Healthy body fat percentage ??(is there such a thing??)

crotalus667

Just wondering it any one can tell me the body fat percentage range that is considered healthy ? It’s just that Id sooner fallow my bf% than Bmi , on a closely related note I just found out today that my bf% is 21.something not at about 30 like I thought it was ,I must of gotten it confused with the bmi reading at my last assessment yeah:D (Although it does mean that all my calculations where wrong )

ali.c

are you male or female?

Anyhow, the average range is i think 10-15% for guys and 20-25% for women, then anything below ten for a guy would be pretty lean and anything i suppose below high teens would be lean for a girl.

The average range would be considered healthy IMO, though it is not particularly lean.

boffin

Actually looked this up this morning out of curiosity!

Body Fat Guidelines from American Council on Exercise
Classification Women (% Fat)
Essential Fat 10-12 percent
Athletes 14-20 percent
Fitness 21-24 percent
Acceptable 25-31 percent

Classification Men (% Fat)
Essential Fat 2-4 percent
Athletes 6-13 percent
Fitness 14-17 percent
Acceptable 18-25 percent

So if you are female you are in the althlete/fitness category and if male in the acceptable category. Hope that helps..and the more experienced and knowledeable people can correct this if it wrong in any way!!!!

crotalus667

boffin wrote:

So if you are female you are in the althlete/fitness category and if male in the acceptable category. Hope that helps..and the more experienced and knowledeable people can correct this if it wrong in any way!!!!

Thanks for the reply , that was excatly what I was looking for

ps Im male

Colm_OReilly

Firstly, bodyfat is extremely difficult to measure accurately. Tony Leyland estimates there's a +- 3% in the measure, even in the most "accurate" of tests.

Secondly, bodyfat is not a decent measure of health or fitness - taken in isolation.

As an example, if you look at cyclists or marathon runners have really low immune systems and are usually carrying injuries. Also, bodybuilders who have very low bodyfat percentages, "their performance on many of the components of fitness would be dismal" CFJ January 2007

If you exercise vigorously and eat a healthy diet, your weight is really no concern.

Colm

rubadub

ali.c wrote:

Anyhow, the average range is i think 10-15% for guys and 20-25% for women, then anything below ten for a guy would be pretty lean and anything i suppose below high teens would be lean for a girl.

Hmm, not sure if that is the average, probably is the ideal. Since there are so many obese people I would have thought the average would be way higher than the "ideal".

Another thing to note is that it is a % of overall weight. So if you are a 100lb skinny bloke then 10%BF means you have 10lb of fat on you, while a 200lb bloke at 10%BF has 20lb of fat.

Somebody was making this point in a thread where people were guessing a soccer players BF%, most are probably used to seeing BBers with their BF% quoted, so many people did not think he could have been as high as 10-12%, but he was so light that 10-12% means he had very little fat.

lizzyvera

ali.c wrote:

anything i suppose below high teens would be lean for a girl.

Below high teens for a girl would mean chronic fertility problems! Painful ones. And lots of fainting.


But it depends on your goals I suppose.:rolleyes:

g'em

lizzyvera wrote:

Below high teens for a girl would mean chronic fertility problems! Painful ones. And lots of fainting.


But it depends on your goals I suppose.:rolleyes:

Can you back this up? 'Below high teens' to me means around the 14-17% range which is both perfectly healthy and sustainable if you're disciplined with your diet and exercise. Frankly some women even find it easy to stay that lean.

10-13% and you're getting into slightly dodgier territory, and I will admit that when I was 11/12% it did affect my menstrual cycle, actually it disappeared.

What exactly do you mean by 'painful' fertility problems? The biggest risk to a woman when her bf is that low is amenhorrea, and the simple fact is we just don't know what it can do to us long term. But there's nothing wrong with a woman maintaining mid to late-teen bf year round.

cowzerp

gem is correct-low teens 10-14 can be a problem but not the higher like 15+ in most cases..i find 18-24 to be the healthiest looking though...

davyjose

g'em wrote:

10-13% and you're getting into slightly dodgier territory, and I will admit that when I was 11/12% it did affect my menstrual cycle, actually it disappeared.

Sorry to drag this down to a man's opinion but would boob size have an effect? I mean, if a girl was naturally an A-cup surely she could take her % lower than a D-cup.

ali.c

davyjose wrote:

Sorry to drag this down to a man's opinion but would boob size have an effect? I mean, if a girl was naturally an A-cup surely she could take her % lower than a D-cup.

In my experience when women lose weight their boobs tend to get smaller anyways so if a woman started of at a D-cup chances are she wouldnt finish as a D cup

g'em

davyjose wrote:

Sorry to drag this down to a man's opinion but would boob size have an effect? I mean, if a girl was naturally an A-cup surely she could take her % lower than a D-cup.

lol, I can see what you're getting at! Breast size isn't dictated by overall shape - you can get very slight, slim girls with C or D cups just as you can get bigger girls with relatively small boobs. So no, a girls cup size won't dictate how easily she can take her bf% nor will it limit how much bf she can lose.

Breast tissue is made up of fat and glandular tissue, the fat in boobs can be shed, the glandular tissue can't, so if a girl has more fat than gland and she loses a lot of bf, her boobs will disappear. The vast majority (not all, but most) figure or fitness models who have appreciably sized boobs will have had implants. It's incredibly hard for a girl to be lean and hang onto her laydeez - I speak from experience

davyjose

Ha ha, fair enough. I figured that boob size would decrease, but not as much as with a larger cup size. In a way I guess it must be hard for the average girl to measure bf% because a girl with 20% and an A cup iosn't the same as one with a D-cup.

tribulus

I find it hard to believe that a bloke with 1/4 of his weight as fat or a woman with nearly 1/3 her weight as fat is acceptable. It seems excessive to have carry that much dead weight around.

nesf

tribulus wrote:

I find it hard to believe that a bloke with 1/4 of his weight as fat or a woman with nearly 1/3 her weight as fat is acceptable. It seems excessive to have carry that much dead weight around.

Fat on its own doesn't become a serious health problem until you are carrying a lot of it tbh. The biggest issue usually comes from the lifestyle that surrounds carrying a lot of fat for most people.

davyjose

tribulus wrote:

I find it hard to believe that a bloke with 1/4 of his weight as fat or a woman with nearly 1/3 her weight as fat is acceptable. It seems excessive to have carry that much dead weight around.

I'd agree with nesf to be honest. Fat isn't a posion or a disease. There parts of the world - even now - where 25% bodyfat would be considered very healthy, but as nesf said, most people with high bodyfat % attain it from bad diet or poor exercise.

nesf

Our bodies are "designed" around periods of feast and famine too tbh. We're meant to put on fat etc, we just were never meant to have a constant high calorie intake and so on.

tribulus

Sorry I was talking arseways. I agree with that, in my roundabout way I was trying to say that the lifestyle needed to achieve such a % is not good.

Why I couldn't say that to begin with I don't know, my brain is mushed from today

g'em

nesf wrote:

Our bodies are "designed" around periods of feast and famine too tbh. We're meant to put on fat etc...

who says though? our bodies aren't 'meant' to do anything other than produce, or contribute towards the production of, offspring and we're not evolved to do anything specific. We're just designed to survive long enough to go forth and reporduce.

There's as many arguments as to whether we should be naturally leaner (lower risk of disease, increased fitness etc) as there is for us to be naturally rounder (increased perception of health due to abundance of food etc). The argument about what we've 'evolved' to be is in a way null and void because our living conditions are so different now to the way they used to be.

Plus you can take the argument further - 25% bodyfat on a male that's equally spread around the body is less dangerous than 25% bodyfat where a high proportion of it is concetrated in the abdominal area, thereby increasing the risk of heart disease and obesity-related illness.

nesf

tribulus wrote:

Sorry I was talking arseways. I agree with that, in my roundabout way I was trying to say that the lifestyle needed to achieve such a % is not good.

Personally I think it's relative to the individual. For a naturally big guy 25% would be a lot more acceptable than someone who is naturally "lanky" if you know what I mean.

It's a cliché but some people can carry a bit of weight and some can't.

g'em

tribulus wrote:

Why I couldn't say that to begin with I don't know, my brain is mushed from today

you've been at that creatine muck again haven't you????!

nesf

g'em wrote:

who says though? our bodies aren't 'meant' to do anything and we're not evolved to do anything specific. We're just designed to survive.

There's as many arguments as to whether we should be naturally leaner (lower risk of disease, increased fitness etc) as there is for us to be naturally rounder (increased perception of health due to abundance of food etc). The argument about what we've 'evolved' to be is in a way null and void because our living conditions are so different now to the way they used to be.

I completely agree, I was just commenting that the tendency to gain fat easily is an artefact in our genetic make-up from a past time. I wasn't trying to say that it's natural for us to be fat. I was trying to get at the idea that "modern lifestyles" are the enemy and not fat or our bodies tendency to put it on per se.

g'em wrote:

Plus you can take the argument further - 25% bodyfat on a male that's equally spread around the body is less dangerous than 25% bodyfat where a high proportion of it is concetrated in the abdominal area, thereby increasing the risk of heart disease and obesity-related illness.

Again I completely agree, the number in isolation is meaningless.

g'em

nesf wrote:

I completely agree, I was just commenting that the tendency to gain fat easily is an artefact in our genetic make-up from a past time. I wasn't trying to say that it's natural for us to be fat. I was trying to get at the idea that "modern lifestyles" are the enemy and not fat or our bodies tendency to put it on per se.

Yeah but...

actually, I agree too Darn it, have we reached the stage where we're all in agreement with everything we're saying?!? wow... that's just trippy

nesf

g'em wrote:

Yeah but...

actually, I agree too Darn it, have we reached the stage where we're all in agreement with everything we're saying?!? wow... that's just trippy

We're both chanting the party line, we just use different words.


People seem to misplace the blame, e.g. for instance I put on fat fairly easily, I could sit down and follow the exact same lifestyle, diet etc as someone who doesn't put on fat easily and still be fatter than them. The problem here wouldn't be the fact that I put on fat easily though some people tend to reach that kind of conclusion about themselves.

Does that make sense?



Oh, and for something that we would disagree with, I personally am perfectly happy with a BMI of 25...

tribulus

g'em wrote:

you've been at that creatine muck again haven't you????!

No just cocaine, I wouldn't touch that creatine stuff.

Actually isn't there some Pacific Islands (or somewhere else entirely) where the fatter males are the more attractive? Because the fact they could eat enough to gain weight was a sign of wealth or something? It might catch on!

g'em

nesf wrote:

Oh, and for something that we would disagree with, I personally am perfectly happy with a BMI of 25...

Pffft - that's nothing. I'm 29.5 ...technically obese. Lovin it

nesf

tribulus wrote:

Actually isn't there some Pacific Islands (or somewhere else entirely) where the fatter males are the more attractive? Because the fact they could eat enough to gain weight was a sign of wealth or something? It might catch on!

I've heard similar things about parts of China. I've no idea if they're true though.


It's probably their jolly personalties that get them the women...

rubadub

nesf wrote:

I've heard similar things about parts of China. I've no idea if they're true though.

I saw a documentary on them, it was women though. They would feed on milk for months before a wedding. They started off normal enough and got huge, sitting around doing no exercise, not even getting the food. It was a tribe someplace.

A Chinese person did tell me being fat is a sign of wealth for men, but they are not talking hugely obese, just a bit of a belly.

I also wondered about the boob fat too, I know a family where all the 4 children are really skinny women with HUGE boobs. If they got tested they might well be considered as having too much fat, while if they got their breasts reduced they could well be too low in fat. That is also why I never thought those electrical fat testers could work, cant see how the current will pick them up. The same with calipers, 2 women could be the exact same all over but one could have 2kg extra fat in the boobs which is not going to be taken into account.

ali.c

rubadub wrote:

I also wondered about the boob fat too, I know a family where all the 4 children are really skinny women with HUGE boobs. If they got tested they might well be considered as having too much fat, while if they got their breasts reduced they could well be too low in fat. That is also why I never thought those electrical fat testers could work, cant see how the current will pick them up. The same with calipers, 2 women could be the exact same all over but one could have 2kg extra fat in the boobs which is not going to be taken into account.

Eh well i reckon the best a calipers is gonna give you is an indication of body fat, so it doesnt really matter if the % varies between people so long as its consistent for each person.

Transform

Thats the biggest load of sh$t i have ever heard!!

All my female clients are pushing for about 16-17% BF and the males at least 10-12%.

Just tested a female client of mine today (calipers) 24.5% she is 56years old and thats down from 29.7% 8 months ago. She will be 20% in about another 8-12months (slower progress in older clients i find).

Would she be happy using a bloody trainer to sit at 25% - hell no. If i cant get her to 20% then i am not doing my job properly or she is not compliant.

lizzyvera

Below high teens for me meant below 15% and I had really bad cramps, spasms and other issues BUT it is probably different if your bf% is low because you're athletic and look after yourself, mine was low because I didn't look after myself.
(I do now of course)

There's a huge difference between being thin because you exercise and eat well and being thin because you drink coffee, eat chocolate, feel sick and don't eat again that day. And if you have muscles to show off it looks better to be thin... I have tendons, bones, veins hahaha.

ali.c

Transform wrote:

Thats the biggest load of sh$t i have ever heard!!

All my female clients are pushing for about 16-17% BF and the males at least 10-12%.

That is pretty lean though, and the question was posed as to what is healthy, 20-25% bf for a woman IMHO is not going to cause any health issues and is therefore healthy surely? It all comes down to what your goals are, whether you want to be in okay shape or in great shape. Or whether you just want to have a healthy body fat. Granted i think that the 31% healthy bodyfat might be pushing the limits on what is healthy yet at the same time its not a bodyfat percentage that makes someone morbidly obese (with all the associated health risks) either.

Transform wrote:

Would she be happy using a bloody trainer to sit at 25% - hell no. If i cant get her to 20% then i am not doing my job properly or she is not compliant.

Of course that is why she is using a personal trainer, but not everyones goals are the same, and not everyone is prepared to put in the time and effort to get to the 16-17% bodyfat.

HardyEustace

Colm_OReilly wrote:

As an example, if you look at cyclists or marathon runners have really low immune systems and are usually carrying injuries.

Thats a very sweeping statement. What is this backed up on?

Since starting marathon running last year, I find that my occurence of coughs and colds is far less than before. Ok, can understand the injuries thing as obviously you are putting your body under a greater amount of stress by running long differences, I think that this really starts to show once you go over 30 miles/week.

cowzerp

Transform wrote:

Thats the biggest load of sh$t i have ever heard!!
All my female clients are pushing for about 16-17% BF and the males at least 10-12%.

Then your either measuring wrong or aiming too high on targets, most girls llok crap at this body fat. some are blessed and look great but most look anorexic..18-24 is great looking-sustainable and healthy..

nesf

HardyEustace wrote:

Thats a very sweeping statement. What is this backed up on?

Since starting marathon running last year, I find that my occurence of coughs and colds is far less than before. Ok, can understand the injuries thing as obviously you are putting your body under a greater amount of stress by running long differences, I think that this really starts to show once you go over 30 miles/week.

I'm no expert in this kind of thing but wouldn't the stress of marathon running also have some impact on your immune system at least immediately after competitions etc?

cowzerp

nesf wrote:

I'm no expert in this kind of thing but wouldn't the stress of marathon running also have some impact on your immune system at least immediately after competitions etc?

All intense exercise has a temporary lowering of immune system but the immune system then boosts back up and sometimes improves-fit people get less illnesses-so i dont see the problem with him running, apart from the bashing your joints take..

nesf

cowzerp wrote:

All intense exercise has a temporary lowering of immune system but the immune system then boosts back up and sometimes improves-fit people get less illnesses-so i dont see the problem with him running, apart from the bashing your joints take..

Purely out of curiosity, would it be worse for an endurance exercise like marathon running than intense exercises performed over a short period? Would the low period last longer or would the immune system go "lower"?

cowzerp

nesf wrote:

Purely out of curiosity, would it be worse for an endurance exercise like marathon running than intense exercises performed over a short period? Would the low period last longer or would the immune system go "lower"?

Generaly i'd say all intensive exercise-weight training sessions can be more intensive than marathon running but its all about intensity not type.

shinny

What about "internal" fat ?! That's the new "worry" now. I watched this on ITV about 6 months ago and they took a young man and a young woman, who would both be considered "lean" both showed considerable levels of internal fats around their Liver/Gallbladder. So, maybe it's better out than in !!!

Here's a link about it !! Internal Fat

Also, just my experience on the whole Boob thing. I'm 5ft 4 Inches in height and when I was just below 8 stone, I was a C cup. I put on some weight and went to a D cup, then I lost the weight and was still between a C and a D. So personally I believe this does factor into body fat %.

tribulus

Nah it's best just to not eat sh1te all the time, probably won't have it out or in then.

HardyEustace

cowzerp wrote:

Generaly i'd say all intensive exercise-weight training sessions can be more intensive than marathon running but its all about intensity not type.

You've obviously never run a marathon!

Apparently Lance Armstrong described it as the "the hardest physical thing I have ever done"

Transform

Cowzerp - i have NEVER seen any client look really well with a body fat above 20% (for women).

Also, yes clearly you have never run a marathon as it was possibly the hardest thing i have ever done also and was running BEHIND lance armstong in last years NY marathon.

If people want to change their body fat then great if they don't then thats cool also.

I have been testing clients body fat for over 10 years now so i think that qualifies me to know what i am on about and how to test properly

Finally, it is relatively easy to get a woman to 16-17% body fat (or a man to 10-11%) any lower and that takes wayyyy more specific work

HardyEustace

Transform, what method do you use for measuring fat? Is it a calipers?

could someone recommend one for me please? Have looked on ebay but baffled by the variety and somewhat scared by prices of some of them.

The FitnessDock

cowzerp wrote:

Generaly i'd say all intensive exercise-weight training sessions can be more intensive than marathon running but its all about intensity not type.

HardyEustace wrote:

You've obviously never run a marathon!

Apparently Lance Armstrong described it as the "the hardest physical thing I have ever done"

Technically speaking, Cowzerp is actually correct.

Note that he was referring to intensity, not the degree of difficulty.

In exercise, intensity is defined as the magnitude of energy per unit (time).

Therefore a 100m sprint is much more intense than a marathon.

A marathon, on the other hand, is much more difficult and much more exhausting than either a 100m sprint or high-intensity session.

PAUL

HardyEustace

Yes I know what you mean Paul, mind you, from about mile 18 onwards it starts to feel fairly intense! I wouldn't quote that line too near any marathon runners either ha-ha!

However back on the subject of healthy body fat percentage, I think that it's not only your body fat percentage, it's also how you want your body to look.

I think it was Transform (correct me if I'm wrong)who said that you should go to a personal trainer who has the "look" that you want to achieve. I have to say that marathon running, and running in general, is great for giving you a nice lean look which I really like.

On the subject of what is a "healthy" body fat percentage, I think that some of it is in the "eye of the beholder" so to speak. One person's fit and healthy is another person's scrawny. However, from personal experience, fit and healthy people never think I'm scrawny, it's only people (well actually women, much as I hate to diss my own gender) who are struggling with their weight or unhappy about their weight who normally tell me that I look underweight or that I should put a few pounds on (don't have to be freud to figure that one out).

I noticed even in this post there was a disagreement over what constitutes a healthy body fat or not. I'd have to agree with Transform in that a bf below 20% is good.

Now I would like to qualify that by saying that its only good when its achieve through burning off excess calories through exercise rather than starving yourself. To put it in perspective when I moved into my house two years ago my weight droped to about 7.25 to 7.5 stone. It was due to not eating, stress and just general running around, I had not planned to lose weight. However I looked absolutely shocking, I didn't realise it at the time but looking at photoes from my friends wedding I looked terrible and quite a few people tried to nudge me in the direction of the biscuit tin.

I put weight back on, in fact a few pounds too many but not too much. Fast forward a year to when I was training for Dublin 2006 (my first, sniff!), my weight dropped to 7.5 stone again but I looked great, even if I do say so myself. I was healthy, eating like a horse and drinking loads of water and of course, running around a lot. Thus my weight loss was as a result of lots of calories in but lots of calories burnt off. Therefore I was getting all the good out of the food that I ate.

Have put on about .75 of a stone over the last few months but .25 of it is gone and will have the .5 off by the marathon (people ask why bother but then I explain that its like carrying about six bags of sugar around 26.2 miles!).

Sorry for rambling but the point I'm trying to make is that its not only your end result (body fat) but also how you achieve it.

nesf

HardyEustace wrote:

(people ask why bother but then I explain that its like carrying about six bags of sugar around 26.2 miles!).

That's a nice way of putting it.

Transform

Yes i use calipers and do not put much emphasis on the overall percentage as much as i put in the change in the individual measurements. i.e. take it from 4-5 sites and check the individual changes rather than overall percentage change.

crotalus667

Transform wrote:

Yes i use calipers and do not put much emphasis on the overall percentage as much as i put in the change in the individual measurements. i.e. take it from 4-5 sites and check the individual changes rather than overall percentage change.

Hi Transform where do you get you calipers from ??And can you recommend a good manual on using them ??

The FitnessDock

Great post HardyEustace - I totally agree with it being vitally important as to how you lose the bodyfat - i.e. through a combination of exercise and nutrition, not just dieting.