So I'm curious if anybody else has ran the numbers to figure out what your body fat % would be if you reached your goal weight.
I just did mine and it would make me 6% body fat which is way underfat. Statistics say 23% is the lowest for a healthy woman at 42.
This is how I figured it:
124 = Goal Weight
110 = Current lean muscle mass
6 = Weight of bones
124-110-6=8 lbs of body fat which is 6% of body fat.
So for me to be at 23% body fat I would need to weigh 150 lbs with my current lean muscle mass. Since the idea of IP is to keep you muscle mass intact while losing, I don't anticipate losing a lot of muscle.
In 24 weeks I've lost about 2.5 lbs of muscle and 60 lbs of overall weight.
So I guess I could be happy that 150 lbs would be a new goal and less time on the diet, but it just doesn't seem accurate. Maybe I have too much muscle once I get slimmer and could actually try to lose muscle weight. I imagine with all the years of being overweight my muscles did grow because it had to carry around so much extra fat.
Has anybody else run into this? It may sound silly, but I would like to get to 125 lbs. Maybe I'll just have to see what my body looks like at 150 and then figure out how to lose muscle. Any ideas????
I was 115 lbs at my lowest weight and had some muscle, though not as much as now. I never thought of it from a body fat percentage point of view, but I have now been working out for quite a while and think that I can easily set my weight 15-20 lbs higher without looking that much bigger. At least that is what my old clothes tell me since they fit well now, but were tight when I was 15 lbs lighter several years back.
I would like to get into the 130s, but set my goal at 140 for the moment. I still have plenty of fat that needs to go. I am not sure I want to get rid of any muscle. I am now in the best shape I have been in the past 25 years and think once menopause hits, muscle is going to help to keep your body in shape. I also like curves if they are toned.
There is also another reason for more realism. I have now been through 8 weeks of diet brake to focus on my job and have found that while I can easily maintain my weight, I do so by eating only 1500-1700 calories/day. I guess its my age and a slow metabolism/sedentary lifestyle. I figure it will be hard to maintain weight at a body fat percentage below 20% and in your 120s. My weight loss rate has also slowed down once I hit the 160s. If maximum daily calorie limits move down further to maintain at my goal weight, I will have to change things up quite a bit to make it work. The easiest probably would be to just relent and take thyroid hormones, since mine are a bit low. Eating less than I do now would be impossible for me and exercising more would require a lot of discipline. I do 30 min/day 6 days/week right now.
The number on the scale is deceiving. I hover between 157-160lbs, but I am TWO SIZES smaller than I was at my thinnest before having kids (and then I was pretty steadily between 160-165lbs). The weight just comes off differently on IP, and if we are going by our previous weight/shape when determining goal weight, it may be that our "ideal" weight is a bigger number than we thought. I would say get to 150 and evaluate your shape and size then.
Thank you for your replies. I'm not lifting weights at all. Just walking, some cycling, but nothing too crazy right now.
Scorbett - so true about the size. Even at my current weight of 197 I'm in a 14-16 pants which is unheard of at this weight in the past. 50 more lbs and I'll be at size 8-10.
I remember reading awhile back that we lose connective tissue along with fat and muscle when we lose weight. We need more connective tissue the bigger we are, less the smaller we get. So by that logic, you could get back down under 150 for a goal I'd think.
A female bodybuilder is 8% ish on stage so, don't worry I've been in the sport years and have never heard of a female getting to that point even while being dizzy and dehydrated on stage. You will lose a fair amount of lean mass before that weight, because you also don't need that much mass to carry a smaller frame.
I don't think your calculations are correct. Body fat is what is left after deducting your lean body weight which includes your bones and muscles. I've never seen calculators breaking it down the way you have done so. Lean body weight is calculated using age, height and measurements of your waist, thigh etc.
At 124, there is no way you can be a 6% bf unless you're a superstar builder and even then, highly unlikely for a 6% bf only.
I say poohy with the numbers. Look at how you feel! If you get to 150 and feel good but still wanna lose more than go for it. With your height you can lose more and be healthy! Just take care of YOU! We need you here!
It will come down to how happy you are with whatever end scale weight you choose.
Accepting that the bodyfat devices aren't particularly accurate and are just showing a trend, if you would like to "play with the numbers"...
I've never seen separating lean mass and bone mass. For the sake of calculations, let's say at 197.6 your lean mass is 116 lbs and your fat mass is 81.6. Let's say you do not lose any lean mass (which includes water, connective tissue for fat, so it isn't realistic, but...) then at 125 with 116 lbs lean mass you would be 7.2% body fat.
So let's take the more realistic "guess" at what is going to happen when you lose 72.6 lbs of weight. Likely, you will lose 1 lbs of lean mass(not necessarily muscle but water, connective tissue, etc) for every 4 lbs of total weight. That could be about 18 lbs of lean mass, reducing your final lean mass to 98 lbs. Now, at 125 lbs total weight, with 98 lbs lean mass you would be at 21.6% body fat. At 150 lbs total weight, following the same reasoning, you would be at 104 lbs lean mass which would be 30% body fat.
Of course, you might very well keep more lean mass than average and make your desired body fat at a much higher scale weight.
So, even with the math we are at the same spot. You will need to decide when you are happy with how you look/feel, and settle in there for your final goal weight.
Thank you for your replies. I'm not lifting weights at all. Just walking, some cycling, but nothing too crazy right now.
Scorbett - so true about the size. Even at my current weight of 197 I'm in a 14-16 pants which is unheard of at this weight in the past. 50 more lbs and I'll be at size 8-10.
I think it really depends on the person. Last time I was at 150 lbs I was a size 6-8, and I'm 5'3. I'm just a really big person and I build muscle likes its's my job its the only consolation for having the kind of metabolism MADE to withstand famines!
I also think you need to stop at what looks good. I am a pear and my face just doesn't look as good at lower weights, it gets too skinny. if you work out and you are healthy...i wouldn't take the scale thing too far.
IMHO, I think the whole body fat #'s thing and BMI calculations are silly. I'm 5' 2" and according to my body fat I am JUST under "at risk" and according to the BMI, I'm still considered "overweight". I would have to lose another 10lbs or so to meet their "standards", however I am comfortable with both the way I look and feel. I think you need to do what you are comfortable with and not get stuck on the numbers that tell us where we "should be"
It will come down to how happy you are with whatever end scale weight you choose.
Accepting that the bodyfat devices aren't particularly accurate and are just showing a trend, if you would like to "play with the numbers"...
I've never seen separating lean mass and bone mass. For the sake of calculations, let's say at 197.6 your lean mass is 116 lbs and your fat mass is 81.6. Let's say you do not lose any lean mass (which includes water, connective tissue for fat, so it isn't realistic, but...) then at 125 with 116 lbs lean mass you would be 7.2% body fat.
So let's take the more realistic "guess" at what is going to happen when you lose 72.6 lbs of weight. Likely, you will lose 1 lbs of lean mass(not necessarily muscle but water, connective tissue, etc) for every 4 lbs of total weight. That could be about 18 lbs of lean mass, reducing your final lean mass to 98 lbs. Now, at 125 lbs total weight, with 98 lbs lean mass you would be at 21.6% body fat. At 150 lbs total weight, following the same reasoning, you would be at 104 lbs lean mass which would be 30% body fat.
Of course, you might very well keep more lean mass than average and make your desired body fat at a much higher scale weight.
So, even with the math we are at the same spot. You will need to decide when you are happy with how you look/feel, and settle in there for your final goal weight.
This! Lean mass will change as you lose. Ultimately, it's not about a number but how you feel.
I just did mine and it would make me 6% body fat which is way underfat. Statistics say 23% is the lowest for a healthy woman at 42.
This is how I figured it:
124 = Goal Weight
110 = Current lean muscle mass
6 = Weight of bones
124-110-6=8 lbs of body fat which is 6% of body fat.
So for me to be at 23% body fat I would need to weigh 150 lbs with my current lean muscle mass. Since the idea of IP is to keep you muscle mass intact while losing, I don't anticipate losing a lot of muscle.
#1 - You don't have 110 lbs of LBM. Not sure where this figure came from? It's entirely possible for a 5'3" woman to have 110 lbs of LBM but unless you have some extremely unusual genetics or have 10 years of heavy lifting under your belt you don't have that much LBM.
#2 - IP marketing aside - if you're not losing you're muscles and you're in a steep caloric deficit (like IP) you're going to lose muscle. The point of any PSMF is to lose fat as fast as possible while retaining LBM but you still lose plenty when you drop a lot of weight.
#3 - As others have said - you'll know if you need to lose more weight at 150 lbs when you get there.
Goal Weight Would Make Me 6% Body Fat
I've been in the sport years and have never heard of a female getting to that point even while being dizzy and dehydrated on stage. You will lose a fair amount of lean mass before that weight, because you also don't need that much mass to carry a smaller frame.
