Extremely confused about body fat % being 'healthy'

Francl27
Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I think we all mostly agree that body fat is a better measure of health than BMI.

How come that the body fat % scale is so weird though? I mean I was 170 lbs last time I got my bf measured and it was 32%, which is supposedly in the healthy range. That makes no sense to me. Anyone who saw me then could tell I definitely wasn't healthy and was overweight (I'm 156 now, probably around 26% bf, and still 6lbs from normal BMI).

A lot of us are aiming for 20% bf or lower, and it's actually in the 'unhealthy' category (for women).

I just don't get it...

Replies

  • daftthoughts
    daftthoughts Posts: 88
    Just like with all measurements, there is no one size fits all. People think I weigh 190 pounds when I ask them, when in reality I am 265 pounds. My height and body shape make me look less obese than I am.

    That said, generally speaking women require a higher amount of bf for fertility reasons. This is why a lot of women experience problems conceiving or issues with their monthly cycles when they drop below a certain number. It's fine for a woman to carry extra bf because when we have babies, we need the reserves to breastfeed our offspring. It's also been said that fat in the hips, thighs and buttocks area has health benefits for women.

    Men can do better on an even lower bf% because they're designed to hunt and move a lot, which requires muscle above bf. It's why men tend to be more efficient at burning calories and women are more efficient at retaining calories in general.

    Of course this doesn't apply in our society anymore nowadays, but it's one of the basic biological reasons for why our bf% differs between the sexes and why going below a certain % is bad for you.
  • toddis
    toddis Posts: 941 Member
    The scale you are using is probably not accurate.
    There are some online calculators (i'm unsure of accuracy)

    http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/mbf/
    http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/cbbf/



    Ideal-Body-Fat-Percentage-Chart1.jpg
    Body_Fat_Ranges.gif
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    It's at the gym and it looks pretty accurate actually.

    But look at the chart you just posted... How can it go from average to obese? That makes no sense to me. It's what I meant by being confused by the numbers.
  • Fullsterkur_woman
    Fullsterkur_woman Posts: 2,712 Member
    20% is not "unhealthy" for a woman, it's in the "athlete" or "fitness" range depending on whose chart you look at.

    Why worry about it so much? Just work on dropping fat until you feel great, have energy to get through your workouts, and are happy with the way you look.

    I'm about 36% fat at 179. But I am also very active and eat a well-balanced diet. I'm getting stronger every day. I may not "look pretty" or fall into the "proper" range on some chart, but anyone who called me unhealthy had better have something besides that to back up their claim.
  • toddis
    toddis Posts: 941 Member
    If you are going to the gym get your body fat measured by calipers, it's not terribly accurate either. If given by the same person in the same places it does give the ability to track progress over time.

    The nice bio-electric impedance devices look official and fancy and accurate but generally aren't.

    The fat you should worry about is around your midsection. Waist to hip ratio is more important as a measurement of overall health than total body fat.
  • endoftheside
    endoftheside Posts: 568 Member
    Aggravating isn't it! I think I am going to get within healthy weight by BMI and keep strength training. In the unlikely event that I get so ripped that I can't stay in the healthy category (ha!) then I will have to hunt down a bodpod or water immersion testing.

Categories