretches of time because of anorexia, or because they breastfeed for a long time or go in to an early menopause, are at risk. Heavy smokers and very underweight women are also more prone."

Incorrect...

I'm surprised at how many people are saying how informative this thread is.. Basically, this thread is sharing a personal experience that most likely won't affect a lot of people. Bf% is a much better variable to set goals for than a number on the scale.

This thread is fear mongering.. straight up

Good thing I don't scare easily. :laugh:

Personally, I've found this to be an interesting discussion. I think if people are frightened by any of these posts, then perhaps they have low self-esteem or body image issues. I've enjoyed this thread.

That's my point love.. people who DO have low self-esteem and body issues will not necessarily be frightened but rather discouraged. Also people who have difficulty researching will also be susceptible. This thread is propaganda, again based on the OP's first post but it's nice to know you enjoyed it.

Calling this thread "propaganda" is a bit of hyperbole. One comment does not make an entire thread. Why not join the conversation and simply correct factual errors rather than denigrate all the posters?

Like I said earlier, most people here think by eating under cals and exercising that they will lose weight - when in reality, their true goal is to reduce their fat. OP's post can be easily interpreted as a means to focus less on our true goals and back to being a slave to the number on the scale.. just because of her genetic susceptibility to specific health issues, etc or the very high possibility that she is suffering from some kind of eating disorder, poor self-esteem or that she became deficient in crucial nutrients while 'trying to get fit'.

While I believe OP probably meant well, most people will not get to the athlete BF% because that is not their goal. You've indirectly without any solid evidence tried to discourage (with the potential to do worse) a lot of people from focusing on BF%. You should always be seeing a doctor during weight or fat loss efforts to rule out or prevent issues from developing. That's just common sense and that should be the message you are trying to send.

OP was *not* talking about people who want to have a BF% in the fitness range. She is talking about how she "screwed up" her body, implying that in her past she was on a quest to get rid of any and all fat on her body. She is reminding women that there *is* and essential amount of fat that we need on our bodies. And she posted some links and encouraged people to research the issue.

Sure lots of people misread posts, but someone with poor reading skills can't be helped much by any thread on MFP, now can they?

bump to read all the pages later. thanks for the thread!!!

Like I said earlier, most people here think by eating under cals and exercising that they will lose weight - when in reality, their true goal is to reduce their fat. OP's post can be easily interpreted as a means to focus less on our true goals and back to being a slave to the number on the scale.. just because of her genetic susceptibility to specific health issues, etc or the very high possibility that she is suffering from some kind of eating disorder, poor self-esteem or that she became deficient in crucial nutrients while 'trying to get fit'.

While I believe OP probably meant well, most people will not get to the athlete BF% because that is not their goal. You've indirectly without any solid evidence tried to discourage (with the potential to do worse) a lot of people from focusing on BF%. You should always be seeing a doctor during weight or fat loss efforts to rule out or prevent issues from developing. That's just common sense and that should be the message you are trying to send.

OP was *not* talking about people who want to have a BF% in the fitness range. She is talking about how she "screwed up" her body, implying that in her past she was on a quest to get rid of any and all fat on her body. She is reminding women that there *is* and essential amount of fat that we need on our bodies. And she posted some links and encouraged people to research the issue.

Sure lots of people misread posts, but someone with poor reading skills can't be helped much by any thread on MFP, now can they?

Except that some of the information in the OP was blatantly incorrect, and needed to be corrected, such as putting breastfeeding in the same category as anorexia. Both do cause ovulation to stop, but through very different physiological mechanisms. It's *normal* for breastfeeding to stop ovulation, and this does not put a woman at risk of brittle bones in and of itself. Insufficient calcium intake while breastfeeding does, but that's not the same thing at all. Ovulation stopping while breastfeeding is normal human physiology, brittle bones from not eating enough calcium is a nutritional deficiency. The implication in the post was very clearly that anyone who breastfeeds for long enough to stop ovulation for a long time is putting their bones at risk because they are not ovulating.... that's completely false, you're not supposed to ovulate while breastfeeding exclusively, it's the body's way of preventing you from getting pregnant before the child's ready to be weaned, which in evolutionary terms is about 5 or 6 years of age. Eating insufficient calcium while breastfeeding is a totally different issue. The take home message should be "if you breastfeed it's vital that you get enough calcium" - however from the post many will get the message "if you breastfeed for too long and you don't ovulate for too long, then you're at risk" instead. There's enough misinformation about breastfeeding out there already, we don't need more of it.

As much as the OP may have intended simply to tell women that trying to stay at 13% body fat for too long, or trying to get below that will cause health problems, she mixed the whole issue up when she included breastfeeding stopping ovulation in the mix. Additionally, when someone claims something that's scientifically incorrect (and in this case if it were true the human race would not have evolved and probably a whole bunch of other mammals wouldn't have either) it makes people doubt the rest of what she was saying. It's well known in the fitness world that it's a bad idea to stay at 13% body fat long term, female bodybuilders go up to around 17% body fat during the off season. Saying so is nothing contraversial. However the way the OP was phrased made it seem like she was telling everyone not to go below 22% (which I ignored) and also that breastfeeding stopping ovulation put women at risk too, which I had to say something about because it's blatantly false and that kind of misinformation puts women off breastfeeding, which then has implications for their baby's health not just theirs (research suggests that breastfeeding benefits the health of both mother and baby - the issue with calcium is purely that you need to ensure you get enough calcium to meet your needs and your baby's needs in order to protect the health of your bones. Breastfeed and consume enough calcium, and there's no danger!!).

Bump...nice to know!

Like I said earlier, most people here think by eating under cals and exercising that they will lose weight - when in reality, their true goal is to reduce their fat. OP's post can be easily interpreted as a means to focus less on our true goals and back to being a slave to the number on the scale.. just because of her genetic susceptibility to specific health issues, etc or the very high possibility that she is suffering from some kind of eating disorder, poor self-esteem or that she became deficient in crucial nutrients while 'trying to get fit'.

While I believe OP probably meant well, most people will not get to the athlete BF% because that is not their goal. You've indirectly without any solid evidence tried to discourage (with the potential to do worse) a lot of people from focusing on BF%. You should always be seeing a doctor during weight or fat loss efforts to rule out or prevent issues from developing. That's just common sense and that should be the message you are trying to send.

OP was *not* talking about people who want to have a BF% in the fitness range. She is talking about how she "screwed up" her body, implying that in her past she was on a quest to get rid of any and all fat on her body. She is reminding women that there *is* and essential amount of fat that we need on our bodies. And she posted some links and encouraged people to research the issue.

Sure lots of people misread posts, but someone with poor reading skills can't be helped much by any thread on MFP, now can they?

Except that some of the information in the OP was blatantly incorrect, and needed to be corrected, such as putting breastfeeding in the same category as anorexia. Both do cause ovulation to stop, but through very different physiological mechanisms. It's *normal* for breastfeeding to stop ovulation, and this does not put a woman at risk of brittle bones in and of itself. Insufficient calcium intake while breastfeeding does, but that's not the same thing at all. Ovulation stopping while breastfeeding is normal human physiology, brittle bones from not eating enough calcium is a nutritional deficiency. The implication in the post was very clearly that anyone who breastfeeds for long enough to stop ovulation for a long time is putting their bones at risk because they are not ovulating.... that's completely false, you're not supposed to ovulate while breastfeeding exclusively, it's the body's way of preventing you from getting pregnant before the child's ready to be weaned, which in evolutionary terms is about 5 or 6 years of age. Eating insufficient calcium while breastfeeding is a totally different issue. The take home message should be "if you breastfeed it's vital that you get enough calcium" - however from the post many will get the message "if you breastfeed for too long and you don't ovulate for too long, then you're at risk" instead. There's enough misinformation about breastfeeding out there already, we don't need more of it.

As much as the OP may have intended simply to tell women that trying to stay at 13% body fat for too long, or trying to get below that will cause health problems, she mixed the whole issue up when she included breastfeeding stopping ovulation in the mix. Additionally, when someone claims something that's scientifically incorrect (and in this case if it were true the human race would not have evolved and probably a whole bunch of other mammals wouldn't have either) it makes people doubt the rest of what she was saying. It's well known in the fitness world that it's a bad idea to stay at 13% body fat long term, female bodybuilders go up to around 17% body fat during the off season. Saying so is nothing contraversial. However the way the OP was phrased made it seem like she was telling everyone not to go below 22% (which I ignored) and also that breastfeeding stopping ovulation put women at risk too, which I had to say something about because it's blatantly false and that kind of misinformation puts women off breastfeeding, which then has implications for their baby's health not just theirs (research suggests that breastfeeding benefits the health of both mother and baby - the issue with calcium is purely that you need to ensure you get enough calcium to meet your needs and your baby's needs in order to protect the health of your bones. Breastfeed and consume enough calcium, and there's no danger!!).

I agree - thanks for posting. You have more patience than I do.

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

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

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

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

Extended breastfeeding should not make a difference. Ovulation stops when a women is exclusively breastfeeding, and not feeding solid foods. That is around a six month time frame. When ovulation and periods resume will be different per person, but usually it is not that much of a notable difference. I extended breastfed. I breastfed both my children for around, almost 2 years (longer than the average of a year, but not as long as some people extend breastfeeding). The first time my cycles stopped for 15 months. The second time for 4 months. A total of 18 months (an average time that people often nurse one child).

In our modern culture girls are not taught anything about breastfeeding while in school (or through life, by mothers), or potentially they are taught biased information. Most people do not learn about breastfeeding until they are at that stage of life, and have an absolute need to learn and research from many areas (as well as the natural instincts that kick in). Ultimately, it will be your choice to breastfeed and for how long. But, if you choose extended breastfeeding, and nourish properly (I ate up to 3000 calories a day, more than most people), it will not harm the female body. Neandermagnon knows what she is talking about. Another thing that is not taught sufficiently in high schools is evolution. I did not learn the intricate details of that until I chose to study it in college (as part of my major) at a very good college.

Hi, I am 50yrs started here with BF of about 43%, now at 30%, and aiming for 27%. That will still have me over a healthy BMI and probably above my WW goal weight.

I needed to lose weight from 87kg, now at 72 kg. Numbers and goals helped me, and I realise it will take a year of focussing on numbers, and readjusting my thinking, to keep making healthy choices an automatic part of my life..

I can see how it is easy to get obsessed with numbers, but in moderation, the counting and setting goals has really helped me.
moderation, and proportion.

loving it.
cheers jane

To read later

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

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

Extended breastfeeding should not make a difference. Ovulation stops when a women is exclusively breastfeeding, and not feeding solid foods. That is around a six month time frame. When ovulation and periods resume will be different per person, but usually it is not that much of a notable difference. I extended breastfed. I breastfed both my children for around, almost 2 years (longer than the average of a year, but not as long as some people extend breastfeeding). The first time my cycles stopped for 15 months. The second time for 4 months. A total of 18 months (an average time that people often nurse one child).

In our modern culture girls are not taught anything about breastfeeding while in school (or through life, by mothers), or potentially they are taught biased information. Most people do not learn about breastfeeding until they are at that stage of life, and have an absolute need to learn and research from many areas (as well as the natural instincts that kick in). Ultimately, it will be your choice to breastfeed and for how long. But, if you choose extended breastfeeding, and nourish properly (I ate up to 3000 calories a day, more than most people), it will not harm the female body. Neandermagnon knows what she is talking about. Another thing that is not taught sufficiently in high schools is evolution. I did not learn the intricate details of that until I chose to study it in college (as part of my major) at a very good college.

^^^ this

the confusion comes due to the fact that both starvation and breastfeeding stop ovulation. Pregnancy also stops ovulation, but for some reason that hasn't been confused into the mix (maybe it's more obvious why the body wouldn't ovulate during pregnancy?)

During breastfeeding and pregnancy, ovulation stops, because getting pregnant again too early will risk the lives of both babies. In humans, babies need a lot of care, and they survive best (in palaeolithic societies) if the mother does not have another child until they are around 6 years old. Thus as long as the mother is either pregnant or producing a lot of milk for the child, she will not ovulate. This gives the child she already has the best chance of survival. In palaeolithic societies, there were no dairy products of any kind, and no baby foods either, so babies would have been breastfed on demand for the first five or so years of their life, and not had that much else (food that was pre-chewed by the mother, plus very soft foods like some kinds of berries, would have been the main solid foods these kids would have had until their permanent teeth started to grow, hence the need for large quantities of breastmilk).

It is possible for the mother to resume ovulating while the baby's still breastfeeding (as BinaryPulsar says modern women typically start ovulating again when their babies start on solid food) - this would be due to the mother being very well nourished and the child getting a lot of nutrition from other foods, i.e. the mother is eating plenty and not producing that much milk any more.... from an evolutionary point of view, this acts like a signal to the body "times of plenty are here, you *can* have another child now and the chances of them both surviving are good" - and this is also why doctors and midwives always advise to NOT rely on breastfeeding as a form of contraceptive, i.e. we and our babies are too well fed. And weaning the baby completely signals to the body that either the baby died or needs no milk at all any more, and if ovulation hadn't already restarted, it will then.

Anyway, that's the deal with ovulation stopping while breastfeeding and during pregnancy - it's the body's *natural* way to space out births and ensure kids have the best chance of survival. It works very well for hunter-gatherers, but not so well for modern people with access to a wide variety of baby foods including dairy products, which replace the need for the child to have so much breast milk.

Starvation (including anorexia or trying to get your body fat levels below essential fat levels or keep them so low for long periods) is an entirely different matter. If the body's underfed to the point that it would be unable to sustain a pregnancy, the reproductive system shuts down altogether. If the famine strikes during pregnancy, it can result in miscarriage as the body is unable to sustain the pregnancy, and if it strikes during breastfeeding, the milk dries up and the child dies before the mother, in the hope (from an evolutionary point of view) that she can survive to look after any older surviving children and see better times when she can be better fed and have another baby. The human body has ways to survive severe short term food shortages,and shutting down the reproductive system is one way in which this happens. The result for non-pregnant women is menstruation stops, to prevent a pregnancy that the body can't sustain from happening in the first place. However, the human body can only adapt and cope with so much, if the food shortage is too severe or too prolonged, severe health problems and death will result.

I hope it's clear the difference between the normal cessation of ovulation during pregnancy and breastfeeding, and the reproductive system shutting down completely during starvation (which results in miscarriage if pregnant, and cessation of lactation if breastfeeding) are two very different things.

The human body's responses to food shortages, including during breastfeeding and pregnancy are more complex than this, the body does not just abandon pregnancy/suckling child at the first sign of a food shortage, the above is what happens during a famine. More mild food shortages result in the mother's body supplying the baby with what it can't get from food, i.e. calcium from her bones, protein from her muscles, even healthy fat from her brain (not joking about that, there are studies which show that)... so the take home message from that is that you definitely need to eat properly while pregnant and breastfeeding, and it takes a very severe food shortage to endanger the life of the child. But the point is that cessation of ovulation during pregnancy and breastfeeding is a totally different kettle of fish to the reproductive system shutting down in response to starvation, and the problem of loss of bone density in the mother from breastfeeding is due to not consuming enough calcium, and breastfeeding for any length of time is safe for the mother provided she eats a healthy balanced diet.

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

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

Though, FWIW, it is true that return to fertility after childbirth and breastfeeding is mediated by body fat percentage. Interesting side note - I remember reading an analysis of the costs of carrying, birthing, and feeding a baby to being able to eat solids (which is NOT age 5, by the way; hunter-gatherer children start eating solid foods as babies and toddlers). On an average-sized woman, the difference in body fat between her ideal percentage and a man's ideal percentage? Just about the same energy required to grow and feed that baby to some level of energy independence.

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