Body Fat
Friday, 25 August 2006
I'd just like to go on record saying that I don't like the "cut" look, and I think most men agree with me. Regardless, the trend in fitness magazines seems to be to present as ideal women with body fat levels of 12% or 13%. That's foolish, because at that level some women will cease menstruating and many will also suffer an increased risk of calcium deficiencies. Aside from the health concerns, which are significant, women also begin to look a bit haggard and dried out when they get too lean, and when they drop below 20%, most women become effectively flat-chested. As a fan of boobs I find this unfortunate.

The floor on recommended body fat percentage for women is about 16%. It varies from person to person - because bodies differ in where they store fat - but a woman with chiseled abs will usually have a body fat percentage well below 16%. Generally, if you see a woman with fabulous, cut abs, she's not carrying enough body fat.

There's a mixed message from the media on this, too. On the one hand most beauty magazines still sell the idea that skinny is beautiful. [Boo!] The fitness magazines seem to push a fusion of skinny and muscular as beautiful, which isn't as bad from my admittedly libido-motivated point of view, but could possibly drive even more neurotic behavior than skinny alone. One of the things I liked about Women's Fitness Magazine, which has ceased publication, is that it frequently featured cover models with an appropriate, healthy level of body fat. Other magazines, such as Oxygen and Shape, more often feature cover models who aren't carrying enough fat.

Obviously in the U.S. (and the western world in general) we have a lot more trouble with people carrying too much fat rather than too little. Maybe I'm making a pot-belly out of a tummy roll? Still, I've noticed recently an increased public awareness of the fat-reduction benefits of fatty acids like omega-3, and of other natural food extracts like sesamin. For most people this is good news, because it tends to crowd out the charlatans who sell various weight loss supplement crap. However, for women seeking to get down to very low body fat levels, it just piles on more tools to do it. And that's not necessarily a good thing.

Related Items:

Comments
Add NewSearch
kulli   | Registered | 2006-08-26 15:15:35
I do not at all like the really-low-body-fat look, which is one of the reasons that when I get in the going to the gym mood that I don't primarily concentrate on losing fat (the other might be since while I can diet.. crisps are just such a total weakness of mine Dx).
But then different fats have different structures of molecules (so act differently) and the fat under the skin essentially is the same type as that around organs protecting and insulating them (which is the good use of it..). It's not the same as cholesterol which is probably the biggest problem with fat.. and that's what all these Benecol and such things are there for.
But there's a balance, and honestly women are meant to have fat on their bodies, biologically because of having children and the strain of that. It's just the way it is, even if a woman never has children it's still healthier for her to have a greater percentage of fat than people seem to be putting in magazines these days..
Crap I sure can ramble on sometimes.
Only registered users can write comments!

Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved.

 
< Prev   Next >
RocketTheme Joomla Templates