Guest guest Posted February 3, 2002 Report Share Posted February 3, 2002 Since we are on the topic, I'd like to ask a question that has bothered me for quite sometime. I'm not overweight nor have I ever been, but my body fat percentage is rather high, 24%(according to tanita). My BMI is around 18-17. I'm 5' 7 and 1/2, 115 lbs and a very small body frame. Since longevity is seems to be related to body fat, am I to expect a decreased lifespan compared to a cronie w/the same stats and lower BF??? I just don't build muscle very well. When I was weight training my BF only decreased a % or two. I'm genetically prone to being " willowy " . What do you think???? -Becky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2004 Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 Just some comments on body fat percentages. All methods have variance not only within the method, but also within the application. Calipers are greatly influenced by the experience and accuracy of the person collecting the measurements. BEI is influneced by hydration as is DEXA as is Underwater weighing. Recent fiber content of the diet can influence all these readings as it influences fluid volume in the intestines. the carbohydrate and protein content (as they influence glycogen and Water stores)can also effect readings. Underwater weighing assumes lung volume and is dependant on the persons ability to exhale all their air volume (which for many is difficult to do just before or right after going underwater. So, with all these numbers, its important to know the method and the accuracy and the variance or we are talking " apples " and " oranges " . DEXA seems to be the most acccurate with the least dependance on " assumptions " and " estimates " . Having tested people on DEXA for the last few years, I find that DEXA results are always higher than any of the others. Perhaps its because the other methods have been underestimating the percent body fat of people. I have tracked mine for many years. I used to test it regularly using calipers, bio-electric impedance and a tanita scale. It was always between 9-12. Sometimes as low as 7. Than, while doing Graduate work in Exercise Science and voluntered to have it done with Underwater Weighing. Came out around the same. Now, I also have a DEXA at my disposal. So, I still test it on the Tanita, Calipers and the DEXA. Funny thing, with nothing else changing, and the other methods staying the same, the DEXA always registers about 5 pts higher. When i am 9 on the others the DEXA reads about 14. When i am 12 on the others, the DEXA reads about 17. jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2004 Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 Hi Jeff: Gosh. Isn't that interesting. The WUSTL study meaured BF% using DEXA. And the males averaged 6.7! No wonder gets readings of zero. Rodney. --- In , " Jeff Novick " <jnovick@p...> wrote: > Just some comments on body fat percentages. > > All methods have variance not only within the method, but also within the application. Calipers are greatly influenced by the experience and accuracy of the person collecting the measurements. BEI is influneced by hydration as is DEXA as is Underwater weighing. Recent fiber content of the diet can influence all these readings as it influences fluid volume in the intestines. the carbohydrate and protein content (as they influence glycogen and Water stores)can also effect readings. Underwater weighing assumes lung volume and is dependant on the persons ability to exhale all their air volume (which for many is difficult to do just before or right after going underwater. > > So, with all these numbers, its important to know the method and the accuracy and the variance or we are talking " apples " and " oranges " . > > DEXA seems to be the most acccurate with the least dependance on " assumptions " and " estimates " . Having tested people on DEXA for the last few years, I find that DEXA results are always higher than any of the others. Perhaps its because the other methods have been underestimating the percent body fat of people. > > I have tracked mine for many years. I used to test it regularly using calipers, bio-electric impedance and a tanita scale. It was always between 9-12. Sometimes as low as 7. Than, while doing Graduate work in Exercise Science and voluntered to have it done with Underwater Weighing. Came out around the same. Now, I also have a DEXA at my disposal. So, I still test it on the Tanita, Calipers and the DEXA. Funny thing, with nothing else changing, and the other methods staying the same, the DEXA always registers about 5 pts higher. When i am 9 on the others the DEXA reads about 14. When i am 12 on the others, the DEXA reads about 17. > > > jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2004 Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 Hi All, Well, caliper measurements said my body fat was negative, whereas DEXA said it was 8.2%. My level was lover than average for the CRers in the WUSTL studies in which I was tested. Cheers, Al Pater. --- In , " Jeff Novick " <jnovick@p...> wrote: > Just some comments on body fat percentages. > > All methods have variance not only within the method, but also within the application. Calipers are greatly influenced by the experience and accuracy of the person collecting the measurements. BEI is influneced by hydration as is DEXA as is Underwater weighing. Recent fiber content of the diet can influence all these readings as it influences fluid volume in the intestines. the carbohydrate and protein content (as they influence glycogen and Water stores)can also effect readings. Underwater weighing assumes lung volume and is dependant on the persons ability to exhale all their air volume (which for many is difficult to do just before or right after going underwater. > > So, with all these numbers, its important to know the method and the accuracy and the variance or we are talking " apples " and " oranges " . > > DEXA seems to be the most acccurate with the least dependance on " assumptions " and " estimates " . Having tested people on DEXA for the last few years, I find that DEXA results are always higher than any of the others. Perhaps its because the other methods have been underestimating the percent body fat of people. > > I have tracked mine for many years. I used to test it regularly using calipers, bio-electric impedance and a tanita scale. It was always between 9-12. Sometimes as low as 7. Than, while doing Graduate work in Exercise Science and voluntered to have it done with Underwater Weighing. Came out around the same. Now, I also have a DEXA at my disposal. So, I still test it on the Tanita, Calipers and the DEXA. Funny thing, with nothing else changing, and the other methods staying the same, the DEXA always registers about 5 pts higher. When i am 9 on the others the DEXA reads about 14. When i am 12 on the others, the DEXA reads about 17. > > > jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2004 Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 Maybe dexa measures the fat in bones? ----- Original Message ----- From: old542000 Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 2:33 PM Subject: [ ] Re: BOdy Fat Hi All,Well, caliper measurements said my body fat was negative, whereas DEXA said it was 8.2%. My level was lover than average for the CRers in the WUSTL studies in which I was tested.Cheers, Al Pater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2004 Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 Hi folks: Well can anyone remember which measurement technique Dr. Walford had in mind when he said " don't go below 6% " ?? Seems like an important issue. Rodney. > > Just some comments on body fat percentages. > > > > All methods have variance not only within the method, but also > within the application. Calipers are greatly influenced by the > experience and accuracy of the person collecting the measurements. > BEI is influneced by hydration as is DEXA as is Underwater weighing. > Recent fiber content of the diet can influence all these readings as > it influences fluid volume in the intestines. the carbohydrate and > protein content (as they influence glycogen and Water stores)can also > effect readings. Underwater weighing assumes lung volume and is > dependant on the persons ability to exhale all their air volume > (which for many is difficult to do just before or right after going > underwater. > > > > So, with all these numbers, its important to know the method and > the accuracy and the variance or we are talking " apples " > and " oranges " . > > > > DEXA seems to be the most acccurate with the least dependance > on " assumptions " and " estimates " . Having tested people on DEXA for > the last few years, I find that DEXA results are always higher than > any of the others. Perhaps its because the other methods have been > underestimating the percent body fat of people. > > > > I have tracked mine for many years. I used to test it regularly > using calipers, bio-electric impedance and a tanita scale. It was > always between 9-12. Sometimes as low as 7. Than, while doing > Graduate work in Exercise Science and voluntered to have it done with > Underwater Weighing. Came out around the same. Now, I also have a > DEXA at my disposal. So, I still test it on the Tanita, Calipers > and the DEXA. Funny thing, with nothing else changing, and the other > methods staying the same, the DEXA always registers about 5 pts > higher. When i am 9 on the others the DEXA reads about 14. When i > am 12 on the others, the DEXA reads about 17. > > > > > > jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2004 Report Share Posted May 27, 2004 You can search the books at amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1568581572/103-7609527-9296629?%5Fencoding=UTF8 & resultsPage=2 & keywords=6%20per%20cent & v=search-inside I don't recall any such limit in either book. In fact, I don't recall any req't for BF in any CR literature. I do recall the domers "declined" 6% to 10% BF. I believe the BF measurements do not include all the BF. I checked some of the cr society's posts and didn't find a req't, but then it could be hidden and they are a lot of posts. Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: Rodney Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 3:26 PM Subject: [ ] Re: Body Fat Hi folks:Well can anyone remember which measurement technique Dr. Walford had in mind when he said "don't go below 6%"??Seems like an important issue.Rodney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2004 Report Share Posted May 27, 2004 " Essential Body Fat -- For the body to function normally and healthily a certain amount of body fat is required. This is called essential fat. For women the average amount of essential fat is 12% of bodyweight and for men it is 3%. Trying to achieve a body fat percentage that is so low it affects your essential fat stores is NOT good for your health. Some storage fat is also required for good health. Why? It is used to protect internal organs in the chest and abdomen. " From " Sports Fitness Advisor " http://www.sport-fitness-advisor.com/bodyfatpercentage.html >From: " jwwright " <jwwright@...> >Reply- >< > >Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Body Fat >Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 21:12:06 -0500 > >You can search the books at amazon: >http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1568581572/103-7609527-9296629?%5Fencoding=UTF8\ & resultsPage=2 & keywords=6%20per%20cent & v=search-inside > >I don't recall any such limit in either book. In fact, I don't recall any >req't for BF in any CR literature. >I do recall the domers " declined " 6% to 10% BF. >I believe the BF measurements do not include all the BF. >I checked some of the cr society's posts and didn't find a req't, but then >it could be hidden and they are a lot of posts. > >Regards. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Rodney > > Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 3:26 PM > Subject: [ ] Re: Body Fat > > > Hi folks: > > Well can anyone remember which measurement technique Dr. Walford had > in mind when he said " don't go below 6% " ?? > > Seems like an important issue. > > Rodney. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2004 Report Share Posted May 27, 2004 Hi JW: Many thanks for that link to BT120YD. I found it! " Ultimately, on the CRON diet, your percentage of body fat should be about half that of your initial set ... And it should not be allowed to get below 5 percent for men and 10 to 15 percent for women. " Five percent, not six percent. Sorry. Rodney. --- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...> wrote: > You can search the books at amazon: > http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1568581572/103-7609527-9296629?% 5Fencoding=UTF8 & resultsPage=2 & keywords=6%20per%20cent & v=search-inside > > I don't recall any such limit in either book. In fact, I don't recall any req't for BF in any CR literature. > I do recall the domers " declined " 6% to 10% BF. > I believe the BF measurements do not include all the BF. > I checked some of the cr society's posts and didn't find a req't, but then it could be hidden and they are a lot of posts. > > Regards. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Rodney > > Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 3:26 PM > Subject: [ ] Re: Body Fat > > > Hi folks: > > Well can anyone remember which measurement technique Dr. Walford had > in mind when he said " don't go below 6% " ?? > > Seems like an important issue. > > Rodney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2004 Report Share Posted May 27, 2004 Most methods of measuring BF%, AFAIK, have an error of between 2-6%, so the difference between 5% and 6% is non-significant. >From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@...> >Reply- > >Subject: [ ] Re: Body Fat >Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 12:10:16 -0000 > >Hi JW: > >Many thanks for that link to BT120YD. I found it! > > " Ultimately, on the CRON diet, your percentage of body fat should be >about half that of your initial set ... And it should not be allowed >to get below 5 percent for men and 10 to 15 percent for women. " > >Five percent, not six percent. Sorry. > >Rodney. > > >--- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...> >wrote: > > You can search the books at amazon: > > http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1568581572/103-7609527-9296629?% >5Fencoding=UTF8 & resultsPage=2 & keywords=6%20per%20cent & v=search-inside > > > > I don't recall any such limit in either book. In fact, I don't >recall any req't for BF in any CR literature. > > I do recall the domers " declined " 6% to 10% BF. > > I believe the BF measurements do not include all the BF. > > I checked some of the cr society's posts and didn't find a req't, >but then it could be hidden and they are a lot of posts. > > > > Regards. > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Rodney > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 3:26 PM > > Subject: [ ] Re: Body Fat > > > > > > Hi folks: > > > > Well can anyone remember which measurement technique Dr. Walford >had > > in mind when he said " don't go below 6% " ?? > > > > Seems like an important issue. > > > > Rodney. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2004 Report Share Posted May 27, 2004 Thanks, Ahh page 227. What method? I guess that body caliper shown on pg 226. Mine was 18% the last time I did that. But I still say BF% is not the goal (at least not my goal), it's the result. When I first started controlling weight, I went to the gym at 234#. 3 months later, I was stronger, less waist, but I still weighed 225#. I know my BF changed downward. But it did nothing for Blood pressure and little for weightloss. I did another 1.5 months and realized that was not the right path. That's when I started cutting calories, walking. I had to give up the muscle to get the weight down. I think the body will give up some muscle to keep the fat. And maybe there's a magic formula for the best combination of exercise, food composition, but I've yet to find it. Retards ----- Original Message ----- From: Rodney Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 7:10 AM Subject: [ ] Re: Body Fat Hi JW:Many thanks for that link to BT120YD. I found it!"Ultimately, on the CRON diet, your percentage of body fat should be about half that of your initial set ... And it should not be allowed to get below 5 percent for men and 10 to 15 percent for women. "Five percent, not six percent. Sorry.Rodney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2004 Report Share Posted May 27, 2004 But what's wrong with say 20% BF, in the total scheme of CR? Muscle burns more energy - so what - I eat less. Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: Dowling Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 7:47 AM Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Body Fat Most methods of measuring BF%, AFAIK, have an error of between 2-6%, so the difference between 5% and 6% is non-significant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2004 Report Share Posted May 27, 2004 >>>Most methods of measuring BF%, AFAIK, have an error of between 2-6%, Accuracy is higher in " mid range " body fat percents. As you get to those who way more or way less BF, the accuracy goes down as the formulas used are based on those more in the midrange.. Here some info comparing some of the methods Jeff Comparison of body composition analysis methods in clinical routine. Erselcan T - Ann Nutr Metab - 01-Jan-2000; 44(5-6): 243-8 Abstract: BACKGROUND: Skinfold thickness (SFT) and bioelectrical impedance (BIA) are readily available and commonly used techniques in patient monitoring for body composition analysis (BCA) in clinical practise. Another one, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) method became popular in body composition analysis (BCA) in recent years. Its results have been reported to be quite accurate and precise, in comparison with in vivo or in vitro multiple component reference methods. The aim of the present study was to assess the degree of agreement between SFT and DEXA, and BIA and DEXA methods, in obese and nonobese patients. METHODS: Body fat mass (FM) was measured in 16 nonobese (mean body mass index; BMI = 22.2 +/- 2.2 kg/m(2)) and in 21 obese (BMI = 34.5 +/- 6.1 kg/m(2)) women with DEXA, SFT, and BIA in the same morning. RESULTS: Mean (+/- SD) FM (kg) was 16.3 +/- 5.5, 15.0 +/- 5.1, 14.7 +/- 4.9 in nonobese subjects and 38.8 +/- 10.1, 36.3 +/- 10.0, 37.1 +/- 12.0 in obese patients, by DEXA, SFT and BIA, respectively. Comparison of the DEXA-BIA and DEXA-STF methods showed high correlation in regression line analysis in nonobese subjects as, r(2) = 0.93 and 0.89, respectively. Regression coefficients were 0.84 and 0.75 in obese patients. However, reanalysis of the data by the Bland and Altman method revealed an obvious lack of agreement between the DEXA-BIA and DEXA-SFT methods in obese patients. In addition, FM was underestimated by BIA and SFT as compared to DEXA in both of the study groups. Besides, better precision was obtained by DEXA method among the others. CONCLUSION: The SFT or BIA method would be preferred to monitor BCA in non-obese subjects in clinical routine. However, DEXA should be considered as the method of choice in obese patient monitoring, since reproducibility gains special importance, other than the accuracy in the context. Preliminary evidence that DEXA provides an accurate assessment of body composition. Kohrt WM. J Appl Physiol 1998 Jan;84(1):372-7. It was previously found that dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) underestimated central body fat. The purposes of this study were to determine whether an updated version (enhanced version 5.64) of the analysis program corrected this problem (experiment 1) and to compare body composition assessed by DEXA and hydrodensitometry (HD) in women (n = 225) and men (n = 110) across a 21- to 81-yr age range (experiment 2). For experiment 1, 10 subjects underwent DEXA procedures in a control condition and with packets of lard positioned over either the thighs or the truncal region. DEXA accurately quantified the additional mass as approximately 96% fat, regardless of position. For experiment 2, DEXA yielded higher (P < 0.001) estimates of fatness than did HD (32.1 +/- 12.0 vs. 31.2 +/- 10.1%). The mean difference between the two methods was similar in young, middle-aged, and older subjects, but was different in men (HD-DEXA, 1.6 +/- 3.4% of body wt) than in women (-2.1 +/- 3.8% of body wt). Correcting the density of fat-free mass for variance in the bone mineral fraction of fat-free mass reduced the difference between the methods in men from 1.6 +/- 3.4 to -0.7 +/- 2.9% but widened it in women from -2.1 +/- 3.8 to -3.5 +/- 3.4%. A second correction procedure that adjusted for variance in water, protein, and mineral fractions of fat-free mass eliminated the differences in estimates of fat content by DEXA and HD in both men (21.1 +/- 9.3 vs. 20.6 +/- 8.4%, respectively) and women (37.5 +/- 9.3 vs. 36.8 +/- 8.0%, respectively). These results provide encouraging, but not definitive, evidence that the assessment of body composition by DEXA is accurate under the specified conditions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2004 Report Share Posted May 27, 2004 Nada mal con eso! >From: " jwwright " <jwwright@...> >Reply- >< > >Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Body Fat >Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 08:05:34 -0500 > >But what's wrong with say 20% BF, in the total scheme of CR? >Muscle burns more energy - so what - I eat less. > >Regards. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Dowling > > Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 7:47 AM > Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Body Fat > > > Most methods of measuring BF%, AFAIK, have an error of between 2-6%, so >the > difference between 5% and 6% is non-significant. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 6, 2004 Report Share Posted June 6, 2004 What, 6% is suppose to be the lowest one should go? The calorie restriction curves seem to indicate that benefits from calorie restriction will be achieved up to a 66% restriction in calories, and I have not even approached 50% restriction, but I'm sure that as I do I will continue to loose body fat. From measuring my body fat with the BodyTrends fat caliper I'm 5% body fat, 5'9 " and 144lbs, with muscle tone (I work out 3 times a week). 1) Walford say's one should try and achieve their weight as a young adult, which would be closer to 138lbs for me -- this would make me far under 6%. 2) I eat around 1400 cal/day, and believe that I can gradually reduce that to around 1100 cal/day, which I got to believe is going to reduce my body fat. 3) While everyone would say I'm thin and toned, one can observe some abdominal fat, which I didn't have when I was a teen. I guess I just don't believe that a 50% calorie restricted mouse (or even a 40% restricted one) has a body fat as high as 6%! --- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...> wrote: > You can search the books at amazon: > http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1568581572/103-7609527-9296629?% 5Fencoding=UTF8 & resultsPage=2 & keywords=6%20per%20cent & v=search-inside > > I don't recall any such limit in either book. In fact, I don't recall any req't for BF in any CR literature. > I do recall the domers " declined " 6% to 10% BF. > I believe the BF measurements do not include all the BF. > I checked some of the cr society's posts and didn't find a req't, but then it could be hidden and they are a lot of posts. > > Regards. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Rodney > > Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 3:26 PM > Subject: [ ] Re: Body Fat > > > Hi folks: > > Well can anyone remember which measurement technique Dr. Walford had > in mind when he said " don't go below 6% " ?? > > Seems like an important issue. > > Rodney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 6, 2004 Report Share Posted June 6, 2004 The thread on BF may be misleading. While there are lower limits in Bf, beyond which one shouldn't go, it's a mistake to base your CRON program on BF or weight. CRON is based on a reduction in calories from your ad lib calories and eating the most nutrient dense calories It's simple but we like to complicate it. If you're doing Ok on 1400 cal, stay on 1400. It would be difficult to get all the nutrients you need on 1100 as a 5'9 " male. In fact a small female would be hard pressed to get all her nutrients on 1100 a day. Sounds like you're pretty low on the calorie scale as it is. on 6/6/2004 4:17 AM, ashton2442 at a.braithwaite@... wrote: > What, 6% is suppose to be the lowest one should go? The calorie > restriction curves seem to indicate that benefits from calorie > restriction will be achieved up to a 66% restriction in calories, > and I have not even approached 50% restriction, but I'm sure that as > I do I will continue to loose body fat. > > From measuring my body fat with the BodyTrends fat caliper I'm 5% > body fat, 5'9 " and 144lbs, with muscle tone (I work out 3 times a > week). > > 1) Walford say's one should try and achieve their weight as a young > adult, which would be closer to 138lbs for me -- this would make me > far under 6%. > 2) I eat around 1400 cal/day, and believe that I can gradually > reduce that to around 1100 cal/day, which I got to believe is going > to reduce my body fat. > 3) While everyone would say I'm thin and toned, one can observe some > abdominal fat, which I didn't have when I was a teen. > > I guess I just don't believe that a 50% calorie restricted mouse (or > even a 40% restricted one) has a body fat as high as 6%! > > > > > >> You can search the books at amazon: >> http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1568581572/103-7609527-9296629?% > 5Fencoding=UTF8 & resultsPage=2 & keywords=6%20per%20cent & v=search-inside >> >> I don't recall any such limit in either book. In fact, I don't > recall any req't for BF in any CR literature. >> I do recall the domers " declined " 6% to 10% BF. >> I believe the BF measurements do not include all the BF. >> I checked some of the cr society's posts and didn't find a req't, > but then it could be hidden and they are a lot of posts. >> >> Regards. >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Rodney >> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 3:26 PM >> Subject: [ ] Re: Body Fat >> >> >> Hi folks: >> >> Well can anyone remember which measurement technique Dr. Walford > had >> in mind when he said " don't go below 6% " ?? >> >> Seems like an important issue. >> >> Rodney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 6, 2004 Report Share Posted June 6, 2004 I think the caliper method/equation may be very inaccurate at low fat levels. Like the fat in bones, eg. The body wants to retain some fat. If you get too low, your BG will fall and you'll get very weak. I did that once. I have no idea what the BF was, but I was impressed by the "trembling" in my gut. Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: ashton2442 Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 3:17 AM Subject: [ ] Re: Body Fat What, 6% is suppose to be the lowest one should go? The calorie restriction curves seem to indicate that benefits from calorie restriction will be achieved up to a 66% restriction in calories, and I have not even approached 50% restriction, but I'm sure that as I do I will continue to loose body fat.From measuring my body fat with the BodyTrends fat caliper I'm 5% body fat, 5'9" and 144lbs, with muscle tone (I work out 3 times a week).1) Walford say's one should try and achieve their weight as a young adult, which would be closer to 138lbs for me -- this would make me far under 6%.2) I eat around 1400 cal/day, and believe that I can gradually reduce that to around 1100 cal/day, which I got to believe is going to reduce my body fat.3) While everyone would say I'm thin and toned, one can observe some abdominal fat, which I didn't have when I was a teen.I guess I just don't believe that a 50% calorie restricted mouse (or even a 40% restricted one) has a body fat as high as 6%! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2010 Report Share Posted September 20, 2010 > > Hi Bee, > > As I've told you I've gained a lot of weight on this program. My body fat has always been around 19-20%. I'm 5'3 " . My body fat is now 27%. Doesn't that seem very high for someone my size? I'm starting to think it isn't good for someone my height to have such a high fat %. Do you have any advice on this? Is 27% getting really high? I do your all meat and fat program and have for at least 6 months. +++Hi , When your body is ready and able it will break down any excess fat. Bee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.