Article I read. Confused? Your thoughts?
3foldchord
Posts: 2,918 Member
I was Reading an article & am CONFUSED!
First is says that : body fat for lean people is "lean around 14-17 percent or less of body fat for men, and 21-24 for women"THEN is says: optimal body fat levels in modern humans, to be around 6-13 percent in men and 14–20 percent in women. SO are they say it is optimal to be thinner than LEAN?
Those seem like low percentages, fine for the super athletic, but could really make "us normal activity, non-extreme-athletic people" think we are all fat at our 23% LEAN body fat percentage.
Do you think they really meant optimal is that low? Maybe I read too quickly and missed a point in between those paragraphs that makes it make sense.
http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com/2010/07/subcutaneous-versus-visceral-fat-how-to.html
First is says that : body fat for lean people is "lean around 14-17 percent or less of body fat for men, and 21-24 for women"THEN is says: optimal body fat levels in modern humans, to be around 6-13 percent in men and 14–20 percent in women. SO are they say it is optimal to be thinner than LEAN?
Those seem like low percentages, fine for the super athletic, but could really make "us normal activity, non-extreme-athletic people" think we are all fat at our 23% LEAN body fat percentage.
Do you think they really meant optimal is that low? Maybe I read too quickly and missed a point in between those paragraphs that makes it make sense.
http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com/2010/07/subcutaneous-versus-visceral-fat-how-to.html
0
Replies
-
It' s a blog post, meaning it's not based on anything but the bloggers speculation.
He is saying that our ancestors body fat was in the 6-13 percent range and makes the conclusion that is where we should be. That is his conclusion. Others may agree or disagree with his assertion, but it's not a scientific, medical or realistic expectation that this should occur.
"Based on studies of isolated hunger-gatherers, it is reasonable to estimate “natural” body fat levels among our Stone Age ancestors, and thus optimal body fat levels in modern humans, to be around 6-13 percent in men and 14–20 percent in women."
It's just one dude's opinion. Other opinions will differ- some studies have shown that overweight people in some situations may live longer. Many internet 'experts' have undoubtedly used that on their blogs to promote their views as well.
Ignore or take with a grain of salt and mix it in with all the other opinions out there.0 -
Optimal to me means for olympic athletes and the like. But for day to day that is way too low0
-
.He is saying that our ancestors body fat was in the 6-13 percent range and makes the conclusion that is where we should be. That is his conclusion.
OK. Thanks. This is wha my brain was missing, it now makes sense (what he was sating and how he got there)
I know it' span opinion, I was thinking about my kids who are too skinny at 8% body fat! no way they are gonna be optimal at 6%. (But they lack muscle as well as body fat)
And I was just feeling good that I have made it to the "fit" level at 23%..... Don't want to let these articles steal my satisfaction. It' span east road for me to go down.0 -
Is there any reason in particular why you were interested in this?0
-
Is there any reason in particular why you were interested in this?
No. Well, yes, of "random reseeding and research" is a reason. It started as a search on "how to tell the difference, visually, between subcutaneous and visceral fat"... Then it switched to 'wow, 6% BF seems super low...does Optimal mean 'healthy obtainable,average'? Or is Optimal more selective special like Optimus Prime. Not many people reach the Optimal of being Optimus Prime,"
Then it switched to not sure what the author was saying, then it switched to 'hey, let's post/ask on my SL5x5 board, I don"t talk to them often. but it has been clarified now.
My mind is a series of Rabbit Holes.0 -
I think it is safe to say that woman between 15% and 22% are good and men between 11% and 19% are good, no idea how accurate those pictures are but it kinda gives you an idea0 -
that's a low limit you're putting on women there Mike, 30% is healthy, maybe more if you're older!0
-
that's a low limit you're putting on women there Mike, 30% is healthy, maybe more if you're older!
I agree. 15-22% is unrealistic for most women.0 -
yah i was trying to be hopeful, sorry 30% is totally hot, please do not take my post as shallow, it was a poor attempt at being funny i guess, even 35% is hot in my eyes. In the end it is what YOU feel happy about. I would love to look like the 8-10% male but I will never be there. I will be content with the male 15% pic0
-
Yeah, it's funny how different people have totally different views on what looks good (I know it's more than just looking good, but I'm following Mike's train of thought).
I prefer the 16-19% bloke myself, and I would much prefer for my body to look like the 25-30% women. It's just a personal preference. I was watching a show the other night called 'Chubby Chasers' where the men were only interested in women who were obese. They found women in the average weight range quite unattractive.
As far as looks are concerned (not health of course) there's no perfect body, which is a great thing I think.
0 -
I would chose the 11-12% guy is he was less muscle (& less oil)...LOL.
My goal is to hang out between 21-23%0
