thefooloftheyear Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 I'm going to say that yes, it is unrealistic for most women because we work full time, study, have families, hobbies and daily lives to keep us busy. I've never had anything resembling abs in my life. A lot of us also cant afford gyms and personal trainers. Sorry, but Ill only say this... Saying all of the things you mentioned will prevent someone from obtaining a really great physique or a very high level of fitness, is just nonsense and excuses...Is it easy? Nope....But many people can and do all of the things you mentioned(and more) and have rocking bodies...And most gyms now are less than a cup of coffee..and you really dont need a trainer...its a luxury.. Its just a matter of how bad do you really want it? TFY 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Els Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 A woman needs some extra fat, or serious health problems will arise...Even as a guy, where bf isnt as much of an issue, when I was wrestling competitively I often had bf levels of less than 5%...I can tell you that I suffered constant headaches, nosebleeds, and even hallucinations..no, not kidding.. I think this isn't stressed enough, really. There's just something about the modern trend that 'lower is best' that seems to override any and all advice by medical practitioners. I think there was a woman here who said she was aiming for <13%, really bad idea. She's going to be dipping into her essential fat reserves, which will cause a host of medical problems down the road. I am all for people going for the body they want, but I wish some would exercise more common sense. In my view, the woman going for <13% body fat is no different from the woman gorging herself to 300+lbs because she wants to be a huge BBW. 3 Link to post Share on other sites
Taramere Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 I think this isn't stressed enough, really. There's just something about the modern trend that 'lower is best' that seems to override any and all advice by medical practitioners. I think there was a woman here who said she was aiming for <13%, really bad idea. She's going to be dipping into her essential fat reserves, which will cause a host of medical problems down the road. I mentioned in another thread that in my previous gym, there was a male personal trainer who carried out a fitness assessment on me and said we should be aiming to get me down to a fat percentage of 12%. Which would have been fine for a guy, but certainly not for a woman. I was pretty alarmed that somebody who was supposed to be a fitness professional would have such a limited knowledge of women's bodies and fat storage needs. I'd certainly never aim for a level like that. 4 Link to post Share on other sites
SomeDude16 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Results will vary depending on genetics. Is that an achievable body fat percentage? Yes, absolutely. Is it easy? No. It is all work, sacrafice, and endure to attain that level of "fitness". 2 Link to post Share on other sites
guest569 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 I'm sure it is achievable, but it is not realistic for most people.. Link to post Share on other sites
Ninjainpajamas Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) I think people always fail to take into account that although they might not have a certain body part that is genetically "perfect" or "ideal" they may have another body part that is ideal. To have the whole package is rare genetically, but to be able to get into really good shape is not unrealistic...the question is whether people are willing to put in the effort to look good. It's the reason people are overweight, blaming genetics while chomping on chocolate, icecream and hamburgers...it's lack of exercise and diet...the reality is, that the reason most things are unrealistic to most people is because of lack of effort, motivation and desire to do so rather than a poor roll of the dice in life. I don't think everyone has to look like a fitness champion or anywhere close to it, but you can always look better if the effort was placed there. The reality is, people rather make a blanket statement and get out of jail card of not being genetically "perfect" being the main reason they don't have this kind of body. I don't believe girl #1 is perfect, I'm sure there are some women who have better hips, and rear than she does or even better thighs or arms and maybe she just has the abs and shoulders. There's always a critique in people because nobody is perfect, but to label these people that do put in the time and effort to look a certain way and when they succeed you just call them genetically gifted is a bit of a joke IMO. Nobody wants to admit that maybe they're just lazy...maybe it's not work, maybe it's not the kids, maybe it's not marriage, maybe it's not because your guy is "happy with the way you are"...maybe the reality is that you're lazy and that's why you will never look that way...and honestly that's fine. I will probably never be as ripped as the guy in the other photo, not because I can't but because I probably don't have the desire to ever go that far...is that a positive or negative thing? no it's a choice...if that guy wants to look that way then good for him, I'm not going to sulk and say "he has better genetics", what if he doesn't? then who do I blame? but don't worry I know people will always find some excuse. This is one of the main problems with the world I have today, people rather make excuses and lie about something or try and take less responsibility...just be honest and say the truth, it doesn't have to be this "genetics" or a long list of excuses or reasons and you don't have to be talking crap about another girl who looks good and attractive when people sit around all day here sitting on their asses talking about how all women should be appreciated the way they are...it seems like that's only convenient when it's about fat people...everyone who has achieved something in the fitness world, whether through steroids or not is somehow a glutton for punishment and suffers from extremely poor self-esteem. Right, because everyone else in the world is so confident Reminds me of the controversy...the woman loses a gigantic amount of weight, looks extremely thin but her BMI is only slightly under healthy where as when she was overweight it was probably at critical mass, but no, now that she is skinny, everyone was concerned about her "health". And yet looks are supposed to be "subjective" to some people, while at the same time "everyone is different"...such open acceptance of the world, so loving, and just not in the slightest biased and hypocritical! Edited January 18, 2015 by Ninjainpajamas 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Taramere Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) Results will vary depending on genetics. Is that an achievable body fat percentage? Yes, absolutely. Is it easy? No. It is all work, sacrafice, and endure to attain that level of "fitness". 12% fat is realistic for men, but not for women. That's precisely the mistake that instructor made. If you look at the chart in the following link, you'll see the guidance: Ideal Body Fat Percentage Chart: How Lean Should You Be? - BuiltLean Essential fat for women - 10-13%, and that means the bare minimum required to stay alive. For female athletes, 14-20% is recommended. For women who aren't athletes but who nonetheless in a fit condition, 21-24%. You can see next to it that the recommended rates for men are quite different. I remember being shocked at the time that a professional fitness instructor would suggest to a woman that she should be getting her fat percentage level down to 12%. When I checked the figures, on getting home, I saw why he'd made that suggestion. He'd just assumed the recommendations were the same for women as they were for men. It still boggled my mind that he could go through whatever training fitness instructors go through and not know that. It's one of the reasons I tend to quite often be a bit dubious about the fitness advice men give women when it reaches a level where they're advocating extreme leanness. While some seem to have a very good understanding of women's bodies and their differing requirements, there are others like that fitness instructor who just apply male standards across the board. Edit: I did find this which claims to show a man with a fat percentage of 3/4% and a comparative woman of 10/12%. You'll see the writer assesses her at being at the upper range of 12% and notes that this is unsafe for women who will stop menstruating when they reach that level of body fat. I think both of them look veiny and quite bizarre. Like one of those medical diagrams showing different muscles on the body. Particularly the guy at 3-4%. That looks extremely weird - whereas the guys at 10-12% and 15% look really good. I would have thought gyms would be trying to move away from that obsessive, body-building thing in an effort to be more accessible to people who are just aiming for good health and fitness. Edited January 18, 2015 by Taramere 8 Link to post Share on other sites
xxoo Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 She is peaking or close to it. You don't really stay there all the time. It takes a good deal of effort, people usually don't maintain that. One maybe two weeks of less intensity at the gym and control in the kitchen and the hardness goes away. This is an important point, and one that I, myself, lose perspective of when I see these photos of fitness models. Even fitness models aren't ALWAYS at that level of bf or muscle definition. All the more reason that it is not realistic for the average person to achieve, if even the fitness models only achieve it when "peaking" for a competition or event, or dehydrated for a photo op, or whatever. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Imported Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I think most people that put forth the effort to get there will read and learn....and realize that. She may be peaking or close to it, but she is probably not far off throughout the year as well. It is not unattainable to be close to that and close is pretty damn good. In her case, close is probably better anyway. Also, you can figure out how to make your body peak as well if you want. When I know I am going to a cool beach resort for work, I go through my own little program to...peak. It's not really that difficult. No, I don't do it all the time, but it's definitely doable. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
FitChick Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Because it's not "realistic" for most people to become millionaires, does that mean we shouldn't work? Link to post Share on other sites
Emilia Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) I am all for people going for the body they want, but I wish some would exercise more common sense. In my view, the woman going for <13% body fat is no different from the woman gorging herself to 300+lbs because she wants to be a huge BBW. I think Imported's point is valid that she was peaking, ie the leanest she was for a short period of time and she likely isn't usually this lean. But still, I agree. Unless it's a fitness model doing it for a living, I don't understand why people would put their body under so much stress. It's not attractive IMO, very lean people tend to have a scrawny looking face as well as a very hard body that's not all that nice to touch. I prefer to feel softness under my fingertips when I touch someone, I would imagine most people are that way. Edited January 19, 2015 by Emilia 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Els Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) Edit: I did find this which claims to show a man with a fat percentage of 3/4% and a comparative woman of 10/12%. You'll see the writer assesses her at being at the upper range of 12% and notes that this is unsafe for women who will stop menstruating when they reach that level of body fat. I think both of them look veiny and quite bizarre. Like one of those medical diagrams showing different muscles on the body. Particularly the guy at 3-4%. That looks extremely weird - whereas the guys at 10-12% and 15% look really good. I would have thought gyms would be trying to move away from that obsessive, body-building thing in an effort to be more accessible to people who are just aiming for good health and fitness. Interesting chart. I'm curious why the real-life women photos have such a stark difference between 30% and 35%. The model at 30% has visible ribs and thinner arms and shoulders than even the 25% counterpart, whereas the model at 35% is verging on overweight. Most women I know are somewhere between these 2 pictures, and it's unlikely that their body fat % are all so close to each other. Could the 30% one be mislabelled, or are her boobs just skewing the %? What do you think about these pictures instead? Visually Estimating Body Fat Percentage | Ruled Me Edited January 19, 2015 by Elswyth 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Emilia Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Interesting chart. I'm curious why the real-life women photos have such a stark difference between 30% and 35%. The model at 30% has visible ribs and thinner arms and shoulders than even the 25% counterpart, whereas the model at 35% is verging on overweight. Most women I know are somewhere between these 2 pictures, and it's unlikely that their body fat % are all so close to each other. Could the 30% one be mislabelled, or are her boobs just skewing the %? What do you think about these pictures instead? Visually Estimating Body Fat Percentage | Ruled Me I think it's that on Taramere's link the women were of classic hourglass shape so their body fat distribution looked more attractive. The women on this link are less lucky with their body shape. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Els Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I think it's that on Taramere's link the women were of classic hourglass shape so their body fat distribution looked more attractive. The women on this link are less lucky with their body shape. Ah, okay, good point. It's interesting how the fat distribution in the women varies so much more. All the male pictures seem to generally agree with one another. Also, based on the pictures, seems that my guy is at 10-14%. Dude doesn't even consciously exercise except for walking at work, and can eat 3 burgers in one sitting. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Emilia Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Also, based on the pictures, seems that my guy is at 10-14%. Dude doesn't even consciously exercise except for walking at work, and can eat 3 burgers in one sitting. Hah. Maybe his job isn't an office one. Anyone with even a slightly active job is in a better position that those of us that sit on our backside all day. Link to post Share on other sites
Taramere Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Interesting chart. I'm curious why the real-life women photos have such a stark difference between 30% and 35%. The model at 30% has visible ribs and thinner arms and shoulders than even the 25% counterpart, whereas the model at 35% is verging on overweight. Most women I know are somewhere between these 2 pictures, and it's unlikely that their body fat % are all so close to each other. Could the 30% one be mislabelled, or are her boobs just skewing the %? What do you think about these pictures instead? Visually Estimating Body Fat Percentage | Ruled Me Yes, Emilia said it for me - and I agree with you that 30%'s boobs are probably skewing the figures. In both lots, I think the guys between 10 and 14% and the women between 15 and 20% are the most attractive. I like muscle, but at athlete level - not at the extreme bodybuilder level, which I think makes generally less graceful both in the way they look and in the way they move. Rafael Nadal has a fantastic body. He's got a lot of muscle, obviously, but is still . Like a strong, big cat. Dancers, similarly, have to have a lot of core strength - but they move like a dream. While I do think weight training is invaluable for helping people to build up strength for sport or dancing, the obsessive weight training some people are into, purely in order to build up muscle rather than to improve their performance in sport, leads to a less graceful appearance. Somebody was arguing, in another thread, that extremely developed bodybuilders tend to get "the hottest women". I suppose it's all down to what one considers to be "hot". I tend to think of the top male tennis players as being beautiful men with beautiful wives or girlfriends. People who are into extreme bodybuilding probably prefer that sort of chunky, oiled look you tend to see so much of in fitness model shots. Link to post Share on other sites
xxoo Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 The body fat charts are interesting! I prefer the 17-20% range on the women. I personally wouldn't push to drop lower than that. It's probably attainable for me, but I can't imagine why I'd want to do that. Link to post Share on other sites
USMCHokie Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I found the stick figure in post 1 to be very attractive... Link to post Share on other sites
Author BeholdtheMan Posted January 20, 2015 Author Share Posted January 20, 2015 I found the stick figure in post 1 to be very attractive... Thank you for sharing Link to post Share on other sites
USMCHokie Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Thank you for sharing Thank you for posting. Link to post Share on other sites
BlueIris Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 The body fat charts are interesting! I prefer the 17-20% range on the women. I personally wouldn't push to drop lower than that. It's probably attainable for me, but I can't imagine why I'd want to do that. Exactly. I can’t imagine why anyone would make it a goal, but I suppose a person could get cut like that if he or she put the effort in and is dedicated to it. I was a HS and college swimmer and was very fit and strong, but never cut my body fat that low, and didn’t care to. The goal was physical performance, not appearance. Link to post Share on other sites
USMCHokie Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Exactly. I can’t imagine why anyone would make it a goal, but I suppose a person could get cut like that if he or she put the effort in and is dedicated to it. I was a HS and college swimmer and was very fit and strong, but never cut my body fat that low, and didn’t care to. The goal was physical performance, not appearance. I'd bet a dollar that 95% of people, nay 99%, in the gym are there for aesthetic reasons. Media and popular culture has made that look appealing, so people, men in particular, will make it a goal to achieve that look. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
BlueIris Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) I'd bet a dollar that 95% of people, nay 99%, in the gym are there for aesthetic reasons. Media and popular culture has made that look appealing, so people, men in particular, will make it a goal to achieve that look. I think you'd win that bet. Edited to add: I think it's too bad how looks-obsessed and image-conscious so many people have become. I squirm when I read how many people think attractiveness (meaning physical only, how they look) and confidence (I won't even go into the layers of weirdness in that!) as the key traits people think they should have to "get" (something we acquire) a relationship. Oh well, I've seen things getting out of hand. I guess they always will. Edited January 20, 2015 by BlueIris 2 Link to post Share on other sites
xxoo Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I'd bet a dollar that 95% of people, nay 99%, in the gym are there for aesthetic reasons. Media and popular culture has made that look appealing, so people, men in particular, will make it a goal to achieve that look. Which look are you referring to? The super skinny, or the fitness model skinny? I don't see a whole lot of women with abs in the media, outside fitness specific media. I think a woman would have to be very into the fitness culture to hold that as a goal. Most women prefer a softer look as ideal (17-20% bf maybe). Personally, since having babies, my belly won't lay perfectly flat unless my bf is quite low. I definitely have a hyperfocus on this tiny spot and need to get over it, because the rest of me looks better with a little more softness. Link to post Share on other sites
Rejected Rosebud Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 What do you think about these pictures instead? Visually Estimating Body Fat Percentage | Ruled Me I think it's funny that they used the head of that thinning hair guy with the odd ear on about 4 of the men examples!! Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts