Does it count?

GaryG said:

Quoted message said:

I'm 5'6" and 138, Gary. No idea of my BMI, but my BF is at 27%<ewwwwww>

Lynne

Quoted message said:

Interesting. Your BMI is 22.3 - quite good. As for your body fat
percentage...how did you get that number?

FWIW, Dr. C. Evertt Koop states that a healthy body fat percentage for women
aged 18-39 is 21-32%. According to that, your body fat is in the healthy
range, as is your BMI.

The fact that you feel "ewwwww" about your body fat may be due to body
dysmorphia (i.e., seeing "faults" with your body, even though it's actually
healthy and normal, if not "ripped"😉. If you're comparing yourself to
supermodels, athletes, or movie stars, you'll always be disappointed.

GG

As a trainer who test a lot of women's BF%, most women wouldn't
be very happy at 27%. By most standards you're obese at over
30-32%. To be considered fit a woman would need to get their BF%
down under 24%. To look athletic they would need to get closer
to 20%, very fit and lean would be under 20%.

Just a general comment... recently I heard that the average
American women's BF% is 26%.

--
Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
-Emiliano Zapata

Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at:
http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm

GaryG said:

That's a worthy goal if you have the desire and the persistence. Just be
careful you don't go too low in BF...if you ever start menstruating
irregularly, or if it stops, that's a big warning sign that you're damaging
your health. Google the "Female Athlete Triad" to see some more scary stuff
about women who try too hard to be ripped (especially common with gymnasts,
runners, cyclists, etc.).

I believe a woman would have to work either extremely hard (at a
pro/semi-pro athlete level) or have a psychological condition to
get their BF% so low for it to be a problem. Its not something
that you would accidentally have occur.

Its also not something that happens to people who have to work
toward getting lean. I've never met any women who has problems
because they wanted to be "ripped" -- i.e. someone who WT. I do
know a few women who have gotten their BF% too low and stopped
menstruating. Both of them the cause is due to a psychological
condition that had little to do with how they looked.

Personally I've been as low as 13.5% and not had major problems
-- just a bit more likely to feel cold and less energy.

--
Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
-Emiliano Zapata

Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at:
http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm

LynneA said:

Weeeellll, menses is not a real good measure for me-I had a total
hysterectomy 2 years ago!LOL I have a loooonnng way to go before I need to
worry about that though-my first goal is 20% BF, and then I will adjust from
there depending on how I feel and look. For me personally, ripped is good,
shredded is bad, so it should be ok, but I'll continue to be aware, for
sure!

Working toward a 20% goal is a good one. Frankly I think you'll
be happier each percentage that you get under 22%.

You really don't have to worry too much about getting "shredded"
the about of work, effort, and frankly genetics, that it takes
would make you extremely aware of what you're doing.

Quoted message said:

Very much so! On the up side, I hear from a LOT of women who have started
lifting weights and working out-they have no desire to be *average* I take
it as a good sign that maybe people are starting to wake up to what they are
doing to their bodies!

That's very true. Once you start to see more definition the more
inspired you become. And that's a good thing.

The problem is often that most people reach a genetic wall long
before they reach their desired goal.

--
Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
-Emiliano Zapata

Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at:
http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm

GaryG said:

We were discussing "skinny fat", not obesity. So far, the only objective
numbers posted for a "skinny fat" person have been Lynne's. She is, by both
BMI, and body fat percentage, in the "healthy range". Could she lose some
additional body fat to achieve a more "ripped" physique? Sure...but by all
objective measures she is currently at a healthy weight and body
composition.

Since I haven't read all of the post on this thread, I might be
missing some of the points already made. But I'll jump in with
some real world, anecdotal evidence.

I'm a trainer at a Y and the person most people come to get their
BF% done. There's is a fair percentage (just a guessimate, but
possibly somewhere around 10%) of people (mostly women) that I've
tested who had a high BF% and under 25 BMI. Dressed, they look
average, but when you touch them they don't have anywhere near
the amount of muscle mass that you would assume they would. That
would be my definition of "skinny fat" and its a real problem.

Too many people are fixated by the scale's numbers and will do
anything it takes to see that number go down -- often at the
sacrifice of LBM. That set's off a downward spiral of: loss of
LBM leads to lower metabolism, leads to difficulty maintaining
scale weight, leads to poor dieting/exercising choices, leads to
loss of LBM, on and on.

But we should really talk about the other side of the issue. I
feel that the recommend BF% should be lower. Most people with
BMI's under 25 *DO* have Fit BF% levels (Men <17%, Women <24%)
and not Acceptable BF% levels. A woman at 23% looks healthy, but
not really athletic and certainly not ripped.

Quoted message said:

Based on that, and seeing no other supporting evidence to back up your
assertions that "skinny fat" is a widespread problem, and no objective
definition of the term, it sounds like "skinny fat" is merely a pejorative
you've chosen as a synonym for "not ripped".

GG

As stated before, I haven't read all of this discussion. But I
do think that the use of BMI as a gage hasn't helped the general
population. We need to talk more about the amount of extra BF
being carried around. Granted most people who would have
"normal" BMI's also are at fit BF%s. However, there is a fair
amount of people on either side of that "normal" BMI range that
have either too much BF or are too much much LBM for the BMI tool
to be useful.

--
Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
-Emiliano Zapata

Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at:
http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm

"RRzVRR" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As a trainer who test a lot of women's BF%, most women wouldn't be very
happy at 27%. By most standards you're obese at over 30-32%. To be
considered fit a woman would need to get their BF% down under 24%. To
look athletic they would need to get closer to 20%, very fit and lean
would be under 20%.

Thank you Rudy!!! I'm BLECH at 27%, and no doubt about it!

Quoted message said:

Just a general comment... recently I heard that the average American
women's BF% is 26%.

--
Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
-Emiliano Zapata

Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm

Lynne A
[email hidden]

"RRzVRR" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

LynneA said:

Weeeellll, menses is not a real good measure for me-I had a total
hysterectomy 2 years ago!LOL I have a loooonnng way to go before I need
to worry about that though-my first goal is 20% BF, and then I will
adjust from there depending on how I feel and look. For me personally,
ripped is good, shredded is bad, so it should be ok, but I'll continue to
be aware, for sure!

Working toward a 20% goal is a good one. Frankly I think you'll be
happier each percentage that you get under 22%.

I think so too!

Quoted message said:

You really don't have to worry too much about getting "shredded" the about
of work, effort, and frankly genetics, that it takes would make you
extremely aware of what you're doing.

Yeah, I"m not overly worried about it. I love lifting and working out, but
it's not my entire life. I don't have a level of dedication that's likely
to lead that far.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Very much so! On the up side, I hear from a LOT of women who have
started lifting weights and working out-they have no desire to be
*average* I take it as a good sign that maybe people are starting to
wake up to what they are doing to their bodies!

That's very true. Once you start to see more definition the more inspired
you become. And that's a good thing.

Amen! It's been a tremendous motivator for me, even at this level.

Quoted message said:

The problem is often that most people reach a genetic wall long before
they reach their desired goal.

True, but I think that many people would be happy to just lose that gut<G>

Quoted message said:

--
Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
-Emiliano Zapata

Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm

Lynne A
[email hidden]

"RRzVRR" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

GaryG said:

We were discussing "skinny fat", not obesity. So far, the only

objective

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

numbers posted for a "skinny fat" person have been Lynne's. She is, by

both

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

BMI, and body fat percentage, in the "healthy range". Could she lose

some

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

additional body fat to achieve a more "ripped" physique? Sure...but by

all

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

objective measures she is currently at a healthy weight and body
composition.

Since I haven't read all of the post on this thread, I might be
missing some of the points already made. But I'll jump in with
some real world, anecdotal evidence.

I'm a trainer at a Y and the person most people come to get their
BF% done. There's is a fair percentage (just a guessimate, but
possibly somewhere around 10%) of people (mostly women) that I've
tested who had a high BF% and under 25 BMI. Dressed, they look
average, but when you touch them they don't have anywhere near
the amount of muscle mass that you would assume they would. That
would be my definition of "skinny fat" and its a real problem.

Too many people are fixated by the scale's numbers and will do
anything it takes to see that number go down -- often at the
sacrifice of LBM. That set's off a downward spiral of: loss of
LBM leads to lower metabolism, leads to difficulty maintaining
scale weight, leads to poor dieting/exercising choices, leads to
loss of LBM, on and on.

Thanks for your reply. Although I still think "skinny fat" isn't a very
useful term, your lucid explanation of the issue, backed up by your
experience, explains it well.

Do you think this is more of a problem with women than with men?

GG

Quoted message said:

But we should really talk about the other side of the issue. I
feel that the recommend BF% should be lower. Most people with
BMI's under 25 *DO* have Fit BF% levels (Men <17%, Women <24%)
and not Acceptable BF% levels. A woman at 23% looks healthy, but
not really athletic and certainly not ripped.

Quoted message said:

Based on that, and seeing no other supporting evidence to back up your
assertions that "skinny fat" is a widespread problem, and no objective
definition of the term, it sounds like "skinny fat" is merely a

pejorative

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you've chosen as a synonym for "not ripped".

GG

As stated before, I haven't read all of this discussion. But I
do think that the use of BMI as a gage hasn't helped the general
population. We need to talk more about the amount of extra BF
being carried around. Granted most people who would have
"normal" BMI's also are at fit BF%s. However, there is a fair
amount of people on either side of that "normal" BMI range that
have either too much BF or are too much much LBM for the BMI tool
to be useful.

--
Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
-Emiliano Zapata

Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at:
http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm

GaryG said:

Thanks for your reply. Although I still think "skinny fat" isn't a very
useful term, your lucid explanation of the issue, backed up by your
experience, explains it well.

Do you think this is more of a problem with women than with men?

GG

Likely more with women because: 1) women tend not to carry as
much LBM as men to begin with, 2) women tend to have longer and
more radical dieting histories.

But I wouldn't say that it would be exclusively a woman's issue
because a man who never had much LBM or who has a history of poor
diet and exercise choices would have the same problem.

--
Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
-Emiliano Zapata

Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at:
http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm