Metabolism and under eating

2»

Replies

  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    May I ask why you want to lose more weight / BF? Are you competing ?
  • girlviernes
    girlviernes Posts: 2,402 Member
    Looking good :)
  • gothchiq
    gothchiq Posts: 4,590 Member
    I was at 25% last time I was tested, which was at least 6 months ago. I might possibly be down to 23-24 or something by gauging using that photo comparison and observed changes. Either's fine for me. OP, you sound really lean already! If that's your body fat, 13% or slightly more, then you probably look like a bikini model! :D Quit stressing and go apply at Victoria's Secret! I know I would be out in a bathing suit if that was me!
  • 06cindy
    06cindy Posts: 81 Member
    3c7m6grf4xzo.jpg
  • 06cindy
    06cindy Posts: 81 Member
    I'm not stressed at all about the way I look. I'm quite happy. I just like to be lean.
    gothchiq wrote: »
    I was at 25% last time I was tested, which was at least 6 months ago. I might possibly be down to 23-24 or something by gauging using that photo comparison and observed changes. Either's fine for me. OP, you sound really lean already! If that's your body fat, 13% or slightly more, then you probably look like a bikini model! :D Quit stressing and go apply at Victoria's Secret! I know I would be out in a bathing suit if that was me!

  • 06cindy
    06cindy Posts: 81 Member
    MrM27 wrote: »
    ^^^^ That's easily 20%
    Why do you think the underwater weighing would be so way off though?

  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Jruzer wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    06cindy wrote: »
    Thanks for the reply. I had a hydrostatic body composition done that says I'm 13.6%BF. Are those often off that much? I went the hydro route since it was supposed to be most accurate.

    They are wildly inaccurate and highly dependent on hydration. I have had instances where I was 10% and and got readings as low as 6.2%.

    I'm genuinely surprised by this. I though immersion was one of the best methods out there. How did you know you were 10%, compared to the 6% measured by hydrostatic testing?

    It is one of the best methods.

    But all the methods pretty much suck, for a variety of reasons.

    So in this case "best" doesn't mean "good".
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    body-fat-percentage-picture-men-women.jpg


    body-fat-percentage-women.jpg

    It's interesting to gauge one's aesthetics. I find the 15-17 more attractive than the 20-22, yet it's the 25 one I find totally, devastatingly hot.

    The human mind is a strange, strange place...!
  • 06cindy
    06cindy Posts: 81 Member
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    May I ask why you want to lose more weight / BF? Are you competing ?

    Just competing with myself. I'm already lean so why not take it further?
  • 06cindy
    06cindy Posts: 81 Member
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    Jruzer wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    06cindy wrote: »
    Thanks for the reply. I had a hydrostatic body composition done that says I'm 13.6%BF. Are those often off that much? I went the hydro route since it was supposed to be most accurate.

    They are wildly inaccurate and highly dependent on hydration. I have had instances where I was 10% and and got readings as low as 6.2%.

    I'm genuinely surprised by this. I though immersion was one of the best methods out there. How did you know you were 10%, compared to the 6% measured by hydrostatic testing?

    It is one of the best methods.

    But all the methods pretty much suck, for a variety of reasons.

    So in this case "best" doesn't mean "good".

    So basically, the pics with the numbers attached are inaccurate guesses as well!
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    06cindy wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    Jruzer wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    06cindy wrote: »
    Thanks for the reply. I had a hydrostatic body composition done that says I'm 13.6%BF. Are those often off that much? I went the hydro route since it was supposed to be most accurate.

    They are wildly inaccurate and highly dependent on hydration. I have had instances where I was 10% and and got readings as low as 6.2%.

    I'm genuinely surprised by this. I though immersion was one of the best methods out there. How did you know you were 10%, compared to the 6% measured by hydrostatic testing?

    It is one of the best methods.

    But all the methods pretty much suck, for a variety of reasons.

    So in this case "best" doesn't mean "good".

    So basically, the pics with the numbers attached are inaccurate guesses as well!

    Sure, in a sense. But more edumacated guesses validated against better understood models. :drinker:
  • Charliegottheruns
    Charliegottheruns Posts: 286 Member
    :)
  • portugaline
    portugaline Posts: 95 Member
    you don't have 12%, the pictures alone say that.
    But on the way keep pushing yourself
  • 06cindy
    06cindy Posts: 81 Member
    portugaline wrote: »
    you don't have 12%, the pictures alone say that.
    But on the way keep pushing yourself

    Thanks! :)
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • 06cindy
    06cindy Posts: 81 Member
    MrM27 wrote: »
    06cindy wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    ^^^^ That's easily 20%
    Why do you think the underwater weighing would be so way off though?
    I can't tell you why your test gave you the results it did, all I can tell you is what I see. I'm not trying to put you down or derail you but instead just passing along some information. It's completely up to you if you disregard it. But to be honest I would rather have someone tell me honest things than be told things like the poster earlier telling you to post a picture to show the doubters. It's giving advice based on pure emotions.

    No worries! I appreciate the feedback and prefer reality to B.S.
  • likehlikeo
    likehlikeo Posts: 185 Member
    Hi Cindy, first of all: you look really good! :) Keep pushing! Second: Sorry for hijacking your thread...I found this person in Instagram, whose body I really like. Her BF seems reallllly low as well. She seems to do some sort of running and crossfit or so...Do you think it is possible to get there and keep it like this? This motivates me to start working out ...ABS! I'm so fascinated by this...egjsetk0kmij.png
    udi17h89akd7.png
    r5eqitl41ld0.png
  • Ocrgrrrl
    Ocrgrrrl Posts: 189 Member
    I could believe she is 13% She just doesn't have the muscle mass behind it to look "ripped" and "striated". Usually when we see people at this bf, they are competitors (because they are the only ones who really actually get to this point) and they have a good base of muscle underneath.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • livingleanlivingclean
    livingleanlivingclean Posts: 11,751 Member
    likehlikeo wrote: »
    Hi Cindy, first of all: you look really good! :) Keep pushing! Second: Sorry for hijacking your thread...I found this person in Instagram, whose body I really like. Her BF seems reallllly low as well. She seems to do some sort of running and crossfit or so...Do you think it is possible to get there and keep it like this? This motivates me to start working out ...ABS! I'm so fascinated by this...egjsetk0kmij.png
    udi17h89akd7.png
    r5eqitl41ld0.png

    She looks ill to me - lean yes. No muscle mass whatsoever though! She may be naturally like that, but for most, getting there and staying there would be unhealthy and definitely not sustainable.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    livingleanlivingclean wrote: »
    likehlikeo wrote: »
    Hi Cindy, first of all: you look really good! :) Keep pushing! Second: Sorry for hijacking your thread...I found this person in Instagram, whose body I really like. Her BF seems reallllly low as well. She seems to do some sort of running and crossfit or so...Do you think it is possible to get there and keep it like this? This motivates me to start working out ...ABS! I'm so fascinated by this...egjsetk0kmij.png
    udi17h89akd7.png
    r5eqitl41ld0.png

    She looks ill to me - lean yes. No muscle mass whatsoever though! She may be naturally like that, but for most, getting there and staying there would be unhealthy and definitely not sustainable.

    Looks ill to me too
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    MrM27 wrote: »
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    livingleanlivingclean wrote: »
    likehlikeo wrote: »
    Hi Cindy, first of all: you look really good! :) Keep pushing! Second: Sorry for hijacking your thread...I found this person in Instagram, whose body I really like. Her BF seems reallllly low as well. She seems to do some sort of running and crossfit or so...Do you think it is possible to get there and keep it like this? This motivates me to start working out ...ABS! I'm so fascinated by this...egjsetk0kmij.png
    udi17h89akd7.png
    r5eqitl41ld0.png

    She looks ill to me - lean yes. No muscle mass whatsoever though! She may be naturally like that, but for most, getting there and staying there would be unhealthy and definitely not sustainable.

    Looks ill to me too
    I actually thought that was a guy.

    Same.

  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
    Bruce?
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    06cindy wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    ^^^^ That's easily 20%
    Why do you think the underwater weighing would be so way off though?

    I think you're fine, and I think your results are mostly accurate. I have tested hundreds of women who look like you and have BF % levels that are in your range.
  • 06cindy
    06cindy Posts: 81 Member
    Azdak wrote: »
    06cindy wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    ^^^^ That's easily 20%
    Why do you think the underwater weighing would be so way off though?

    I think you're fine, and I think your results are mostly accurate. I have tested hundreds of women who look like you and have BF % levels that are in your range.

    Thanks for the reply!
This discussion has been closed.

Categories