measurements

[Guest guest]

I wasn't talking about spot reducing. You do have lose weight by exercising AND watching what you eat (70-80% of weight loss is diet, not exercise). When the fat is gone, you can see muscles. In my case, when the fat was gone the muscles were there but they were just hanging because I did not exercise while I was losing weight. My arms flapped in the breeze too and I was pretty sure there was no excess fat on them. I worked on strength training and my arms firmed up very nicely, only my hand waves now, but I hated working my abs and thought I still had excess belly fat until the trainer told me to work my core for functional strength and that I'd see the blob dissipate too, just like my arms had. That's where I was saying she was right. I wasn't losing weight, I was toning muscle so it wasn't spot reducing fat at all in my case.

Re: Re: measurements

I thought that no one can spot reduce an area such as the abs. I thought that in order to lose the fat around your middle that you have to do cardio to burn off the fat all over the whole body then do core work to shape the muscles. From what I've read in Shape. Self and from online articles, ab fat is usually the last to go. Jen>> >Be careful about the body fat though, your body does need a certain amount of fat in >order to work right. I'm at about 14% and was cautioned by a trainer not to drop any >more, that I was already too far below the 20% recommended for women my age (42).That's interesting. I've never heard such a thing. I was under the impression ,especially with belly fat, it's a bad thing. Not to mention, unattractive.I don't want to be totally without fat, bodybuilderish. I would like to be able to sit without having a layer of fat laying on my lap. I would like to have a six pack (which I'm pretty sure I have but it's hiding behind the belly fat.) Of course, i'd like to know how much of the belly stuff on me is fat vs extra skin. ( I'd been overweight, actually obese, for some time and had two really big babies...9lbs and 9.3lbs, my first was only 7.8 but he didn't have enough room to go and was born with club foot. (all better now, had surgery at 6 months old or he wouldn't of been able to walk.) Yeah, so I was huge!!! And at only 5.3. my skin stretched out to the max!>(which means I'm truly cancer free!!!!!!!! !! 5 year breast cancer survivor!!!! !!) Congratulations! !!!!

[Guest guest]

I wasn't talking about spot reducing. You do have lose weight by exercising AND watching what you eat (70-80% of weight loss is diet, not exercise). When the fat is gone, you can see muscles. In my case, when the fat was gone the muscles were there but they were just hanging because I did not exercise while I was losing weight. My arms flapped in the breeze too and I was pretty sure there was no excess fat on them. I worked on strength training and my arms firmed up very nicely, only my hand waves now, but I hated working my abs and thought I still had excess belly fat until the trainer told me to work my core for functional strength and that I'd see the blob dissipate too, just like my arms had. That's where I was saying she was right. I wasn't losing weight, I was toning muscle so it wasn't spot reducing fat at all in my case.

Re: Re: measurements

I thought that no one can spot reduce an area such as the abs. I thought that in order to lose the fat around your middle that you have to do cardio to burn off the fat all over the whole body then do core work to shape the muscles. From what I've read in Shape. Self and from online articles, ab fat is usually the last to go. Jen>> >Be careful about the body fat though, your body does need a certain amount of fat in >order to work right. I'm at about 14% and was cautioned by a trainer not to drop any >more, that I was already too far below the 20% recommended for women my age (42).That's interesting. I've never heard such a thing. I was under the impression ,especially with belly fat, it's a bad thing. Not to mention, unattractive.I don't want to be totally without fat, bodybuilderish. I would like to be able to sit without having a layer of fat laying on my lap. I would like to have a six pack (which I'm pretty sure I have but it's hiding behind the belly fat.) Of course, i'd like to know how much of the belly stuff on me is fat vs extra skin. ( I'd been overweight, actually obese, for some time and had two really big babies...9lbs and 9.3lbs, my first was only 7.8 but he didn't have enough room to go and was born with club foot. (all better now, had surgery at 6 months old or he wouldn't of been able to walk.) Yeah, so I was huge!!! And at only 5.3. my skin stretched out to the max!>(which means I'm truly cancer free!!!!!!!! !! 5 year breast cancer survivor!!!! !!) Congratulations! !!!!

[Guest guest]

I think, and I could be wrong, but you lose all over at generally the same rate. If you carry a lot of your weight in the lower part of your body then it will appear to take longer to lose that fat but it is only because there was more deposited from the beginning.

Re: Re: measurements

Hmm.. I don't believe that statement is accurate. It's where you gainfirst is going to be the last to go. That could vary from person toperson. For instance, besides my bloat, I have little fat on mystomach. However, my saddle bag area............DarcyOn Sun, May 31, 2009 at 2:15 AM, from Michigan<volleyjen0416 > wrote:>> From what I've read in Shape. Self and from online articles, ab fat is> usually the last to go.

[Guest guest]

Oh, my heart is just pouring out to you underfat people! I will gladly donate

some of mine if you need any! I'm really generous that way.

: you look fantastic, and you know what, a little loose skin and stretch

marks are normal for someone who's had kids and lost a lot of weight. YOU ARE

BEAUTIFUL! Plastic surgery is there if you really want to splurge and such, but

I kind of like that you have the stretch marks because it makes you human, many

women such as myself can relate, and it's very inspiring! I can look at air

brushed fitness models all the time if I wanted too; I like your photo even

better because that's what most people look like. The media really pushes upon

us this false, unrealistic sense of beauty. YOU are the real deal!

> > Your " underfat " (meaning not enough fat??) is higher than the numbers you

> > say are right for men or women. I was told around 20% is good for women my

> > age (41 at the time I had my body fat checked by a trainer using a

> > professional model Tanita scale, not sure if that is very accurate or not,

> > just assuming it is but might be wrong).

> >

>

> ------------------------------------

>

>

[Guest guest]

That's EXACTLY what my situation was. I thought it was fat but it was just soft muscle looking like fat. Now it is looking like firm, healthy muscle (not a six pack but firm). I never knew about the girdle effect but that is great to know, I can use that as incentive for some of my WWs who don't want to exercise! :-)

RE: Re: measurements

You’re right Jen, you can’t spot reduce. But if you don’t work your abs enough, even if there is very little fat there, it will look like fat because the muscle is soft. Strengthening the muscle will tighten it up and make it act like a girdle and squeeze in. It’s a trick we trainers use to help people who want to lose in the belly first too. That girdle effect will squeeze in some of the remaining fat so it seems like you’ve lost it before you actually do.

Tonya

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of from MichiganSent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 3:15 AM Subject: Re: Re: measurements

I thought that no one can spot reduce an area such as the abs. I thought that in order to lose the fat around your middle that you have to do cardio to burn off the fat all over the whole body then do core work to shape the muscles. From what I've read in Shape. Self and from online articles, ab fat is usually the last to go. Jen>> >Be careful about the body fat though, your body does need a certain amount of fat in >order to work right. I'm at about 14% and was cautioned by a trainer not to drop any >more, that I was already too far below the 20% recommended for women my age (42).That's interesting. I've never heard such a thing. I was under the impression ,especially with belly fat, it's a bad thing. Not to mention, unattractive.I don't want to be totally without fat, bodybuilderish. I would like to be able to sit without having a layer of fat laying on my lap. I would like to have a six pack (which I'm pretty sure I have but it's hiding behind the belly fat.) Of course, i'd like to know how much of the belly stuff on me is fat vs extra skin. ( I'd been overweight, actually obese, for some time and had two really big babies...9lbs and 9.3lbs, my first was only 7.8 but he didn't have enough room to go and was born with club foot. (all better now, had surgery at 6 months old or he wouldn't of been able to walk.) Yeah, so I was huge!!! And at only 5.3. my skin stretched out to the max!>(which means I'm truly cancer free!!!!!!!! !! 5 year breast cancer survivor!!!! !!) Congratulations! !!!!

No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG - www.avg.comVersion: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.37/2130 - Release Date: 05/31/09 05:53:00

[Guest guest]

AWESOME EXPLANATION, TONYA!!!!!! I totally get it now!!! Thank you for taking the time to write that!!!!

New question... if you're at the underfat level, what kinds of things would you notice regarding your body not performing at its peak? Would you notice especially if you have no idea what your body at its peak feels like? Also, do you know how accurate a Tanita (professional model) scale with the body fat analyzer feature would likely be? It said I was 14% and I'm wondering how much that is give or take. I weigh about 109 and am 5' tall (okay, 4' 11 3/4" but it is close enough to 5' to call it that for this purpose) and I have seen at least one other place that my "happy weight" (that's what it said) is around 114. I've been really happy where I am and less so at 115 but that might be more emotional than physical. I do want to have my body running in peak condition and optimal health. I know some of this might be things you can't answer without actually having me in person but if you can answer any of it, I'd really appreciate it.

RE: Re: measurements

That's exactly right. Essential fat is just the amount of fat that yourbody has to have in order to properly function. Underfat is aboveessential, but still lower then optimal. Kinda like underweight is betweenideal weight and in a state of starvation.Tonya-----Original Message-----From: [mailto: ]On Behalf Of Darcy LedmanSent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 9:08 PM Subject: Re: Re: measurementsCorrect. I took those numbers off of a chart from ISSA. Obviouslythe essential fat would be "way underfat" too..LOL... The underfatwould mean that your body would function properly, but stillconsidered underfat. Whereas if you didn't have the essential fat,your organs would not function properly. Make sense?Tonya help out. I am TERRIBLE at trying to explain.... LOL..DarcyOn Sat, May 30, 2009 at 7:45 PM, <nancydewolfsbcglobal (DOT) net> wrote:> Your "underfat" (meaning not enough fat??) is higher than the numbers you> say are right for men or women. I was told around 20% is good for women my> age (41 at the time I had my body fat checked by a trainer using a> professional model Tanita scale, not sure if that is very accurate or not,> just assuming it is but might be wrong).>------------------------------------

[Guest guest]



Once again, just to sound like a broken record, you also have to eat healthy, in healthy portions... diet is 70-80% of weight loss. That is NOT a comment on what or how much you eat. I don't have a clue about your foods so I'm not commenting, I'm just saying that you keep emphasizing how cardio is going to take care of the weight but cardio is only a very small part of it. Weight training, btw, is super important too because muscle is an active tissue that will burn lots of calories even while you're resting. The more muscle you have, the higher your metabolism. However, just to repeat myself... you still have to make diet a really big priority.

I'm done repeating myself for now.

RE: Re: measurements

I said that you had to do core work which is the entire core in order to strengthen the muscles. I will still need to do a TON of cardio to get rid of these abs. I think I will start doing Power 90's T-100 ab burner on my cardio days. It's shorter and effective. My abs are so weak and they're weaker now since my abdominal hysterectomy so I know it will take a long time to strengthen them. Jen>> >Be careful about the body fat though, your body does need a certain amount of fat in >order to work right. I'm at about 14% and was cautioned by a trainer not to drop any >more, that I was already too far below the 20% recommended for women my age (42).That's interesting. I've never heard such a thing. I was under the impression ,especially with belly fat, it's a bad thing. Not to mention, unattractive.I don't want to be totally without fat, bodybuilderish. I would like to be able to sit without having a layer of fat laying on my lap. I would like to have a six pack (which I'm pretty sure I have but it's hiding behind the belly fat.) Of course, i'd like to know how much of the belly stuff on me is fat vs extra skin. ( I'd been overweight, actually obese, for some time and had two really big babies...9lbs and 9.3lbs, my first was only 7.8 but he didn't have enough room to go and was born with club foot. (all better now, had surgery at 6 months old or he wouldn't of been able to walk.) Yeah, so I was huge!!! And at only 5.3. my skin stretched out to the max!>(which means I'm truly cancer free!!!!!!!! !! 5 year breast cancer survivor!!!! !!) Congratulations! !!!!

No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG - www.avg.comVersion: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.37/2130 - Release Date: 05/31/09 05:53:00

[Guest guest]

You're so generous, ! But unless Tonya tells me I should accept your offer, I'm declining it. :-)

LOVE your message to too! You are super sweet and such a real deal yourself!

Re: measurements

Oh, my heart is just pouring out to you underfat people! I will gladly donate some of mine if you need any! I'm really generous that way.: you look fantastic, and you know what, a little loose skin and stretch marks are normal for someone who's had kids and lost a lot of weight. YOU ARE BEAUTIFUL! Plastic surgery is there if you really want to splurge and such, but I kind of like that you have the stretch marks because it makes you human, many women such as myself can relate, and it's very inspiring! I can look at air brushed fitness models all the time if I wanted too; I like your photo even better because that's what most people look like. The media really pushes upon us this false, unrealistic sense of beauty. YOU are the real deal!> > Your "underfat" (meaning not enough fat??) is higher than the numbers you> > say are right for men or women. I was told around 20% is good for women my> > age (41 at the time I had my body fat checked by a trainer using a> > professional model Tanita scale, not sure if that is very accurate or not,> > just assuming it is but might be wrong).> >> > ------------------------------------> >

[Guest guest]

,

Fat is responsible for the proper functioning of cell membranes,

skin elasticity, hormone regulation, and transportation of fat soluble

vitamins. So, going too low would probably show up first in lack of skin

elasticity and female issues due to hormone levels being out of whack.

Energy levels and immunity issues could possibly also show up due to the lack

of ability to utilize the fat soluble vitamins A, D, E, and K. Honestly,

though, I wouldn’t worry too much about being underfat as long as you

maintain the essential fat. Professional athletes have a tendency to fall

in that underfat category so much so that my ACE manual actually lists 14-20%

for women as Athletes instead of Underfat. So, at 14% I wouldn’t

worry too much about it, but if you drop below that, add in more calories and good

healthy fats.

As for your scale, the Tanita is the best! Bioelectrical

impedance is the 2nd best form of body composition measurement

behind hydrostatic weighing, which is extremely expensive and usually only

offered at universities and hospitals. I would trust that reading as

accurate. But, know that if it runs on batteries, it will be slightly off

when the battery gets low. Also, Bio-impedance is effected by body water

content so it isn’t accurate within 3 days of your period or if you are

dehydrated.

Tonya

From:

[mailto: ] On

Behalf Of nancydewolf@...

Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 4:59 PM

Subject: Re: Re: measurements

AWESOME

EXPLANATION, TONYA!!!!!! I totally get it now!!! Thank you for taking the time

to write that!!!!

New

question... if you're at the underfat level, what kinds of things would you

notice regarding your body not performing at its peak? Would you notice

especially if you have no idea what your body at its peak feels like? Also, do

you know how accurate a Tanita (professional model) scale with the body fat

analyzer feature would likely be? It said I was 14% and I'm wondering how much

that is give or take. I weigh about 109 and am 5' tall (okay, 4' 11 3/4 "

but it is close enough to 5' to call it that for this purpose) and I have seen

at least one other place that my " happy weight " (that's what it said)

is around 114. I've been really happy where I am and less so at 115

but that might be more emotional than physical. I do want to have my body

running in peak condition and optimal health. I know some of this might be

things you can't answer without actually having me in person but if you can

answer any of it, I'd really appreciate it.

-----

Original Message -----

From: Tonya -

Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009

9:25 AM

Subject: RE: [Exercise

Videos] Re: measurements

Okay, let’s see if this makes more

sense. You know about cars needing oil, right. Ideally, they have

somewhere between 4 and 6 quarts depending on the size of the engine. The

4-6 quarts would be the optimal amount of fat and correlates to the 20%ish mark

of body fat. At that level, both the car and the body run great.

When the car starts burning oil and gets down to 3-5 quarts (again depending on

size, kinda like body fat depends on gender), you might hear a knock in

the engine or a sputter, and when it gets to 1 to 2 quarts, your car

won’t run because the oil isn’t there to do its thing in the

engine. If you drop below the optimal amount of body fat, your body will

still function, but not perform at its peak. That’s Underfat.

If you drop below the essential, things will quit working in the body.

It won’t kill you immediately, just like running out of oil

won’t kill your car immediately. But eventually, you will see the

negative health effects.

Tonya

From:

[mailto: ] On

Behalf Of nancydewolf@...

Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 11:44 PM

Subject: Re: Re: measurements

Okay, I get it now. That term " underfat "

threw me. Still does too, what does it mean (besides what the numbers mean, I'm

just talking about the term... I'm a language nut, sorry).

Anyway, now I understand why the trainer seemed

concerned that my body fat (according to the scale which I realize is not as

accurate as other methods) seemed so low and that my weight was too. Meanwhile,

my response was just giddiness! ;-) She suggested I should weigh about 5

or 10 pounds more than I normally do and that if I do have any problems

with my cycle off tamoxifen that I should consider gaining weight (and I'm sure

you can guess how I felt/feel about that particular suggestion). Will talk with

my doc if I do. At this point, it will probably just be perimenopause though!

;-)

Re: Re: measurements

Correct. I took those numbers off of a chart from ISSA. Obviously

the essential fat would be " way underfat " too..LOL... The underfat

would mean that your body would function properly, but still

considered underfat. Whereas if you didn't have the essential fat,

your organs would not function properly. Make sense?

Tonya help out. I am TERRIBLE at trying to explain.... LOL..

Darcy

On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 7:45 PM, <nancydewolf@...>

wrote:

> Your " underfat " (meaning not enough fat??) is higher than the

numbers you

> say are right for men or women. I was told around 20% is good for women my

> age (41 at the time I had my body fat checked by a trainer using a

> professional model Tanita scale, not sure if that is very accurate or not,

> just assuming it is but might be wrong).

>

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Thank you tons, Tonya, this is so helpful (and reassuring)! The scale isn't mine (though now I'm wishing it was). It was the one at the training facility when I had my fitness assessment last fall. Thank you again!!!

RE: Re: measurements

That's exactly right. Essential fat is just the amount of fat that yourbody has to have in order to properly function. Underfat is aboveessential, but still lower then optimal. Kinda like underweight is betweenideal weight and in a state of starvation.Tonya-----Original Message-----From: [mailto: ]On Behalf Of Darcy LedmanSent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 9:08 PM Subject: Re: Re: measurementsCorrect. I took those numbers off of a chart from ISSA. Obviouslythe essential fat would be "way underfat" too..LOL... The underfatwould mean that your body would function properly, but stillconsidered underfat. Whereas if you didn't have the essential fat,your organs would not function properly. Make sense?Tonya help out. I am TERRIBLE at trying to explain.... LOL..DarcyOn Sat, May 30, 2009 at 7:45 PM, <nancydewolfsbcglobal (DOT) net> wrote:> Your "underfat" (meaning not enough fat??) is higher than the numbers you> say are right for men or women. I was told around 20% is good for women my> age (41 at the time I had my body fat checked by a trainer using a> professional model Tanita scale, not sure if that is very accurate or not,> just assuming it is but might be wrong).>------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

I don't agree with your % of diet/exercise because I still believe to lose weight you have to exercise more than what you eat. I think that the best approach is to watch what you eat AND exercise, not do 80% diet and 20% of exercise. I found some studies say that diet is more important and other studies say exercise is more important. For my own body, when I lost weight before I did it by exercising EVERYDAY and eating healthy EVERYDAY. JMO, Jen>> >Be careful about the body fat though, your body does need a certain amount of fat in >order to work right. I'm at about 14% and was cautioned by a trainer not to drop any >more, that I was already too far below the 20% recommended for women my age (42).That's interesting. I've never heard such a thing. I was under the impression ,especially with belly fat, it's a bad thing. Not to mention, unattractive.I don't want to be totally without fat, bodybuilderish. I would like to be able to sit without having a layer of fat laying on my lap. I would like to have a six pack (which I'm pretty sure I have but it's hiding behind the belly fat.) Of course, i'd like to know how much of the belly stuff on me is fat vs extra skin. ( I'd been overweight, actually obese, for some time and had two really big babies...9lbs and 9.3lbs, my first was only 7.8 but he didn't have enough room to go and was born with club foot. (all better now, had surgery at 6 months old or he wouldn't of been able to walk.) Yeah, so I was huge!!! And at only 5.3. my skin stretched out to the max!>(which means I'm truly cancer free!!!!!!!! !! 5 year breast cancer survivor!!!! !!) Congratulations! !!!!

[Guest guest]

I am eating healthy! Jen>> >Be careful about the body fat though, your body does need a certain amount of fat in >order to work right. I'm at about 14% and was cautioned by a trainer not to drop any >more, that I was already too far below the 20% recommended for women my age (42).That's interesting. I've never heard such a thing. I was under the impression ,especially with belly fat, it's a bad thing. Not to mention, unattractive.I don't want to be totally without fat, bodybuilderish. I would like to be able to sit without having a layer of fat laying on my lap. I would like to have a six pack (which I'm pretty sure I have but it's hiding behind the belly fat.) Of course, i'd like to know how much of the belly stuff on me is fat vs extra skin. ( I'd been overweight, actually obese, for some time and had two really big babies...9lbs and 9.3lbs, my first was only 7.8 but he didn't have enough room to go and was born with club foot. (all better now, had surgery at 6 months old or he wouldn't of been able to walk.) Yeah, so I was huge!!! And at only 5.3. my skin stretched out to the max!>(which means I'm truly cancer free!!!!!!!! !! 5 year breast cancer survivor!!!! !!) Congratulations! !!!!

No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG - www.avg.comVersion: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.37/2130 - Release Date: 05/31/09 05:53:00

[Guest guest]

I am eating healthy! Jen>> >Be careful about the body fat though, your body does need a certain amount of fat in >order to work right. I'm at about 14% and was cautioned by a trainer not to drop any >more, that I was already too far below the 20% recommended for women my age (42).That's interesting. I've never heard such a thing. I was under the impression ,especially with belly fat, it's a bad thing. Not to mention, unattractive.I don't want to be totally without fat, bodybuilderish. I would like to be able to sit without having a layer of fat laying on my lap. I would like to have a six pack (which I'm pretty sure I have but it's hiding behind the belly fat.) Of course, i'd like to know how much of the belly stuff on me is fat vs extra skin. ( I'd been overweight, actually obese, for some time and had two really big babies...9lbs and 9.3lbs, my first was only 7.8 but he didn't have enough room to go and was born with club foot. (all better now, had surgery at 6 months old or he wouldn't of been able to walk.) Yeah, so I was huge!!! And at only 5.3. my skin stretched out to the max!>(which means I'm truly cancer free!!!!!!!! !! 5 year breast cancer survivor!!!! !!) Congratulations! !!!!

No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG - www.avg.comVersion: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.37/2130 - Release Date: 05/31/09 05:53:00

[Guest guest]

I didn't realize it was the 2nd best either Tonya. Hmm.. I have a

Tanita body fat scale, but take what it says like a grain of salt.

Where do you put skinfold measurements into this? I thought that was

more accurate?

Darcy

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 8:17 PM, <nancydewolf@...> wrote:

>   Bioelectrical impedance is the 2nd best form of body composition

> measurement behind hydrostatic weighing, which is extremely expensive and

> usually only offered at universities and hospitals.

[Guest guest]

I didn't realize it was the 2nd best either Tonya. Hmm.. I have a

Tanita body fat scale, but take what it says like a grain of salt.

Where do you put skinfold measurements into this? I thought that was

more accurate?

Darcy

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 8:17 PM, <nancydewolf@...> wrote:

>   Bioelectrical impedance is the 2nd best form of body composition

> measurement behind hydrostatic weighing, which is extremely expensive and

> usually only offered at universities and hospitals.

[Guest guest]

Skinfold measurements would be ranked 3rd. The reason is that they only

measure topical body fat, not the fat around the organs which can be more

dangerous. Usually, I've seen that calipers give a reading of 10-15 percent

lower than the scales, which can be good for the mental outlook, but not

necessarily accurate.

Tonya

Re: Re: measurements

I didn't realize it was the 2nd best either Tonya. Hmm.. I have a

Tanita body fat scale, but take what it says like a grain of salt.

Where do you put skinfold measurements into this? I thought that was

more accurate?

Darcy

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 8:17 PM, <nancydewolf@...> wrote:

>   Bioelectrical impedance is the 2nd best form of body composition

> measurement behind hydrostatic weighing, which is extremely expensive and

> usually only offered at universities and hospitals.

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Skinfold measurements would be ranked 3rd. The reason is that they only

measure topical body fat, not the fat around the organs which can be more

dangerous. Usually, I've seen that calipers give a reading of 10-15 percent

lower than the scales, which can be good for the mental outlook, but not

necessarily accurate.

Tonya

Re: Re: measurements

I didn't realize it was the 2nd best either Tonya. Hmm.. I have a

Tanita body fat scale, but take what it says like a grain of salt.

Where do you put skinfold measurements into this? I thought that was

more accurate?

Darcy

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 8:17 PM, <nancydewolf@...> wrote:

>   Bioelectrical impedance is the 2nd best form of body composition

> measurement behind hydrostatic weighing, which is extremely expensive and

> usually only offered at universities and hospitals.

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Believe what you like Jen.

Re: Re: measurements

I don't agree with your % of diet/exercise because I still believe to lose weight you have to exercise more than what you eat. I think that the best approach is to watch what you eat AND exercise, not do 80% diet and 20% of exercise. I found some studies say that diet is more important and other studies say exercise is more important. For my own body, when I lost weight before I did it by exercising EVERYDAY and eating healthy EVERYDAY. JMO, Jen>> >Be careful about the body fat though, your body does need a certain amount of fat in >order to work right. I'm at about 14% and was cautioned by a trainer not to drop any >more, that I was already too far below the 20% recommended for women my age (42).That's interesting. I've never heard such a thing. I was under the impression ,especially with belly fat, it's a bad thing. Not to mention, unattractive.I don't want to be totally without fat, bodybuilderish. I would like to be able to sit without having a layer of fat laying on my lap. I would like to have a six pack (which I'm pretty sure I have but it's hiding behind the belly fat.) Of course, i'd like to know how much of the belly stuff on me is fat vs extra skin. ( I'd been overweight, actually obese, for some time and had two really big babies...9lbs and 9.3lbs, my first was only 7.8 but he didn't have enough room to go and was born with club foot. (all better now, had surgery at 6 months old or he wouldn't of been able to walk.) Yeah, so I was huge!!! And at only 5.3. my skin stretched out to the max!>(which means I'm truly cancer free!!!!!!!! !! 5 year breast cancer survivor!!!! !!) Congratulations! !!!!

[Guest guest]

Believe what you like Jen.

Re: Re: measurements

I don't agree with your % of diet/exercise because I still believe to lose weight you have to exercise more than what you eat. I think that the best approach is to watch what you eat AND exercise, not do 80% diet and 20% of exercise. I found some studies say that diet is more important and other studies say exercise is more important. For my own body, when I lost weight before I did it by exercising EVERYDAY and eating healthy EVERYDAY. JMO, Jen>> >Be careful about the body fat though, your body does need a certain amount of fat in >order to work right. I'm at about 14% and was cautioned by a trainer not to drop any >more, that I was already too far below the 20% recommended for women my age (42).That's interesting. I've never heard such a thing. I was under the impression ,especially with belly fat, it's a bad thing. Not to mention, unattractive.I don't want to be totally without fat, bodybuilderish. I would like to be able to sit without having a layer of fat laying on my lap. I would like to have a six pack (which I'm pretty sure I have but it's hiding behind the belly fat.) Of course, i'd like to know how much of the belly stuff on me is fat vs extra skin. ( I'd been overweight, actually obese, for some time and had two really big babies...9lbs and 9.3lbs, my first was only 7.8 but he didn't have enough room to go and was born with club foot. (all better now, had surgery at 6 months old or he wouldn't of been able to walk.) Yeah, so I was huge!!! And at only 5.3. my skin stretched out to the max!>(which means I'm truly cancer free!!!!!!!! !! 5 year breast cancer survivor!!!! !!) Congratulations! !!!!

[Guest guest]



from my original post... "I don't have a clue about your foods so I'm not commenting"

I wasn't and I'm still not so there's nothing to defend yourself against here.

Re: Re: measurements

I am eating healthy! Jen>> >Be careful about the body fat though, your body does need a certain amount of fat in >order to work right. I'm at about 14% and was cautioned by a trainer not to drop any >more, that I was already too far below the 20% recommended for women my age (42).That's interesting. I've never heard such a thing. I was under the impression ,especially with belly fat, it's a bad thing. Not to mention, unattractive.I don't want to be totally without fat, bodybuilderish. I would like to be able to sit without having a layer of fat laying on my lap. I would like to have a six pack (which I'm pretty sure I have but it's hiding behind the belly fat.) Of course, i'd like to know how much of the belly stuff on me is fat vs extra skin. ( I'd been overweight, actually obese, for some time and had two really big babies...9lbs and 9.3lbs, my first was only 7.8 but he didn't have enough room to go and was born with club foot. (all better now, had surgery at 6 months old or he wouldn't of been able to walk.) Yeah, so I was huge!!! And at only 5.3. my skin stretched out to the max!>(which means I'm truly cancer free!!!!!!!! !! 5 year breast cancer survivor!!!! !!) Congratulations! !!!!

No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG - www.avg.comVersion: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.37/2130 - Release Date: 05/31/09 05:53:00

[Guest guest]



from my original post... "I don't have a clue about your foods so I'm not commenting"

I wasn't and I'm still not so there's nothing to defend yourself against here.

Re: Re: measurements

I am eating healthy! Jen>> >Be careful about the body fat though, your body does need a certain amount of fat in >order to work right. I'm at about 14% and was cautioned by a trainer not to drop any >more, that I was already too far below the 20% recommended for women my age (42).That's interesting. I've never heard such a thing. I was under the impression ,especially with belly fat, it's a bad thing. Not to mention, unattractive.I don't want to be totally without fat, bodybuilderish. I would like to be able to sit without having a layer of fat laying on my lap. I would like to have a six pack (which I'm pretty sure I have but it's hiding behind the belly fat.) Of course, i'd like to know how much of the belly stuff on me is fat vs extra skin. ( I'd been overweight, actually obese, for some time and had two really big babies...9lbs and 9.3lbs, my first was only 7.8 but he didn't have enough room to go and was born with club foot. (all better now, had surgery at 6 months old or he wouldn't of been able to walk.) Yeah, so I was huge!!! And at only 5.3. my skin stretched out to the max!>(which means I'm truly cancer free!!!!!!!! !! 5 year breast cancer survivor!!!! !!) Congratulations! !!!!

No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG - www.avg.comVersion: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.37/2130 - Release Date: 05/31/09 05:53:00

[Guest guest]

I don't think you are understanding totally Jen. Exercise IS surely

important, but it's not the #1 factor in weightloss. Your diet is.

Your diet is 70 - 80% of the equation of fat loss. The other is

exercise. In order to be as healthy as you can be, yes you need both.

IN FACT, speaking of HEALTHY only, it is better to eat a high-fat

diet and to exercise, than it is to eat healthy and not exercise.

That is " to be healthy " , not to lose weight.

Make sense?

Darcy

On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 6:37 AM, <nancydewolf@...> wrote:

> I think that the best approach is to watch what you eat AND exercise, not do

> 80% diet and 20% of exercise.   I found some studies say that diet is more

> important and other studies say exercise is more important.

[Guest guest]

I don't think you are understanding totally Jen. Exercise IS surely

important, but it's not the #1 factor in weightloss. Your diet is.

Your diet is 70 - 80% of the equation of fat loss. The other is

exercise. In order to be as healthy as you can be, yes you need both.

IN FACT, speaking of HEALTHY only, it is better to eat a high-fat

diet and to exercise, than it is to eat healthy and not exercise.

That is " to be healthy " , not to lose weight.

Make sense?

Darcy

On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 6:37 AM, <nancydewolf@...> wrote:

> I think that the best approach is to watch what you eat AND exercise, not do

> 80% diet and 20% of exercise.   I found some studies say that diet is more

> important and other studies say exercise is more important.

[Guest guest]

Hmm.. I guess I assumed that the ratio of topical fat would also be an

indicator of internal fat as well. So, which method do you use

Tonya? I have lange calipers, but I don't trust myself enough to use

them and get accurate readings. I know it's so easy to be off the

readings.

Darcy

On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 6:13 AM, Tonya -

<tonya@...> wrote:

>

> Skinfold measurements would be ranked 3rd. The reason is that they only

> measure topical body fat, not the fat around the organs which can be more

> dangerous.

[Guest guest]

Hmm.. I guess I assumed that the ratio of topical fat would also be an

indicator of internal fat as well. So, which method do you use

Tonya? I have lange calipers, but I don't trust myself enough to use

them and get accurate readings. I know it's so easy to be off the

readings.

Darcy

On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 6:13 AM, Tonya -

<tonya@...> wrote:

>

> Skinfold measurements would be ranked 3rd. The reason is that they only

> measure topical body fat, not the fat around the organs which can be more

> dangerous.