Are there any other thin girls who have an insanely high BF%?

Options
12345679»

Replies

  • LKArgh
    LKArgh Posts: 5,179 Member
    Options
    OP, I am an inch taller than you. At some point in my life I had to be literally immobile for several months, because of a health problem. At this point, I was around 110-115 lbs. There was no muscle, because whatever muscle I had just turned to jello. Staying in your bed for months and moving with assistance around the room does that to the body. Even then, I did not have a high body fat, I just had little muscle. Because it is impossible to have a very low BMI and high fat or to even look fat. You might have no muscle, you might look fragile, out of shape, and all these need exercise, and probably to put on some weight to correct. But if you are seeing yourself as high fat, it is time to talk to a therapist.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    katiem555 wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    katiem555 wrote: »
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    0.7g per lb of body weight to 1g per lb of body weight equals between 77g and 110g of protein per day for a total of less than 440 Calories.

    0.4g of fat per lb of body weight means 44g of fat, or 396 Calories.

    The two together add up to 836 Calories a day.

    Even assuming 20% metabolic adaptation, sedentary lifestyle, no exercise, and 1g of protein per lb of body weight (as opposed to lb of lean body mass), I still did not manage to raise your protein requirement above 36%, and that was on a measly 1200Cal budget.

    Assuming no kidney issues, how exactly is this protein goal difficult to meet in the context of a TDEE level caloric budget?

    OP: are you sure that hanging around weight loss boards is the best thing for you?

    sorry, are you addressing me or someone else on the thread? confused. if you are, then i don't know whether i meet my protein requirements, i don't think i've commented on my protein consumption here? aside to say that for someone who wants to build muscle, i could probably use more. also i eat a lot more than 1200 haha

    and why wouldn't they be? regardless, i'm not looking to lose weight and i've never said i am. i'm maintaining/ gaining, whichever proves necessary (ultimately, trying to lower my BF%)

    Protein requirements are lower on a bulk than it is on a cut.

    i wouldn't know about that and i'm too tired to look into it so i'll take your word. i don't understand what that has to do with me, though, as i'm neither bulking or cutting


    I've skimmed this thread so I think I have the general picture

    You just want to find other people who think they have a high body fat % at a low weight

    You aren't calorie counting, bulking or cutting and have no intention of changing your macro intakes (protein, fats) you don't consider you eat a nutritionally balanced diet

    You don't want to research anything you just want an online compadre who shares your views

    You started lifting weights a week ago

    I can't help feeling you have a goal or aspiration I am missing

  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    edited May 2015
    Options
    .



  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,948 Member
    Options
    .
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    Options
    OP where, if anywhere do you fall on this chart?



    wenfm0d0x8ad.jpeg
  • BWBTrish
    BWBTrish Posts: 2,817 Member
    Options
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    more_productive wrote: »
    Someone could be 60lbs and still have an abnormally high bfp if they were 40% fat

    Wait, what?

    I must be missing something, because that's not biologically possible unless they're about 3 foot tall.


    lol yeps

    but according to the person who wrote this I have to read a bit more about this
    Let alone the fact that the OP is with her 5.5 and 110lbs underweight.
    But who am i? I dont know nothing lol



  • CheriLeeKramer
    CheriLeeKramer Posts: 2 Member
    Options
    I was small and "soft" like you at age 20. I did some hard core "Arnold style" workouts and biked for cardio and got extremely lean but, I was very dedicated and it took about 9 months to really have that wow factor. Now I'm 42 and I have to work much harder but, it's worth it. Plus if I take time off of my workouts my body remembers pretty quick so it does not take me nearly as long to notice changes in my appearance. Start now, work hard, and it will be easier for you when your older to maintain or regain it!!! BTW I was 103 @ 5'3.5 at age 20. I'm 108 now but much stronger. I can bench my body weight easy. Hope this inspires you.
  • milocamolly
    milocamolly Posts: 91 Member
    edited May 2015
    Options
    Op quit comparing yourself to your friends! Your frieken 5'5" and 110lbs and can eat crap...yes your great genetics are at play here which are keeping you thin! Seriously tho just start a strength training routine and eat more protein, soon you will see more definition. I wish I was I was able to eat junk and be thin but I have to count my calories and work out to lose weight. Good luck just focus on the weights and firm up, I'm sure your body fat percentage isn't as much as you think it is. Good luck!
  • Psychgrrl
    Psychgrrl Posts: 3,177 Member
    Options
    Here's the entire chart with numbers for both men and women. Fitness athletes who train for competition only maintain the low level of body fat for competition season. The 10-13% essential body fat level isn't a 365 day sustainable thing for women. Women do need more body fat than men due to hormones and ovulation. I'd really get a reading of your body fat so you have a baseline. It might not be as high as you think.

    http://www.builtlean.com/2010/08/03/ideal-body-fat-percentage-chart/
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    That built lean site ALWAYS crashes my iPad

  • 47Jacqueline
    47Jacqueline Posts: 6,993 Member
    edited May 2015
    Options
    This quote from that site: "Older individuals tend to have a lower body density for the same skinfold measurements, which is assumed to indicate a higher body fat percentage. Older, athletic individuals, however, might not fit this assumption because their body density may be underestimated."

    Recently my body fat read 34% on the bone density meter, but I'm an athlete. That device doesn't have a setting for women over 59 - it assumes you are not an athlete after that, so they couldn't measure me correctly for my activity level. If I go by the visual chart, my body looks like I'm between 20 - 22%.

    9nb5j85u0ucb.jpg

    All I know for sure is that at 127lb and 5'4", I wear a size 4.
  • more_productive
    more_productive Posts: 6 Member
    Options
    MrM27 wrote: »
    katiem555 wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    katiem555 wrote: »
    lemonsnowdrop wrote: »
    OP, what you eat doesn't determine your BF% as long as you eat enough protein. Define "eat like ***."

    Simple carbs/ starchy *kitten*/ sugary *kitten* will increase your BF%. You're wrong. There's a reason body builders drastically reduce their carbohydrate intake when they're cutting.

    It won't if you're not eating at a surplus.

    yeah, it will. if you're not eating the right amount of protein to sustain your muscle mass then you'll lose it. and if you're only eating within your maintenance and you're eating too many carbs, then you can't possibly get enough protein. that, and many other factors. isn't this like a universally accepted given? an excess of carbs is like exactly what you need to avoid to get lean
    more_productive wrote: »
    TheOwlhouseDesigns wrote: »
    and btw my last posting and reaction was to @more_productive who found it necessary to be rude and to send me out reading and come back when i knew more about it.

    Because you do need to "[know] more about it"

    It's really obvious that you don't know what you're talking about when you can't make the distinction between the volume of fat and the fat:muscle ratio...
    Someone could be 60lbs and still have an abnormally high bfp if they were 40% fat

    Uhhhh nope. 60 lbs and 40% bf, not possible.


    It's called hyperbole...

Categories