Skinny fat
Options
Replies
-
TrishSeren wrote: »I would say your scales are wrong, you aren't 14% bf because (no offense intended ) if you were you'd look like a female body builder, and you don't.
I'd say work on trying to gain some muscle, perhaps that might help you achieve the look you're wanting to achieve.
Body fat doesn't exactly tell you much about composition. Example:
14 -
ladyhusker39 wrote: »There's a member here who recently posted pictures of herself at around 130 lbs and then again at 150 lbs but much more muscle definition. She look amazing when she was 20 lbs heavier.
Does anyone here remember who that was or maybe post that thread? I think this visual might help OP see how she could look and that it's not at all just about the number on the scale.
Are you thinking of Staci from the link i posted?0 -
collectingblues wrote: »TrishSeren wrote: »I would say your scales are wrong, you aren't 14% bf because (no offense intended ) if you were you'd look like a female body builder, and you don't.
I'd say work on trying to gain some muscle, perhaps that might help you achieve the look you're wanting to achieve.
Considering that she's significantly underweight, 14% BF is not out of the realm of possibility. She just doesn't have the muscles to go with it.
I must have a warped view because when I look at that photo of her I don't see her being significantly underweight. I can't see her ribs, her arms and legs look like a normal size and she has some ab muscle. I understand that by numbers she is "underweight" but in that photo, I think she just looks slim but not unhealthy or underweight.
Obviously, there is zero need for her to lose weight. I can see that, but I just wouldn't call her "significantly underweight".
Perhaps maybe I have issues with perception too... hmmmm...
5 -
jseams1234 wrote: »TrishSeren wrote: »I would say your scales are wrong, you aren't 14% bf because (no offense intended ) if you were you'd look like a female body builder, and you don't.
I'd say work on trying to gain some muscle, perhaps that might help you achieve the look you're wanting to achieve.
Body fat doesn't exactly tell you much about composition. Example:
True.2 -
TrishSeren wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »TrishSeren wrote: »I would say your scales are wrong, you aren't 14% bf because (no offense intended ) if you were you'd look like a female body builder, and you don't.
I'd say work on trying to gain some muscle, perhaps that might help you achieve the look you're wanting to achieve.
Considering that she's significantly underweight, 14% BF is not out of the realm of possibility. She just doesn't have the muscles to go with it.
I must have a warped view because when I look at that photo of her I don't see her being significantly underweight. I can't see her ribs, her arms and legs look like a normal size and she has some ab muscle. I understand that by numbers she is "underweight" but in that photo, I think she just looks slim but not unhealthy or underweight.
Obviously, there is zero need for her to lose weight. I can see that, but I just wouldn't call her "significantly underweight".
Perhaps maybe I have issues with perception too... hmmmm...
That's the beauty of numbers. Perspective, scale, and perception can all trick the eye. Regardless of what a partial photo taken from one angle might suggest to you, or what her or your perspective might see, the numbers are quite clear. She is more than 11 lbs under the healthy weight range for her height.8 -
I REALLY suggest recomp. (Bulk/cut cycles)
There was a poster in here who posted I think her recomp success in the fitness forum and it was SO incredible, but I couldn't find it. Anyone know who I am talking about? She is a regular poster I see around, but can't remember who. She posted a thread showing her bulk and cut cycles and end product was absolutely incredible and so fit and lean. I think that is what you need. Losing more weight isn't going to help when you are already underweight.
Here is an example I could find since I cant find the thread on here.
4 -
Edit: I found it. It just shows how much your body comp and aesthetic can change with a bulk/cut cycle. Since you are underweight, you should consider bulking to a healthy weight incorporating a good strength training program. I honestly think you will have a better body aesthetic at a higher weight with a gain in muscle mass and thus more muscle definition.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10684001/pics-of-bulks-cuts-from-start-to-now-because-my-four-year-mfp-anniversary-is-today/p14 -
TrishSeren wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »TrishSeren wrote: »I would say your scales are wrong, you aren't 14% bf because (no offense intended ) if you were you'd look like a female body builder, and you don't.
I'd say work on trying to gain some muscle, perhaps that might help you achieve the look you're wanting to achieve.
Considering that she's significantly underweight, 14% BF is not out of the realm of possibility. She just doesn't have the muscles to go with it.
I must have a warped view because when I look at that photo of her I don't see her being significantly underweight. I can't see her ribs, her arms and legs look like a normal size and she has some ab muscle. I understand that by numbers she is "underweight" but in that photo, I think she just looks slim but not unhealthy or underweight.
Obviously, there is zero need for her to lose weight. I can see that, but I just wouldn't call her "significantly underweight".
Perhaps maybe I have issues with perception too... hmmmm...
What Kim said. By the numbers, she's significantly underweight.
If you want to claim that someone with a BMI of 17.2 isn't underweight, you've got issues that are best left to a professional.
3 -
collectingblues wrote: »TrishSeren wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »TrishSeren wrote: »I would say your scales are wrong, you aren't 14% bf because (no offense intended ) if you were you'd look like a female body builder, and you don't.
I'd say work on trying to gain some muscle, perhaps that might help you achieve the look you're wanting to achieve.
Considering that she's significantly underweight, 14% BF is not out of the realm of possibility. She just doesn't have the muscles to go with it.
I must have a warped view because when I look at that photo of her I don't see her being significantly underweight. I can't see her ribs, her arms and legs look like a normal size and she has some ab muscle. I understand that by numbers she is "underweight" but in that photo, I think she just looks slim but not unhealthy or underweight.
Obviously, there is zero need for her to lose weight. I can see that, but I just wouldn't call her "significantly underweight".
Perhaps maybe I have issues with perception too... hmmmm...
What Kim said. By the numbers, she's significantly underweight.
If you want to claim that someone with a BMI of 17.2 isn't underweight, you've got issues that are best left to a professional.
I'm not denying that the numbers don't classify her as underweight, I'm saying that she doesn't look underweight to me. I would have thought to be classified as significantly underweight you'd expect to see ribs and have super skinny limbs.
Basically, I learned something new is what I'm saying.8 -
This is a very low BMI, not healthy0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 924 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions