I'm skinny, with high body fat %
Options
brendaaeliza
Posts: 9
Hi everybody,
I'm just so mentally lost right now, I need some advice and constructive criticism.
I'm 5'5 female I weight 112lbs and have 28% overall body fat including visceral. And only have 26% muscle. I look skinny, I WANT to gain weight and drop my body fat to at least 20%.
Question is do I eat less then my maintaince level to loose weight/fat? Or I do eat over my maintaince level to gain weight/muscle?? I want my tummy to get flat but make my legs bigger.
I'm just so mentally lost right now, I need some advice and constructive criticism.
I'm 5'5 female I weight 112lbs and have 28% overall body fat including visceral. And only have 26% muscle. I look skinny, I WANT to gain weight and drop my body fat to at least 20%.
Question is do I eat less then my maintaince level to loose weight/fat? Or I do eat over my maintaince level to gain weight/muscle?? I want my tummy to get flat but make my legs bigger.
0
Replies
-
with a BMI of 18.6 I have a hard time believing that you are 28% body fat. increase your protein intake, work on core strength training - both of those should help increase your muscle mass and help you gain a little weight.0
-
I mean where do you start with this? Go and speak to a doctor about where you are at, your weight and where you need to be. Then go and speak to a psychoanalyst about how sometimes a person's perception of themselves is so utterly skewed they destroy themselves in the pursuit of something they will never achieve because there's always 'just a bit further' to go.0
-
that's a weird place to be. i can understand. i wasn't happy with how my body looked after a 50 lb loss with mostly cardio. the advice is to eat a little over maintenance, get lots of protein, and lift weights.
if it's hard to get your head around eating more, add 100 calories a week, even every two weeks if it's freaking you out. build up slowly. there's a group, i think it's called "eat more to lose", something like that, check it out.
definitely don't eat less than maintenance. eat at least maintenance.0 -
how are you measuring body fat?
I would suggest eating at maintenance or maybe a tad under, and by a tad I mean like 100 calories under maintenance and then you can do a slow recomp….
do you currently lift? If yes, what is your program?0 -
Is that photograph you? If yes, then dayum, girl! I'm 5'6" and was 114 lbs at 14% body fat before my first bulk/cut cycle. I've since done two bulks and am currently maintaining around 128 at 17% body fat.
If I was you, I would eat around 300 cals/day above maintenance and lift heavy. What's your current workout schedule look like?0 -
Uh.... no. Especially if your profile pic is you. There's nothing fatty about that. I find 28% BF hard to believe0
-
with a BMI of 18.6 I have a hard time believing that you are 28% body fat. increase your protein intake, work on core strength training - both of those should help increase your muscle mass and help you gain a little weight.
Okay thank you very much. Yes, my overall body fat is 28%, on another small device at the gym is 20% I believe.
0 -
PurpleYFronts wrote: »I mean where do you start with this? Go and speak to a doctor about where you are at, your weight and where you need to be. Then go and speak to a psychoanalyst about how sometimes a person's perception of themselves is so utterly skewed they destroy themselves in the pursuit of something they will never achieve because there's always 'just a bit further' to go.
This made me giggle, thank you.0 -
that's a weird place to be. i can understand. i wasn't happy with how my body looked after a 50 lb loss with mostly cardio. the advice is to eat a little over maintenance, get lots of protein, and lift weights.
if it's hard to get your head around eating more, add 100 calories a week, even every two weeks if it's freaking you out. build up slowly. there's a group, i think it's called "eat more to lose", something like that, check it out.
definitely don't eat less than maintenance. eat at least maintenance.
Yes I've been doing that, it is hard. And Thank you i will look into that group.0 -
-
how are you measuring body fat?
I would suggest eating at maintenance or maybe a tad under, and by a tad I mean like 100 calories under maintenance and then you can do a slow recomp….
do you currently lift? If yes, what is your program?
It's called ombron body composition monitor and scale.
I do, I was lifting at home but two weeks ago I started going to the gym. My "program" is 5xs a week lifting, and 3xs a week steady cardio.
0 -
ABSTRACT
Int J Exerc Sci 4(1) : 93-101, 2011. The Omron HBF-500 is an inexpensive body composition
monitor that incorporates both hand-to-hand and foot-to-foot electrical impedance technology.
At this time, studies examining the accuracy of the HBF-500 when estimating percent body fat
(%BF) are scarce and if this instrument gains popularity due to its claimed precision, comparisons
against validated techniques should be conducted. The purpose of this study was to assess the
accuracy of the Omron HBF-500 body composition monitor using the BOD POD as a criterion.
Forty-eight men and 33 women participated in the study (24.3±6.9 years, 171.0±10.0 cm, 78.4±18.0
kg, 26.6±5.1 kg/m2). Participants were asked to refrain from exercise and caffeine on the day of
testing, not eat a heavy meal three hours prior to measurement (a meal that would typically
constitute breakfast, lunch or dinner), and to remain normally hydrated. Participants removed all
jewelry and garments down to skintight clothing such as swimsuits or cycling shorts and were
assessed on the BOD POD and Omron according to manufacturer’s guidelines. The Omron
significantly overestimated %BF compared to the BOD POD in males (24.4±8.0 % and 22.9±9.1 %,
respectively), and females (35.5±7.7 % and 30.1±7.9 %), p = .001. The Omron was significantly
correlated with the BOD POD when assessing body fat, r= .95. The estimates of %BF produced by
the BOD POD and HBF-500 differ considerably. Consequently, caution should be taken when
using the Omron HBF-500 as a measure of body fat. However, given the difference of only 1.5%
BF between the two methods, perhaps males could use the HBF-500 to gain a general idea of
body composition status. For females, the degree of overestimation is too high to be suitable for
this purpose and incorrect categorization of %BF status could result. In cases where an accurate
estimate of %BF is crucial, using a more established method than the Omron is recommended.
Accuracy of the Omron HBF-500 Body Composition Monitor in
Male and Female College Students
MICHAEL I. PRIBYL*1, JOHN D. SMITH‡1, G. RICHARD GRIMES‡2
1 Texas A&M University- San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas;
2 Texas A&M University- Kingsville, Kingsville, Texas
TLDR: This and all BF estimating scales I am aware of are the magic 8-ball of estimating body fat. You want to feel better? chug a gallon of water and see your BF% drop.0 -
Is that photograph you? If yes, then dayum, girl! I'm 5'6" and was 114 lbs at 14% body fat before my first bulk/cut cycle. I've since done two bulks and am currently maintaining around 128 at 17% body fat.
If I was you, I would eat around 300 cals/day above maintenance and lift heavy. What's your current workout schedule look like?
No not me, I made this awhile ago and that was my "goal" photo.
Wow great job!! that's exactly what I want to do. I'm currently doing 150cals over my maintenance level, I will start increasing my cals. I do lifting 5xs a week, and slow and steady cardio 3xs a week.
So should I do less reps more weight?
Or less weight, higher reps?
0 -
That bodyfat measurement is wrong. Those devices are not accurate.
However, if you want to build strength and muscle find a good beginner's program like Starting Strength, Stronlifts 5x5, or New Rules of Weight Lifting for women. Start with low weight. Be very careful with form. Get plenty of protein (80 to 100g). After you do one of those programs for a while you can re-evaluate and see if you want to try something different, adjust your calories, or whatever.0 -
jenglish712 wrote: »ABSTRACT
Int J Exerc Sci 4(1) : 93-101, 2011. The Omron HBF-500 is an inexpensive body composition
monitor that incorporates both hand-to-hand and foot-to-foot electrical impedance technology.
At this time, studies examining the accuracy of the HBF-500 when estimating percent body fat
(%BF) are scarce and if this instrument gains popularity due to its claimed precision, comparisons
against validated techniques should be conducted. The purpose of this study was to assess the
accuracy of the Omron HBF-500 body composition monitor using the BOD POD as a criterion.
Forty-eight men and 33 women participated in the study (24.3±6.9 years, 171.0±10.0 cm, 78.4±18.0
kg, 26.6±5.1 kg/m2). Participants were asked to refrain from exercise and caffeine on the day of
testing, not eat a heavy meal three hours prior to measurement (a meal that would typically
constitute breakfast, lunch or dinner), and to remain normally hydrated. Participants removed all
jewelry and garments down to skintight clothing such as swimsuits or cycling shorts and were
assessed on the BOD POD and Omron according to manufacturer’s guidelines. The Omron
significantly overestimated %BF compared to the BOD POD in males (24.4±8.0 % and 22.9±9.1 %,
respectively), and females (35.5±7.7 % and 30.1±7.9 %), p = .001. The Omron was significantly
correlated with the BOD POD when assessing body fat, r= .95. The estimates of %BF produced by
the BOD POD and HBF-500 differ considerably. Consequently, caution should be taken when
using the Omron HBF-500 as a measure of body fat. However, given the difference of only 1.5%
BF between the two methods, perhaps males could use the HBF-500 to gain a general idea of
body composition status. For females, the degree of overestimation is too high to be suitable for
this purpose and incorrect categorization of %BF status could result. In cases where an accurate
estimate of %BF is crucial, using a more established method than the Omron is recommended.
Accuracy of the Omron HBF-500 Body Composition Monitor in
Male and Female College Students
MICHAEL I. PRIBYL*1, JOHN D. SMITH‡1, G. RICHARD GRIMES‡2
1 Texas A&M University- San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas;
2 Texas A&M University- Kingsville, Kingsville, Texas
TLDR: This and all BF estimating scales I am aware of are the magic 8-ball of estimating body fat. You want to feel better? chug a gallon of water and see your BF% drop.
Haha Thank Youuuu! I will.0 -
Go get either dunked, DEXA'd, or BODPOD'd to get a more accurate number for you body fat %. Bioelectrical impedance is known for being terribly inaccurate. Although, I will say that it is possible to be skinny fat. Once you have a more accurate representation of you body make up you can go from there.0
-
those body fat scales are notably inaccurate. i have heard that even dexa scans and those bodpods and calipers aren't all that accurate either. i would ignore body fat percentage since there is no completely accurate way to measure it and all it's really going to accomplish is to make you feel bad about yourself based on some silly number. go by the mirror method. if you see excess fat, then maybe you need to lift to reduce that. i'm highly doubting 28% at 112 pounds though.0
-
those body fat scales are notably inaccurate. i have heard that even dexa scans and those bodpods and calipers aren't all that accurate either. i would ignore body fat percentage since there is no completely accurate way to measure it and all it's really going to accomplish is to make you feel bad about yourself based on some silly number. go by the mirror method. if you see excess fat, then maybe you need to lift to reduce that. i'm highly doubting 28% at 112 pounds though.
I like this. This is my method. The exact number doesn't matter. Do you like what you see and how you feel? Awesome. You are at goal.
I also find the term "skinny fat" overused and can see how it is annoying.
0 -
I have been approaching my goal weight, and the same thing has crossed my mind. I am not going for the SKINNY FAT look, and hope to be lean with some muscle definition - and like you, my stomach is not flat despite everything else looking pretty good.
My plan will be to get down to about 10lbs below a weight I would be happy with, and then focus on lifting weights and increasing my calories to maintenance or more. I have a hunch this will end up being a lot of trail and error.0 -
dakotababy wrote: »My plan will be to get down to about 10lbs below a weight I would be happy with, and then focus on lifting weights and increasing my calories to maintenance or more. I have a hunch this will end up being a lot of trail and error.
Don't wait to lift. It is far easier to preserve muscle than to build it. Many folks on here find at the end of a long diet and cardio regimen that they have a smaller version of their previous body not the body they thought was underneath the fat.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions