I'm skinny, with high body fat %
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 -
Hi, I'm skinny fat, too! People don't realize that your bf % is what percentage of your current weight is fat. So while your weight may be low, you have too much fat content. I'm in the same boat! I'm about 25% body fat trying to get down to 18%, but I'm 5'8 and weigh 133. I started at 32% which is technically considered OBESE. My starting weight was 142. I'm definitely not obese, but my body fat was at an unhealthy level.
You should eat at a deficit because you are still losing fat. Not a huge deficit, because you don't have a lot to lose, so it will be slow runnings. 1 lb a week or even .5 lb. Mine is set to 1 lb, but I'm losing 1 lb maybe every 10 days. Up your protein intake. You also need to weight train to build muscle. So you may not lose #s on the scale, but your body comp will change. You may even gain weight from lifting. Go off your measurements instead of the scale! Again, body fat % is what percentage of your current weight is fat. The scale isn't really a factor here.0 -
another thing, about people of any weight with little lean mass and a higher bf%, is that fat-soluble things, like vitamin D, are distributed less efficiently0
-
Iceprincessk25 wrote: »Go get either dunked, DEXA'd, or BODPOokagD'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.
Okay thank you, I will look into that..Iceprincessk25 wrote: »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 -
I had DEXA and BODPOD done within a day of each other and they reported exactly the same thing.
0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »Isabelle_1929 wrote: »Iceprincessk25 wrote: »Insulting? There are people that have more body fat % than they do lean muscle mass. That is what I call skinny fat.
it's a way to shame skinny people since we need to invent one now. yeah, it's highly insulting. if anyone called me that to my face, i'd be pissed.
I agree but you will have to accept it. I don't know how old you are, but apparently, that now it is a trendy thing to say.
It's like girls calling each other "*kitten*". Apparently, "*kitten*" can be a nice or cool thing to say.
It is a generation and/or regional cultural thing. I don't react to it on forums.
But I am with you: if I get back to my weight of 115 pounds, and someone calls me "skinny fat" IN PERSON, he/she would have seen stars, I swear.
I'm 40. We did not use this term in the past like it's used now. Not a fan.
Well you may not be a fan but it's a real thing. You think this is the only site where it's used? You think it's an expression use to only describe a female situation? No to both. You seem to always take offense to things people say. It's ridiculous. Now you're constantly bringing that stuff here into the weight gain section when you don't even have experience doing controlled bulks. Makes no sense.
I never said it's the only site where it's used or only to describe females. why are you putting words in my mouth? It could be used on every website on the planet. Doesn't make it a term I'm okay with to describe a 112 pound 5'5" female.
What do controlled bulks have to do with anything in this thread? You don't own the weight gain section in order to tell me where I'm allowed to be. I post where I want.
Now I see why you have so many flags. BTW how else would you describe someone with high body fat % and low lean body mass?
why I have so many flags? Not sure how you know that, but I wear them as a badge of honor. I doubt the o.p. is in this category with her stats. that term is overused.
I can read when someone post how many flags they have.
What does OP have to do with this question. You don't like the term most use to describe that situation so what would you call it then?
I had an issue with insinuating that the o.p. fits this category and I think the term is overused. The term is fine if it truly fits. I doubt it does here though.
If OP goes into the bod pod has those result that are in the OP then what would you call her. She even says it herself. I'm skinny with a lot of fat.brendaaeliza wrote: »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%.
i've heard that bod pods are not entirely accurate.
The only truly accurate measurement is an autopsy where all fat is extracted and measured, but that is not terribly attractive.
Each of DEXA, hydrostatic weighing, and bodpod are generally viewed as reasonably accurate (within +/- 3% IIRC from studies) when performed properly.
OP - FWIW I had a chance to do a hydrstatic weighing and a DEXA scan on the same day, within a few hours of each other, and the results came out within a percentage point of each other. By contrast, my older bio-impedance scale gave me a result of about 8% higher on that same day. At the time (and for a long time before) I had known that the scale was wildly inaccurate. I didn't even find bio-impedance testing with a scale to be very helpful in showing trends accurately (which some people do). I'd honestly just dismiss any scale or handheld readings relying on bio-impedance as worthless or worse.
EDIT TO ADD: and the DEXA and hydro came out about where I expected them to, based on images widely available on the net of body fat in selected individuals.
Someone messaged me and I thought it appropriate to add another caveat. My older scale also used physical characteristics (height, weight, gender) in an algorithm to calculate the "bio impedence" BF%. I know this because as part of a little experiment I'd step on my scale with my profile correctly entered as being a 5'9" male and get a BF% of X. I'd adjust my profile to 6'2" male, and suddenly my reported BF%, measured 1 minute later, was x-3% or something. So, a crappy algorithm very likely also played into my opinion that the bio impedance measurement was crap. Only ever used a handheld instrument once; it was middle of the day, so not directly comparable to my morning weighings, but it was similarly out of whack with what I knew to be a reasonable estimated range of where I was at the time.
0 -
FYI
28% X 112 = 31.36 fat mass or pounds of body fat
112 - 31.36 = 81 pounds of lean body mass.0 -
If you don't like "skinny fat," for whatever reason, try "reasonable BMI with low LBM." They describe the same thing -- someone who is at a reasonable weight for their size but has low muscle mass.
OP, your options are to keep trying to lose weight, which isn't a good option if you have low LBM, or bulk and then cut. I'm in the same boat, but I've done one bulk/cut cycle already and am THRILLED with the results so far. I'm going to have do do a few more to get where I want, since I started out with so little muscle, but I'm happy to do them. I'm net 4 pounds up from where I was a year ago, but I'm much happier with my body shape and overall definition, and I'm leaps and bounds ahead of where I was in the gym.
Feel free to PM me if you want to ask any questions, as this thread has completely run itself off the rails and isn't addressing your actual question at all.0 -
CharlieRuns7225 wrote: »FYI
28% X 112 = 31.36 fat mass or pounds of body fat
112 - 31.36 = 81 pounds of lean body mass.
or 72% lean body mass
0 -
brendaaeliza wrote: »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?
Back to actually answering the OP's question...
I'd do a combo, something like this (which is specifically my current lifting schedule)
Monday
5/3/1 (or 5x5 or whatever you prefer) Deadlifts
Superset 3x10-15 Hip thrusts and Bulgarian split squats
Superset 3x8-12 front squats and calf raises
Tuesday:
5/3/1 (or 5x5 or whatever you prefer) Bench press
Superset 3x8-12 Underhand lat pulldowns and Dumbbell OHP
Superset 3x8-12 Seated cable rows and Tricep rope pushdowns
Thursday:
Tuesday:/3/1 (or 5x5 or whatever you prefer) Back squats
3x8-12 Sumo deadlifts
Superset 3x8-12 Dumbbell step-ups and Curtsey lunges
Friday:
5/3/1 (or 5x5 or whatever you prefer) OHP
Superset 3x8-12 Dumbbell incline bench press and Yates (or Pendlay) rows
Superset 3x8-12 Wide-grip lat pulldowns and Bicep curls
ETA: I do light cardio 1x/week, that's it.0 -
Wow! You have a lot of replies already . But, I would just maintain for now, and tone up with target exercises. 0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions