Welcome to the new Community design. We know there are some big changes to get used to as well some challenges and bugs. Please check out our post about New Updates To The Community as well as Outstanding Bugs. We will continue to collect feedback and bug issues and will work to make improvements.

Has bmi range changed?

124

Replies

  • rickdkitson
    rickdkitson Posts: 86 Member
    Forget BMI.
    Forget the numbers on the scale.

    Do you look and feel good at your present weight? Can you do the physical things you want to do without significant effort?

    If yes then you are most likely at the right number for you. The numbers are just a rough guide and a way to measure progress. As long as you are happy with your looks and capabilities then you are doing OK.
  • Kdp2015
    Kdp2015 Posts: 521 Member
    Yes you’re right, I think to a certain extent things like that get easier by repetition but I also appreciate strength training would improve my overall performance at work.
    It’s something I may look into in the future from a performance point of view rather than hoping to achieve a particular aesthetic.
  • Kdp2015
    Kdp2015 Posts: 521 Member
    Ok Tavistocktoad lets do this :) (I’m fully aware in advance you will have an argument against each reason but they are all valid to me ;))
    - I tried strong lifts 2 years ago and although I had good results I got to the stage where I couldn’t lift heavier given the limited equipment at my gym (there’s only so much I can lift over my head to squat without a rack)
    - I’m not convinced my form is good enough, I don’t want to pay a PT and I can’t translate written instruction or diagrams into actions
    - I am working, studying, mothering, housekeeping etc time is an issue
    - And finally I should perhaps focus on other things and not get too gripped by body image etc
  • Kdp2015
    Kdp2015 Posts: 521 Member
    Kdp2015 wrote: »
    Ok Tavistocktoad lets do this :) (I’m fully aware in advance you will have an argument against each reason but they are all valid to me ;))
    - I tried strong lifts 2 years ago and although I had good results I got to the stage where I couldn’t lift heavier given the limited equipment at my gym (there’s only so much I can lift over my head to squat without a rack)
    - I’m not convinced my form is good enough, I don’t want to pay a PT and I can’t translate written instruction or diagrams into actions
    - I am working, studying, mothering, housekeeping etc time is an issue
    - And finally I should perhaps focus on other things and not get too gripped by body image etc

    I don't have an argument against it. I'm happy with my results doing what I do.

    If you can say that then crack on. But given the reason you started this thread...

    Good luck OP :flowerforyou:
    Thank you :) and thank you for your other responses too, I do appreciate it even if I don’t always agree :blush:

  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 25,215 Member
    edited October 2018
    Kdp2015 wrote: »
    Oh didn’t mention I HATE SQUATS!! :p

    I'd love to be able to squat, but can't because of my knee, which is such a problem that it is currently inflamed from too much walking >.<

    There's still the whole upper body, though :p
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 25,215 Member
    Kdp2015 wrote: »
    Yes you’re right, I think to a certain extent things like that get easier by repetition but I also appreciate strength training would improve my overall performance at work.
    It’s something I may look into in the future from a performance point of view rather than hoping to achieve a particular aesthetic.

    Yes, upper body strength training does wonders for my yoga and swimming. Before, my arms could never keep up with my legs.

    My mom has extensive gardens and during the height of the season is often working in them 8 hours per day. She's been doing this since she retired in the 90s. Never-the-less, her osteoporosis doctor wishes she started strength training decades ago.

    Mom finally started working out after her doctor insisted she start taking Forteo. She found a great personal trainer at the Y. This must not cost too much, as she is cheap, but hasn't complained about the cost.

    I've taken small group personal training at the Y and the cost was very minimal. After only four sessions, I had a routine and was comfortable doing it on my own. And when I left that gym due to a move, I was comfortable going into the next gym as well.
  • Kdp2015
    Kdp2015 Posts: 521 Member
    Sorry, me again!
    Quick question - does recomp rely on having excess body fat to lose?
    My scales at telling me I’m 20% (although obviously I’m not expecting high accuracy on that)
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 9,195 Member
    edited October 2018
    You can only do what your brain allows you to do.

    You can best build muscle at a caloric surplus. It will still be slow; but it is the fastest way. However the surplus also results in some fat accumulation. You will then be left with the task of dealing with that extra fat if you desire to return to a leaner level.

    OK, so what would be the next best option for someone who doesn't want to gain any (or in any case the least amount of) fat ?

    Well to allow for minimal or NO GAINS of weight.

    I mean if there is no gain of weight, and there is extra muscle growth (even if it is slower than it COULD have been), then you're not adding any fat, right? If anything you're losing some fat (hence "re-composition")

    While 20% is on the lower end for women, 20% based on BMI scale is not, I don't think, at a level of "essential fat levels".

    So if you manage to eat exactly at maintenance and are strength training... well... there is only one thing you could be losing.

    But yes, this would be a slower process than if you were to allow for a very slow growth to your weight levels and yes, a person with more fat to lose would probably have more readily available energy reserves and might see some greater percentages of body composition change for a given amount of effort than you would, and you, in turn, could well see a greater percentage of change than a leaner person would for the same training effort. (Prior level of training also plays into this, i.e. a novice will have faster results than an already trained individual)
  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,741 Member
    edited October 2018
    Kdp2015 wrote: »
    Sorry, me again!
    Quick question - does recomp rely on having excess body fat to lose?
    My scales at telling me I’m 20% (although obviously I’m not expecting high accuracy on that)

    No, that's still plenty to lose before you get too low.
  • Kdp2015
    Kdp2015 Posts: 521 Member
    Kdp2015 wrote: »
    Sorry, me again!
    Quick question - does recomp rely on having excess body fat to lose?
    My scales at telling me I’m 20% (although obviously I’m not expecting high accuracy on that)

    No, that's still plenty to lose before you get too low.
    Plenty? What would a good bf% be?
  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,741 Member
    Kdp2015 wrote: »
    Kdp2015 wrote: »
    Sorry, me again!
    Quick question - does recomp rely on having excess body fat to lose?
    My scales at telling me I’m 20% (although obviously I’m not expecting high accuracy on that)

    No, that's still plenty to lose before you get too low.
    Plenty? What would a good bf% be?

    As in plenty more than what's considered an essential amount of bodyfat.
  • Kdp2015
    Kdp2015 Posts: 521 Member
    I’ve looked online for a guide to healthy bf% but can’t really find a common answer.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 9,195 Member
    edited October 2018
    Kdp2015 wrote: »
    Kdp2015 wrote: »
    Sorry, me again!
    Quick question - does recomp rely on having excess body fat to lose?
    My scales at telling me I’m 20% (although obviously I’m not expecting high accuracy on that)

    No, that's still plenty to lose before you get too low.
    Plenty? What would a good bf% be?

    This depends on age, sex, etc. There are papers that consider women to be under-fat below 21%. The american council for exercise defines athletes in the 14% to 20% range and Fitness at 21% to 24%, Jackson and Pollock view 26.3% to be the ideal body fat % for a 55 year old woman, while for a 35 yo it would be 21.5%

    Your body fat % is plenty good enough where it now is in terms of meeting a healthy (and low) fat level and you're at a healthy weight already... nobody here, certainly not me, is saying you HAVE to lose fat. YOU ARE THE ONE SAYING IT, and asking how to do it.
  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,741 Member
    Kdp2015 wrote: »
    I’ve looked online for a guide to healthy bf% but can’t really find a common answer.

    Given that your measuring with scales anyway, i wouldnt get too hung up on a number.