What is a 'healthy' body fat percentage?
Discussion
Hello,
Does anyone know what a healthy bodyfat percentage would be for a man? I ask this because all the stuff I can find by googling are just articles exclaiming that unless your in single figures bodyfat wise, you're going to die. My limited knowledge, coupled with personal experience leads me to believe that this is wholly untrue.
A couple of years ago I was working out hard, eating a restrictive diet, not drinking beer. I was around 7% bodyfat, rippling six pack and veins visible from half a mile. I wasn't particularly muscular, I weighed about 11 Stone 10lbs. I didn't feel healthy, at all. It also didn't last long as the diet was so restrictive and workouts coupled with a physical day job, so exhausting it was making me ill. By ill I mean my insides hurt, my kidneys burned, I had a cough, my heart pumped rapidly etc. All of this went away when I started eating normal food again.
These days I'm a bubbly 22% bodyfat. I could do with losing some, but I feel pretty healthy, I got diagnosed with celiac disease last year and have adopted the relevant diet. I've also changed my diet to only really include 'real' foods, and organic as much as possible. I don't smoke anymore, I only drink decent stuff and don't take drugs. I feel, pretty well. I don't get that much exercise anymore, but I'm much physically stronger than I was when I went to the gym everyday.
If I lost a little fat, I think I would be more athletic overall, so there is some way to go.
What sort of bodyfat percentage should I realistically be aiming for? I'm 6' 0" 15 Stone, 22% bodyfat. I'm thinking I should be going down to about 17.
Maybe, it's all variable from person to person, but I see blokes day in day out who are obviously low bodyfat, but don't look well to me, they look tired and grey often. A healthy glow it seems is reserved for us larger bodied.
Does anyone know what a healthy bodyfat percentage would be for a man? I ask this because all the stuff I can find by googling are just articles exclaiming that unless your in single figures bodyfat wise, you're going to die. My limited knowledge, coupled with personal experience leads me to believe that this is wholly untrue.
A couple of years ago I was working out hard, eating a restrictive diet, not drinking beer. I was around 7% bodyfat, rippling six pack and veins visible from half a mile. I wasn't particularly muscular, I weighed about 11 Stone 10lbs. I didn't feel healthy, at all. It also didn't last long as the diet was so restrictive and workouts coupled with a physical day job, so exhausting it was making me ill. By ill I mean my insides hurt, my kidneys burned, I had a cough, my heart pumped rapidly etc. All of this went away when I started eating normal food again.
These days I'm a bubbly 22% bodyfat. I could do with losing some, but I feel pretty healthy, I got diagnosed with celiac disease last year and have adopted the relevant diet. I've also changed my diet to only really include 'real' foods, and organic as much as possible. I don't smoke anymore, I only drink decent stuff and don't take drugs. I feel, pretty well. I don't get that much exercise anymore, but I'm much physically stronger than I was when I went to the gym everyday.
If I lost a little fat, I think I would be more athletic overall, so there is some way to go.
What sort of bodyfat percentage should I realistically be aiming for? I'm 6' 0" 15 Stone, 22% bodyfat. I'm thinking I should be going down to about 17.
Maybe, it's all variable from person to person, but I see blokes day in day out who are obviously low bodyfat, but don't look well to me, they look tired and grey often. A healthy glow it seems is reserved for us larger bodied.
I don't think there's a simple answer. For one thing, it matters where you carry your fat, so one indicator of interest is the ratio of fat around your waist to fat carried on your thighs and hips. It looks as if by the time my BMI is in the "acceptable" region, my body fat % will be <20%, but that possibly just indicates how unreliable BMI is on an individual level. BMI is the measure for which there is data, though, because it's trivially easy to calculate.
OK, I have just calculated what I "should" weigh according to BMI.
I'm 5'6. That gives;
BMI of 20 - bottom of healthy : 56kg
BMI of 22.5 - middle of healthy : 63kg
BMI of 25 - top of healthy : 70kg
I recently had a DEXA scan. My body composition was;
Total Mass : 76.7kg
Fat : 17kg
Lean tissue : 56.4kg
Bone mineral : 3.3kg
Body fat percentage (overall) 22.3%
Body fat percentage (excluding bones) 23.3%
I'm not sure which of those two figures is comparable to the numbers estimated with calipers/displacement/BEI, but I'm going to assume it's total fat mass / total body mass.
On that basis, for a BMI of 25, maximum "healthy" weight, I would weigh 70kg and have a body fat percentage of 15%.
For a BMI of 22.5, middle of the healthy range for my height, I would weigh 63kg and have a body fat percentage of 6%.
For a BMI of 20, bottom of the healthy range, I would weigh 56kg, have 0% body fat, and would have had to lose either 3kg of lean tissue or my skeleton.
I think that's quite interesting - we all know that BMI can be a crock of s
t, but we also know that most people pointing out that elite sportsmen are overweight by BMI are not international rugby players or body builders but fat people. I wouldn't say I was particularly muscular. I have (apparently) very good bone density and I have short legs and a long torso. Still, I wouldn't have expected the BMI guidelines to be so far out for me.
I'm 5'6. That gives;
BMI of 20 - bottom of healthy : 56kg
BMI of 22.5 - middle of healthy : 63kg
BMI of 25 - top of healthy : 70kg
I recently had a DEXA scan. My body composition was;
Total Mass : 76.7kg
Fat : 17kg
Lean tissue : 56.4kg
Bone mineral : 3.3kg
Body fat percentage (overall) 22.3%
Body fat percentage (excluding bones) 23.3%
I'm not sure which of those two figures is comparable to the numbers estimated with calipers/displacement/BEI, but I'm going to assume it's total fat mass / total body mass.
On that basis, for a BMI of 25, maximum "healthy" weight, I would weigh 70kg and have a body fat percentage of 15%.
For a BMI of 22.5, middle of the healthy range for my height, I would weigh 63kg and have a body fat percentage of 6%.
For a BMI of 20, bottom of the healthy range, I would weigh 56kg, have 0% body fat, and would have had to lose either 3kg of lean tissue or my skeleton.
I think that's quite interesting - we all know that BMI can be a crock of s
t, but we also know that most people pointing out that elite sportsmen are overweight by BMI are not international rugby players or body builders but fat people. I wouldn't say I was particularly muscular. I have (apparently) very good bone density and I have short legs and a long torso. Still, I wouldn't have expected the BMI guidelines to be so far out for me.otolith said:
OK, I have just calculated what I "should" weigh according to BMI.
I'm 5'6. That gives;
BMI of 20 - bottom of healthy : 56kg
BMI of 22.5 - middle of healthy : 63kg
BMI of 25 - top of healthy : 70kg
I recently had a DEXA scan. My body composition was;
Total Mass : 76.7kg
Fat : 17kg
Lean tissue : 56.4kg
Bone mineral : 3.3kg
Body fat percentage (overall) 22.3%
Body fat percentage (excluding bones) 23.3%
I'm not sure which of those two figures is comparable to the numbers estimated with calipers/displacement/BEI, but I'm going to assume it's total fat mass / total body mass.
On that basis, for a BMI of 25, maximum "healthy" weight, I would weigh 70kg and have a body fat percentage of 15%.
For a BMI of 22.5, middle of the healthy range for my height, I would weigh 63kg and have a body fat percentage of 6%.
For a BMI of 20, bottom of the healthy range, I would weigh 56kg, have 0% body fat, and would have had to lose either 3kg of lean tissue or my skeleton.
I think that's quite interesting - we all know that BMI can be a crock of st, but we also know that most people pointing out that elite sportsmen are overweight by BMI are not international rugby players or body builders but fat people. I wouldn't say I was particularly muscular. I have (apparently) very good bone density and I have short legs and a long torso. Still, I wouldn't have expected the BMI guidelines to be so far out for me.
How did you go about getting this scan done? Is it something I could get done myself?I'm 5'6. That gives;
BMI of 20 - bottom of healthy : 56kg
BMI of 22.5 - middle of healthy : 63kg
BMI of 25 - top of healthy : 70kg
I recently had a DEXA scan. My body composition was;
Total Mass : 76.7kg
Fat : 17kg
Lean tissue : 56.4kg
Bone mineral : 3.3kg
Body fat percentage (overall) 22.3%
Body fat percentage (excluding bones) 23.3%
I'm not sure which of those two figures is comparable to the numbers estimated with calipers/displacement/BEI, but I'm going to assume it's total fat mass / total body mass.
On that basis, for a BMI of 25, maximum "healthy" weight, I would weigh 70kg and have a body fat percentage of 15%.
For a BMI of 22.5, middle of the healthy range for my height, I would weigh 63kg and have a body fat percentage of 6%.
For a BMI of 20, bottom of the healthy range, I would weigh 56kg, have 0% body fat, and would have had to lose either 3kg of lean tissue or my skeleton.
I think that's quite interesting - we all know that BMI can be a crock of s
t, but we also know that most people pointing out that elite sportsmen are overweight by BMI are not international rugby players or body builders but fat people. I wouldn't say I was particularly muscular. I have (apparently) very good bone density and I have short legs and a long torso. Still, I wouldn't have expected the BMI guidelines to be so far out for me.otolith said:
I think that's quite interesting - we all know that BMI can be a crock of st, but we also know that most people pointing out that elite sportsmen are overweight by BMI are not international rugby players or body builders but fat people. I wouldn't say I was particularly muscular. I have (apparently) very good bone density and I have short legs and a long torso. Still, I wouldn't have expected the BMI guidelines to be so far out for me.
It is pretty interesting. BMI does seem to work fairly well for most people - but as you get towards the "outliers" it becomes less useful.t, but we also know that most people pointing out that elite sportsmen are overweight by BMI are not international rugby players or body builders but fat people. I wouldn't say I was particularly muscular. I have (apparently) very good bone density and I have short legs and a long torso. Still, I wouldn't have expected the BMI guidelines to be so far out for me.As a tool for doctors to say "you're a bit chubby" without it sounding rude, it's very good though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_fat_percentage
Edited by Deisel Weisel on Thursday 21st July 00:47
Sparkzz said:
How did you go about getting this scan done? Is it something I could get done myself?
There are a few companies around the country offering them. Because it involves a (trivial) bit of radiation exposure, they currently aren't allowed to do it without good reason - curiosity is not good enough. If you don't have a referral from a doctor, they will generate one internally, but they need a suitable reason. When you contact them, they will tell you this, and may also helpfully provide some examples of acceptable reasons... Things like a specific health/medical issue or recovery from a sports injury or on a sports fitness/diet programme, muscular imbalances. It takes about five minutes, plus consultation time where they explain the results to you. It costs about £100, with discounts for follow ups or packages of scans. It gives you the total mass of lean tissue, fat and bone, mass of fat and muscle on each limb, ratio of hip and waist fat, bone mineral density and relative skeletal muscle index
Sample report here;
http://www.bonewellness.com/wp-content/uploads/201...
Deisel Weisel said:
Those are typical figures, though, rather than in some sense "optimal" ones. I guess the cost/difficulty of estimating it compared to "what do you weigh, how tall are you" means that there isn't the same epidemiological data that there is for BMI.davepoth said:
It is pretty interesting. BMI does seem to work fairly well for most people - but as you get towards the "outliers" it becomes less useful.
As a tool for doctors to say "you're a bit chubby" without it sounding rude, it's very good though.
There is that!As a tool for doctors to say "you're a bit chubby" without it sounding rude, it's very good though.
Should probably book the MOT with the practice nurse they offered me when I turned 40 a few years ago. Might wait a bit longer until I am visibly Not Fat, whatever their graph says!
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff