| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 6/30/2009 2:06:15 PM | According to the medical text books. 15% is where the health-risk point comes in for women (a bit under half that for men).
Women
age 20-39: 21-32%
age 40-59: 25-33%
age 60-79: 24-35%
Men
age 20-39: 8-19%
age 40-59: 11-21%
age 60-79: 13-24%
These are the values of "desirable body fat" given by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
I personally think they are on the fat end of things. 19% for a male is just a hair below clinical "over-fatness". This may be the scale for what the average american would have in mind, but for the FITNESS MINDED, or someone from a country that didn't have such an obeisity problem, I think the entire scale needs to be shifted to the left by around 4%. I know when I was 19%, things were not looking so pretty. I have a picture of me at 19% and it's not something I am proud of. Definitely not "desireable". This scale looks to me like the fitness-world's equivalent of Affirmative Action.
ETA:
Calipers--Someone pinches your skin/subQ fat and measures the thickness with calipers and then punches in the measurements from several sites and performs a calculation. This method is not very accurate at all and the person doing the pinching is subject to error. Did they pinch enough? TOo hard? Not hard enough?
They can make you a fatty, or anorexic, depending on how they pinch you. This test is EASILY skewed by inexperienced, or biased testers, or other factors.
Electrical impedence--you hold to paddles/stand on a scale/whatever. Some of these are more accurate than others. My friend is NASM certified and he has a high-dollar unit that does okay. It got me very close to what I was at. However, he says day to day, he can go up/down 4% according to it, just based on what he drinks/does that day. Not accurate in my book. Probably the least consistantly accurate. Then there are CHEAP devices, like that scale you buy at wal-mart. It's crap. Mine gets me at 17-20% ruitinely even though I am 10% +-1.
Hydrostatic weighing--this takes your weight above water and then you get in a tank full of water and are weighed after breathing out as much air as you can. THe weights are compared, calculations are run, residual lung-volumn is calculated, and then lean-body mass is calculated. Short of cutting you up and sorting you out on a metal table and weighing the body components, THIS is THE MOST ACCURATE method, and the only one I trust. Only universities and larger/more affluent gyms have this as a rule
Bod-Pod--This is almost strictly the realm of universities and athletic programs. It is a egg-shaped pod that you sit in and air is pumped into it and measures the volumn you take up in the pod. It is decent for accuracy. My friend at the university says in calculations of SD, there is no significant difference between their Bod-Pod and hydro when calculated using a Confidence Interval even in the 90's (I think 95 or 97% is what he used). It got me at 11.5% and hydrostatic weighing got me at 10.5%,
My NASM certified friend, and expert pincher calipered me at 11.25% and his electrical impedence device got me at 11.5%. However, I have had all of the above methods except hydro be off by many % before. For instance, once I forgot to put the speedo cap on and the bod-pod ADDED 3% body-fat when I put the cap on and re-tested.
I recommend hydrostatic weighing personally. It is the only consistant, accurate way of getting measured. Barring that, get someone to run the calipers on you who KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE DOING! I see people posting caliper % and then pictures and heights and weights and know that the caliper guy must have gone on a bender the night before or is just a total hack and filling on for someone or something. | |
|
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 6/30/2009 2:43:49 PM | | I called the guy (see you got me thinking). He said the caliper test he ran was VERY accurate. He told me I am extremely "thick" and gave me the pointers HE felt necessary to maybe drop weight, not muscle and to stick to the diet I am doing. He said it read 20.5% and worst case scenario, add 1%. The guy is a body builder and knows what he is doing. He said the tests you are mentioning are excellent, but are not inexpensive, and unless I am planning on competeing or had some MAJOR medical issue, paying for it is not really in my budget. He also said the same stuff you did as well, about making sure it gets done correctly. The electric machine he used was only 1% higher than the calipers. He said those "may vary" as well. He said I was fine. My regualr doctor (who HATES BODYBUILDING) told me to back off the weight lifting and stop eating all the protein...so it goes hand in hand with how different people feel different ways about body type etc. Both doctors I will say weighed me three times in dis belief. I do not look my weight, but as you can see I am not tiny ...I am also not fat. That is why I really want to lose actual "pounds" so as I continue all this weight lifting, I do not end up like a Rottweiler. Just a baby Pit Bull would be nice. lol Thanks for looking all that up though. I feel better about the nutritionist I went to. Not that I did not before. I would do the Hydro test if I felt I really HAD an issue and could not tell SOME of the things he was talking about, but I really am not that worried right now. Now my nutritionist wants to join POF and come read all this stuff...lol He is 225 pounds and 16% fat and drop dead yummy. lol | |
|
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 6/30/2009 3:00:11 PM | A good tip is not to bother your trainer like that. I am sure that did not set well with him, calling and asking if he did a good job or not.
If you are indeed 5' even and 170# and 20.5% body fat, your lifts should be amazing for a girl. 225# free-weight squats, 175# bench press for reps or even better, etc.
I just started a thread on BB.com and hopefully we will have some women who are a verified 19-21% bf posting pictures and you can see if you look similar to them in the lean-ness department.
As of right now, I am going to have to be honest and say that I am VERY skeptacle of a non-steroid using, non-professionally trained woman having a BMI well into the 30's claiming 20% body-fat. I do not dis-belive that your trainer told you this, but I just have a hard time with those numbers.
As an aside note, I have personal experience with every test I mentioned, as outlined, and the ONLY one I payed for was the caliper test, lol. It helps to have lots of friends. I am in a medical program and had to take a few health classes along the way and LSUS has an excellent instructor there that I made friends with.
Maybe you could pester a local university if they do body comp studies if you really wanted to? Universities love trending and numbers and population studies! That's the angle I went for. Works!
| |
|
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 6/30/2009 3:39:37 PM | | He was not angry at all. He actually said he was glad I asked because I did not ask too many questions in there (not to mention we hang out away from the gym). For the past year I have fluxuated..until I found the right diet and workout plan. And no, I do not, have not and will not take roids. I am just a thick chick. Most people do not believe it, and that is fine. I am not even "well trained" yet. I am learning, and ask a lot of questions at the gym. My numbers were higher 9 months ago...because I ate more carbs and had a whole different idea of how I thought I should be eating. I was eating too much, and of things my body did not need. I know I am big, I never said I am not. lol I am not so worried that I need to join other sites and compare myself....I just wanted to find out from a professional at a doctors office what I needed to do and what I was doing wrong so I do not do it again. I am not trying to become miss Olympia or anything like that. This is a hobby I am getting into for me, not anyone else. I do life heavy. I bench 190 comfortably, however I now am doing about 145 to lower the weight (as advised) I am used to using. Even my legs are super strong...I am just lowering all weights period until I get to my desired weight. I do all my reps 3 to 5 sets of 15. Again, this is what I am doing for me. No one else. I am 39, very busy and just want to look and feel good. And I know my trainer well enough to call him and the doctor too. I was told to ....lol And I did not ask him if he was sure he was right, I asked to to repeat to me what exactly he did and the numbers to make sure I did not mis understand. :) Please, if you are paying for a service and need to know stuff, that is what they are there for...lol Not asking would be really stupid. That is how I was doing things wrong before, by not asking. Believe what you want, I am not here to arfue with you. I was simply telling you what had happend. This is a whole new world to me. And at least I ask questions. Many people do not. And the women on BB.com and all that may BE using roids...they are competeing and doing a whle different thing than I am. I am not sure, I cannot answer for all of them. I can only answer for me. | |
|
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 6/30/2009 3:50:04 PM | Hrmmm, I guess I would have to see it. Can you put up a picture that accurately depicts what your body looks like? All you have is face-shots.
http://www.myfitnessstudio.co.uk/what-different-body-fat-percentages-actually-look-like/
This is a good quick-glance guide to see what different % looks like roughly.
ETA: No, I am not getting heated over this, fitness is a big part of my life and I tend to be very technical about the things that are important to me. Everyone on my side of the screen is calm : )
I would LOVE to visit if I weren't so broke an busy I would take you up on it! You seem pretty cool and I am a college student--free food is free food...plus, what man could resist a direction invitation to "come look at you". Oh for the money for plane tickets *wishful smiley face* | |
|
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 6/30/2009 3:54:00 PM | | Buy a ticket to Tampa and come look at me. I have more than face shots right there. Are you a doctor as well? Just curious. I am simply telling you what I was told. I mean arent you getting to heated on this??? Come on down though, I will even buy you lunch. I just re opend this profile for stuff I had on here before and am NOT going to get my acct closed again....:) Believe what you want. I have no reason to lie. That is why I was asking for help in the first place. Seriously, they closed my acct and I had a slew of friends on here I miss talking too. I have nothing to hide. And I get accused of roids all the time, and it sucks. Because I honestly do not take them. I am cool, I am fun. And I do not lie. I just need to get cut up and know I can. And I want to. I love being built big, it is just hell trying to figure out all the right ways to do this crap...lol And TINA I treid to e mail you....lol I had a female question...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | |
|
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 6/30/2009 4:06:53 PM |
Yes I have to add that 20% is below the desirable percentage bodyfat for a woman and to continue losing is not a good thing.
Below the "desirable percentage" according to whom? As I've stated previously, I'm hovering at 18%, which is far from undesirable nor is it near an unhealthy range. "Essential" fat levels for women are set at a range of 10-14%, meaning it's not recommended females drop below this percentage range for optimal health.
I lost 7.5% in the 3 months I was on a specific training programme and reduced mine from 33.5% (top of the desirable range) to a more respectable 26%
Awesome, great job, that's a HUGE accomplishment, but I'm still wondering where you're getting this "desirable range" from. The chart that I was given at my last hydrostatic testing (the chart was updated in 2008), which are based of the standards given by the American Council on Exercise or ACE, reads the following:
Essential fat 10–12%
Athletes 14–20%
Fitness 21–24%
Acceptable 25–31%
Overweight 32-41%
Obese 42%+ 38%+
These numbers are a bit on the lower end of the scale, but I'm curious as to who told you "desirable" was 33.5%, because according to this scale, you were actually teetering on the "overweight" side and are now sitting at the base of "acceptable". | |
|
| |
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 6/30/2009 7:36:55 PM |
Yes I have to add that 20% is below the desirable percentage bodyfat for a woman and to continue losing is not a good thing. Below the "desirable percentage" according to whom? As I've stated previously, I'm hovering at 18%, which is far from undesirable nor is it near an unhealthy range. "Essential" fat levels for women are set at a range of 10-14%, meaning it's not recommended females drop below this percentage range for optimal health.
I'm somewhere between 16 and 18% myself and 20 for a BMI. I've never heard anything about having to be over 20 for a woman... | |
|
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 6/30/2009 8:07:22 PM |
http://www.myfitnessstudio.co.uk/what-different-body-fat-percentages-actually-look-like/
This is a good quick-glance guide to see what different % looks like roughly.
I have some real problems with some of those figures. | |
|
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 6/30/2009 8:22:04 PM |
I have some real problems with some of those figures
Same here since the person who put this little collage together states: "the pictures are a rough guideline of body fat percentages I was able to find across the net. The body fat percentages may not be 100% accurate but certainly give you an idea of what to expect if you get to that body fat percentage." ... um yeah, unless they're posting pictures of people they did a bodyfat test on themselves (meaning the poster on this site executed the tests), I'm not going to put much stock into any of it. | |
|
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 6/30/2009 8:30:54 PM | I agree, it is not the most accurate, but was quick/fast. Here is a girl who referred me to her profile. She was just measured at 20% via calipers and the pix are current. This should give an idea of how "lean" to expect to look at around 20% for a girl.
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/photo/showgallery.php?ppuser=109243553&cat=500
I would say that 20% is healthy, but in no way under-fat or any other such nonsense. I tend to agree with the text-books. Below 15% is the point at which IN MY OPINION a woman becomes underfat. However, if she is competing or serious into some form of athletics, she may well be HEALTHY well under 15%. To say under 21% is undesireable is simply to say that you are a fan of the BBW club. Nothing against it, but please, don't say it's unhealthy to be below it. | |
|
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 7/1/2009 3:19:13 PM | he is just about right... it doesnt just look more compact it is...
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/576481.html
Summary: Summary: Muscle density is 1.06 g/ml and fat density is (about) 0.9
g/ml. Thus, one liter of muscle would weight 1.06 kg and one liter of
fat would weight 0.9 kg. In other words, muscle is about 18% more dense
than fat.
people relate everything to pounds if you gain a lb of muscle and a lb of fat its still a pound.
a lb is a lb right... well in lb talk yes it is but in actuality both take up different spaces example: a lb of metal and a pound of feathers, a lb of metal is probably smaller than your cell phone where a pound of feathers will fill your pillow both are still a pound does that make sense?
so basically, go to town on your scale and beat the shit out of it for making you feel like a fat ass then throw it out the window (try not to hit your car or any passersby) and stick to the precious measuring tape it doesn't lie!
I hope this helps you...
Sincerely,
Louis J. Bianco | |
|
| |
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 7/1/2009 4:45:58 PM | | hi tina, like your chart. i think the numbers make sense, if you're a 44 double f. for regular women fat levels should only be about 5% over a man's level. another pc chart to make women fell better about themselves. this chart is as brain-dead as the bmi. still waiting for someone to show me that fat,muscle,water and bone are all the same and that men and women of the same height should weigh the same. nice to see comments from you and bp. smart women are sexy | |
|
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 7/1/2009 5:07:31 PM | hi tina, like your chart. i think the numbers make sense, if you're a 44 double f. for regular women fat levels should only be about 5% over a man's level. another pc chart to make women fell better about themselves. this chart is as brain-dead as the bmi. still waiting for someone to show me that fat,muscle,water and bone are all the same and that men and women of the same height should weigh the same. nice to see comments from you and bp. smart women are sexy
Hey Bugs, have you ever seen a woman at 10% body fat in-person? Well have you?
I think Tina's chart (if you are referring to the last chart posted) is pretty darn accurate. The only women I personally know who dip into single-digits do competitions and have fake breasts and are so ripped that you can see veins PROMINANTLY in the upper chest/lower abdomen, etc. A woman at 10% looks like a man at 5%, that is about all you got correct. 14-20% is where most female athletes aside from sprinters exist. 20% looks great in a 2-piece. I really think you need re-evaluate yourself.
...and yes, if you think women under 21% are too skinny, you are a BBW fan. Sorry. If that is your cut-off point, I must assume you are a BBW fan. | |
|
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 7/1/2009 6:50:47 PM |
for regular women fat levels should only be about 5% over a man's level.
Well Bugs, you're close ... for women, those numbers that I posted range about 6% higher than what men should be (the range for women is actually between 6% and 8% higher than men) ... but most MEN are a lot higher than they should be ("acceptable" for men is 18-25%). Overweight for a woman is 32-41% while it's 26-37% for men.
Where are you getting the idea that this chart is "PC" and that this chart would make a woman feel good about herself? And please, expand as to why you think this chart is so "brain dead". | |
|
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 7/1/2009 7:24:01 PM | @JWG have you ever actually, like, in real life, seen a woman at 20% bodyfat. Do you have a clue what that actually looks like?
Or, perhaps you could post some photos of what you THINK 20% bf looks like on a woman. This could get interesting. | |
|
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 7/1/2009 8:44:09 PM | I have spent a good bit of time in the health-care setting as a student, plus the years I have spent at different gyms, coupled with the fact that my entire class at LSUS went through 3 different methods of body-comp testing (caliper, Bod-pod, hydro) and we were instructed on how to perform them, yes, I have seen plenty of women at and around the 20% mark, right on down to around 10-13% and lower at my gym (those who compete). No, I am not going to start linking you to my friend's myspace pages and whatnot, lol.
20% is quite attractive on a girl, I think. Then again, taste is personal. But to say anything thinner is "unacceptable" tells me that the person making the statement likes their women on the bigger side. FYI, if you had read my previous posts, I included a link to a picture of a woman at 20% body fat in several poses. Please go back and review that post if you want to see a woman at 20% body fat.
ETA: Let me add, I guess someone MIGHT be one picky nutcake and only have a 2-3% body-fat window that they will accept a woman within, ergo, 21% may not be that far from the MAX they would accept either, thus making my assumption that they are a BBW fan invalid.
Also, reviewed your profile BP, you know darn well what a woman at 20% looks like, and congrats on your physique. That takes a LOT of work! One of my friends is 49 and looks very similar to you except she is lacking the thickness in her lats that you have. It cost her a few places in the Lee Haney Invitational she competed in a few months ago. Again, 'grats, you look awesome! Inspiration : ) | |
|
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 7/3/2009 3:04:50 PM | Throw your scale away and stop stepping on it. Some people may not see a weight change for upto 12 months. consider body fat, muscle mass, water, food in your stomach.
If your clothes are getting bigger than youre losing body fat. | |
|
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 7/3/2009 4:47:55 PM | Bought a tape today and am going to log that from now on...didnt really even know how much weight I lost the first 6 months of my program until I went to the Drs. office and found out 40 pounds on the scale....judging on cloths sizes can be a little difficult since some waist sizes are a couple inches bigger.... | |
|
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 7/3/2009 5:11:41 PM | I wouldn't worry about your weight. Only worry about how you look in the mirror and if that makes you happy.
I have the same issue. My weight doesn't really change, but my body does and it's very noticeable. I'm simply exchanging fat for muscle and when you do that there is certainly going to be a change. | |
|
| |
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 8/20/2009 6:08:35 PM | "Ordinary weighing scales will only depress and de-motivate!"
Bumping this thread....since I have been using a measuring tape and focusing back on cardio after a few months of focusing on strength training, I have lost 3 inches off of my waist....wont be getting on a scale again until I see the doctor... | |
|
| My body's changed but the weight has not??
Posted: 8/20/2009 6:54:48 PM | Congratulations!!
I agree with the measuring tape. I bet I would have lost double what I have if it wasn't for my building so much muscle.
... the buying of new jeans is enough to make me smile!! | |
|
Home
login 
