Realistic body fat loss?
BrokeBirkin
Posts: 73 Member
So I currently weigh 175 and am at 40.6% body fat. I'm hoping to be 10-16 lbs lighter in 4 months, anyone have a clue what body fat % I should be shooting for? Or if you know how I could figure it out, because I'm not sure.
0
Replies
-
I was thinking trying to get to 35% by the end of April.1
-
I honestly don't understand the fascination with the BF% number. Who cares? What difference does it really make? Lose weight until you like what you see in the mirror.8
-
quiksylver296 wrote: »I honestly don't understand the fascination with the BF% number. Who cares? What difference does it really make? Lose weight until you like what you see in the mirror.
And strength train since it will improve your appearance as you lose fat.3 -
It’s like scale weight, no one wants to set anyone’s goals for them. Just look for a downward trend and you’ll know you’re going in the right direction.2
-
BrokeBirkin wrote: »So I currently weigh 175 and am at 40.6% body fat. I'm hoping to be 10-16 lbs lighter in 4 months, anyone have a clue what body fat % I should be shooting for? Or if you know how I could figure it out, because I'm not sure.BrokeBirkin wrote: »I was thinking trying to get to 35% by the end of April.
Well, I kinda look at these things with just the math first:- You're 175lbs @ 40.6% fat = this makes you ~104lbs of "not fat" currently.
- You're thinking of a 10-16 lb weight loss in the next ~16 weeks (very realistic 1lb per week loss for most scenarios). Let's say 15lbs for easy math, OK?
- You're thinking about being 35% fat at 160lbs = this would make you 104lbs of not fat
In my humble opinion (as an unknown stranger from the internet) the last bit is where you'll find that you may be a bit too optimistic about your weight loss goal & Fat % loss for April. Maintaining 100% of your non-fat weight while you lose ONLY fat weight is not very likely to happen, though it might be possible for some people with "gifted" physiologies.
There will be (or should be) much discussion about protein-sparing dieting (the typical eat 0.7g - 1g of protein per pound of lean body -- in your case here 104g protein a day) and mass-retention strategies (like lifting heavy in a well-designed progressive resistance program)...
... but with all that, you will more than likely, lose lean body mass as you try to lose fat.
While it MAY be possible to find an approach where you increase your lean mass (not fat body) somewhere along the way, it may be more realistic to focus solely on one goal (perhaps your weight number), and once there, undertake a recomp to regain some of your lost muscle and other body-constituent weight as you continue to burn fat (albeit at a MUCH slower rate than your initial 4-month sprint).
These forums are a good place to learn about your journey and to keep you honest:
Good resources for progressive resistance programs in this thread: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10332083/which-lifting-program-is-the-best-for-you
Good reading on recomp in this thread: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10177803/recomposition-maintaining-weight-while-losing-fat
6 -
If you lose at a sensible and moderate rate, and exercise (especially strength exercise) while losing, most of what you lose will be fat.
How do you know it's currently 40.6%? Most readily-available BF measurements aren't very accurate. If you keep repeating the same method as you lose weight, you'll get an approximate trend for fat loss . . . but your weight scale and tape measure do pretty much that same thing with different numbers.
If 40.6% were literally and exactly true, at 175 pounds you'd have about 71 pounds of body fat (0.406 x 175). If you lose 10-16 sensibly, with exercise, you'll weigh 159-165, and have approximately 55-61 pounds of body fat, which would be about 34.6%-37%.
Is that exact? No, there's water weight and potentially a small amount of other lean body mass lost, too. But the magnitude of error from estimating it that way is likely not materially worse than the magnitude of error built into that starting estimate of 40.6% in the first place.
Close enough.
Just lose weight sensibly, and you'll get good results. If you reach a relatively lean weight and you're still motivated to improve BF%, that'll be a better time to invest money and emotion in more expensive, precise BF measurements.
Best wishes for great success!5 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »I honestly don't understand the fascination with the BF% number. Who cares? What difference does it really make? Lose weight until you like what you see in the mirror.
Many people care, obviously not you. It clearly makes a difference since it explains how much of one's overall body weight is based on fat vs non-fat (e.g. lean muscle, water, etc). Someone who weighs 150lbs could have 10% body fat and be fairly lean and muscular, or could be 25% body fat and several pounds overweight. BF% is a useful clarification for people who care about how their body is composed, rather than just what the scale reports the entirety of their mass weighs.
I do agree, however, that it may be difficult to use BF% as a "target" for long-term weight loss. It is most probably simpler to start losing weight via diet and exercise and use BF% as a benchmark for understanding how effective your efforts are.3 -
TeethOfTheHydra wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »I honestly don't understand the fascination with the BF% number. Who cares? What difference does it really make? Lose weight until you like what you see in the mirror.
Many people care, obviously not you. It clearly makes a difference since it explains how much of one's overall body weight is based on fat vs non-fat (e.g. lean muscle, water, etc). Someone who weighs 150lbs could have 10% body fat and be fairly lean and muscular, or could be 25% body fat and several pounds overweight. BF% is a useful clarification for people who care about how their body is composed, rather than just what the scale reports the entirety of their mass weighs.
I do agree, however, that it may be difficult to use BF% as a "target" for long-term weight loss. It is most probably simpler to start losing weight via diet and exercise and use BF% as a benchmark for understanding how effective your efforts are.
I believe she meant more with the number, not the actual body composition part of it. I care deeply about my body composition, but have little care what the actual bodyfat% number is. It could read 73.2% for all I care, I know what I look like and what I need to do.3 -
Thank you so much for the people who helped! This is just my short term goal to make sure I'm headed in the right direction and keep me motivated. It isn't my only goal either, just the only one I needed a second opinion on. I'm not even thinking about ideal BF% or anything, just getting it into a healthy zone for now.0
-
So maybe I should make it 3-4% for now, to calculate for muscle and water weight that could be lost.1
-
TeethOfTheHydra wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »I honestly don't understand the fascination with the BF% number. Who cares? What difference does it really make? Lose weight until you like what you see in the mirror.
Many people care, obviously not you. It clearly makes a difference since it explains how much of one's overall body weight is based on fat vs non-fat (e.g. lean muscle, water, etc). Someone who weighs 150lbs could have 10% body fat and be fairly lean and muscular, or could be 25% body fat and several pounds overweight. BF% is a useful clarification for people who care about how their body is composed, rather than just what the scale reports the entirety of their mass weighs.
I do agree, however, that it may be difficult to use BF% as a "target" for long-term weight loss. It is most probably simpler to start losing weight via diet and exercise and use BF% as a benchmark for understanding how effective your efforts are.
I believe she meant more with the number, not the actual body composition part of it. I care deeply about my body composition, but have little care what the actual bodyfat% number is. It could read 73.2% for all I care, I know what I look like and what I need to do.
Exactly. I'm pretty into my body composition. I lift heavy and like seeing my muscles develop. However, my bf %? Makes zero difference to my goals. It's just a number, like my age and weight. None of those numbers slow me down in the least.5 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »TeethOfTheHydra wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »I honestly don't understand the fascination with the BF% number. Who cares? What difference does it really make? Lose weight until you like what you see in the mirror.
Many people care, obviously not you. It clearly makes a difference since it explains how much of one's overall body weight is based on fat vs non-fat (e.g. lean muscle, water, etc). Someone who weighs 150lbs could have 10% body fat and be fairly lean and muscular, or could be 25% body fat and several pounds overweight. BF% is a useful clarification for people who care about how their body is composed, rather than just what the scale reports the entirety of their mass weighs.
I do agree, however, that it may be difficult to use BF% as a "target" for long-term weight loss. It is most probably simpler to start losing weight via diet and exercise and use BF% as a benchmark for understanding how effective your efforts are.
I believe she meant more with the number, not the actual body composition part of it. I care deeply about my body composition, but have little care what the actual bodyfat% number is. It could read 73.2% for all I care, I know what I look like and what I need to do.
Exactly. I'm pretty into my body composition. I lift heavy and like seeing my muscles develop. However, my bf %? Makes zero difference to my goals. It's just a number, like my age and weight. None of those numbers slow me down in the least.
On top of that, the number measured is frequently inaccurate.. so I wouldn't put too much focus on something that could be way off in the first place.4 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »TeethOfTheHydra wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »I honestly don't understand the fascination with the BF% number. Who cares? What difference does it really make? Lose weight until you like what you see in the mirror.
Many people care, obviously not you. It clearly makes a difference since it explains how much of one's overall body weight is based on fat vs non-fat (e.g. lean muscle, water, etc). Someone who weighs 150lbs could have 10% body fat and be fairly lean and muscular, or could be 25% body fat and several pounds overweight. BF% is a useful clarification for people who care about how their body is composed, rather than just what the scale reports the entirety of their mass weighs.
I do agree, however, that it may be difficult to use BF% as a "target" for long-term weight loss. It is most probably simpler to start losing weight via diet and exercise and use BF% as a benchmark for understanding how effective your efforts are.
I believe she meant more with the number, not the actual body composition part of it. I care deeply about my body composition, but have little care what the actual bodyfat% number is. It could read 73.2% for all I care, I know what I look like and what I need to do.
Exactly. I'm pretty into my body composition. I lift heavy and like seeing my muscles develop. However, my bf %? Makes zero difference to my goals. It's just a number, like my age and weight. None of those numbers slow me down in the least.
On top of that, the number measured is frequently inaccurate.. so I wouldn't put too much focus on something that could be way off in the first place.
^ And therein lies the biggest problem with using a specific number as your bodyfat percentage goal. Every method short of autopsy is an educated guess based upon algorithms of varying accuracy. If you were to measure your bodyfat at the same time using skinfold calipers, DEXA scan, BodPod, a BIA scale, anthropometric measurements and a hydrostatic tank, each would give you a different number. Maybe very significantly different. So which one is right? Which number do you trust?
I weigh daily and my scale (which has the BIA feature) spits out a BF% number, which I ignore. I take anthropometric and 3-site skinfold caliper measurements at the beginning of each month, along with progress photos. From all the measurements I can tell you I'm at an approximate BF% level, but what's more important to me is what I see in the mirror. I don't know for sure if I'm exactly 13.4%, or 14.7% or 15.8%, but I can say pretty confidently that I'm somewhere in the vicinity of 13-16% BF. As long as I'm happy with what I see and the numbers are trending in the right direction long-term, I know I'm on the right track.4 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »I honestly don't understand the fascination with the BF% number. Who cares? What difference does it really make? Lose weight until you like what you see in the mirror.
Because in the vast majority of cases, people are going to like what they see in the mirror if the y lose fat and not just "weight" and end up with a lower BF%. Yes some tend to worry about the exact % a little much, but a lower BF % is what many people want or should work towards.0 -
I weigh daily and my scale (which has the BIA feature) spits out a BF% number, which I ignore. I take anthropometric and 3-site skinfold caliper measurements at the beginning of each month, along with progress photos. From all the measurements I can tell you I'm at an approximate BF% level, but what's more important to me is what I see in the mirror. I don't know for sure if I'm exactly 13.4%, or 14.7% or 15.8%, but I can say pretty confidently that I'm somewhere in the vicinity of 13-16% BF. As long as I'm happy with what I see and the numbers are trending in the right direction long-term, I know I'm on the right track.
Given that, what does your scale say?
0 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »I honestly don't understand the fascination with the BF% number. Who cares? What difference does it really make? Lose weight until you like what you see in the mirror.
Because in the vast majority of cases, people are going to like what they see in the mirror if the y lose fat and not just "weight" and end up with a lower BF%. Yes some tend to worry about the exact % a little much, but a lower BF % is what many people want or should work towards.
Yes, a lower % in general but a specific number is not useful since there is no repeatable method that is accurate enough to gauge changes over time.1 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »I weigh daily and my scale (which has the BIA feature) spits out a BF% number, which I ignore. I take anthropometric and 3-site skinfold caliper measurements at the beginning of each month, along with progress photos. From all the measurements I can tell you I'm at an approximate BF% level, but what's more important to me is what I see in the mirror. I don't know for sure if I'm exactly 13.4%, or 14.7% or 15.8%, but I can say pretty confidently that I'm somewhere in the vicinity of 13-16% BF. As long as I'm happy with what I see and the numbers are trending in the right direction long-term, I know I'm on the right track.
Given that, what does your scale say?
16.4% this morning.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K 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
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions