Hi Hamlet_Cat:

Check out DC Rainmakers bio-electrical impedence scale testing:

http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2011/08/bod-pod-consumer-scale-comparison-tes...

As it turns out, the scales are not very accurate.

As you seem to know already, running is about power-to-weight ratio, and, generally, lighter is faster.

I agree that people generally think that triathletes look too skinny. My take on that is that I'm going to get my body in the best shape that I can to compete in our sport and !@!@ what others think.

Good luck with your training.

--Richard

I confused about your confusion? What are you asking? (sorry lack of coffee, may be missing the obvious).

Yes, our culture has gotten so fat that we don't recognize fit any more.
Yes, when you are fit it reminds others that they are not... and they choose to not be fit. They sometimes lash out; e.g. you must have an eating disorder, you must be obsessive compulsive, etc.
Yes, most home based devices are not going to be accurate, but I trust that they are inaccurate consistently such that if the reading is higher or lower than last week's average I know what direction I'm heading.
I'd trust the impedence test more than the "personal trainer/body builder and she said it looked like I was around 18%". Not sure what they means.

People's concept of 'normal' is not an accurate assessment of what is healthy or appropriate anymore. I am 160lbs at 68" and according to the height/weight standards, I am barely within appropriate weight standards. Really, I should be around 152lbs or so. I wear a sized 32 pant and a small shirt. My wife, along with most others, believe I am too skinny. Go figure.

Oh, yeah, you are too skinny to be normal. You would be considered at the low end of the normal % body fat, maybe a bit under. Just show up to an IM race a few days before, that will make you feel like, how you make others feel.

Below is a chart I lifted from some book I have, and I believe it is still fairly accurate. 15% is normal, but not AVERAGE female bodyfat. The amount of fat we need is called "essential fat" and it's shown as a range, because, well, it's not an absolute number.

As far as what people look at and call "skinny," I agree that has changed significantly. Using the table below, my guess is people consider someone skinny who is 2 places lower on the chart. Women at 15% bf will appear at least "thin," in the sense that muscles will be visible, i.e., they will look "cut." A model who is quite thin is probably still over 15% bf, but IMO their physiques are more determined by where their bodies deposit fat, and as long as it's distributed equally, it doesn't look so bad. Interesing the table leaves out the %'S between elite triathletes and average American. For the sake of example, let's say 16-22% BF on a woman would still be viewed as at least "thin." In my own experience, once I dropped below 20%, I felt like I was already in a different league than average, and then each % below 20 results in a progressively more "cut" look. I figure I am 12-13% now.

If I were you, I wouldn't obsess about further weight loss--if you are meant to be even leaner, it will happen. Just maintain a healthy diet with sufficient calories to fuel your training, and the weight you achieve will take care of itself. I know when I'm "right" when I don't feel like I'm carrying excess weight running or biking hills. My "right" is a range of about 5 lbs. as my composition will change throughout a training season, and it's OK by me to go up a few points of bf over the winter.

Bodyfat Percentage Ranges
Men Women
Essential fat 3-5 11-13
Elite distance runners 5-8 13-17
Elite triathletes 5-12 8-15
Average American 15-20 23-26
Overweight 20-25 26-35
Overfat (obese) Over 25 Over 35

Throw out the personal trainer / body builder - saying you "look" like you are a certain BF% is like saying you "look" like you have diabetes - there is much under the surface that contributes to body fat percentage, which consists of both visceral & subcutaneous fat (subcutaneous is the one that often gets measured by callipers, whereas bio-electrical measures provide a better account of total body fat %). The only way to know your actual body fat percentage is to be tested. Height-weight ratios, BMI, or estimates don't cut it - even come close to being useful.

As for accuracy, bioelectrical impedance is as reliable of more expensive measures (CT scan, "bod-pod" measurements) as long as it's a good quality scale (TANITA is often the most reliable and validated by independent research).

Which now brings us to the actual post. Here are my thoughts (I have a MSc in Exercise Science & CSCS certification, so I would consider myself fairly well-informed).

1. Women need to have a higher BF% than men to maintain biological functions exclusive to women, which makes it tough when men & women are comparing physiques. For women, this is usually around 12-15%, depending on age and individual factors - anything below this value and these functions stop. Elite triathletes will often go into this range in order to obtain top-level performance (e.g., Chrissie Wellington at Kona this year). If you are willing to be in this range, that's a personal decision weighing personal health and athletic performance.

2. Having a lower than average BF% is an important consideration when competing in a triathlon, but remember that fat also serves as a fuel source during longer events & daily life - so you need to keep a certain amount of fuel in the tank - so you can't lose too much.

3. If looking to lose weight, muscle mass provides an additional source for potential weight loss. Depending on the amount of muscle you have (or more importantly the TYPE of muscle fibres you have), losing some muscle mass through adaptations related to endurance training can be beneficial to triathlon performance. Type IIb muscle fibres are large-diameter fast twitch fibres which are capable of producing a high amount of force, but low aerobic capacity (think NFL linebacker). As we engage in endurance training, type II muscle fibres can adapt to become more aerobic (type IIa), which is a smaller diameter fibre (less force, more aerobic), and in some cases can become type I ("slow-twich"). As fibres become more aerobic, the decrease their diameter so that oxygen can get to more of the fibre faster. Decreased diameter = smaller muscles = less weight (and because muscle weighs more than fat, can result in reduced weight). If you are already a type I / slow-twicher, then this is not a potential source for weight loss.

4. There comes a time where weight loss provides diminishing returns- if you get to an extremely light body weight (e.g., stick-like), you may not have enough power to propel you for each stride, and not enough fat reserves to fuel performance. In this case, sometimes having some extra mass is beneficial!

5. Lastly (and most difficult) is the topic of body image. Society's perception of ideal body size has been largely skewed by media (compare Marilynn Monroe and any Victoria's Secret model), but yet our society (well US society) has become fatter. This dichotomy make social comparisons tough - someone may compare you to themselves (resulting in a subjective rating of "too skinny") whereas you may compare yourself to media sources (triathlon media is guilty as well), resulting in a subjective rating as "fit".

IMO, if your body fat percentage is within healthy ranges based on your age is the most important determinant of healthy body composition. Next consideration is if you are happy with how you look - screw what others think. I put this second, because if we were to put our own perceptions first, it increases the risk for disordered eating / obsessive critiquing as we get skinnier and skinnier.

-RMAC

[quote=hamlet_cat]

Sorry I am confused about why people think I am too skinny. Everyone except the body builder/personal trainer I went to for consultation, thinks I am too skinny. I don't get it because according to my calculations, I am probably still around 3lbs overweight. I think being 15% BF for a woman is normal, where as other people seem to think I am anorexic.

Is having a 15% BF normal for an average person? Or are triathlete's anorexic? I am just really confused about that. Does that help clear it up?[/quote]

Having a BF of 15% is not normal for women overall. For most women, this would be low enough to cause amenorrhea (cessation of periods) and drastically lower their body's production of estrogen. In turn, this causes bone density problems and other long-term health issues.

This is not to be confused with anorexia however, which is a disease in which a person refuses to eat or eats very little, or over-exercises to lose weight. They may be very very thin but perceive themself as still too fat. It has a huge mental health component and unfortunately once you get in an anorexic cycle, its self fulfilling. When body fat gets low enough, it impacts the brain's ability to function well, and this in turn can create a downward spiral. A person can be very thin however without being anorexic. And actually, someone can be anorexic without being thin. Anorexia is a state of mind, whereas thinness can be caused by many things.

So, the bottom line, are many triathletes too thin? Absolutely. There's a poster up at our local tri store of a pro triathlete and it took me a good long look to determine whether it was a man or a woman. Complete lack of breasts and probably several years of estrogen depletion has caused this athlete to look, well, not like a woman at all. You can look at several years worth of photos of elite athletes like Marla Runyan and see the same progression over time:
[img]http://myhero.com/images/guest/g38427/hero34306/g38427_u36488_mrunyan.jp...>[img]http://www.audiocam.com/images.lighting/Marla.1.jpg[/img]----------->

[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_YiaO_LMrLK4/TE3E0y1hK3I/AAAAAAAAA80/0nLbh7KyvK...
While this might be necessary at elite levels of the sport where every nanosecond counts, and I won't argue with Marla's incredible running ability, it is not healthy in the long term for a body to maintain body fat levels this low.

I don't think this necessarily means that Americans don't realize what normal looks like. After all, the fashion, TV, and movie industry continually blasts us with images of thinner-than-normal women. Normal and healthy body fat for a woman generally falls between 17 - 22%. Most American women are into the 30 - 35% zone, so 17 - 22 looks extremely healthy and athletic these days. If you are naturally thin, then you will be on the low end of the spectrum and still healthy. But if everyone around you thinks you're too skinny and you still think you're several pounds overweight, I would caution that you may be bordering on actual anorexia. I've had personal experience with that, as well as someone close to me who came very close to dying of it, so please take this seriously if you think it may be a possibility.

I think because so many people struggle with weight, and because our society promotes so many quick solutions (just the number of "Fat Blaster" ads on the radio and spam emails is ridiculous!), people don't really want to believe that it's as simple as eating right and exercising. I do think you're right that when you reject the norm, you fall under suspicion. And people probably feel uncomfortable when you are eating salads and are rejecting the foods that they are eating and they express that discomfort with obsession about what you're doing different.

As for BF percentages, I think that they're probably highly individual. When I was younger, I found that I lost my period below 16% BF. In doing some reading, I found that it was very common, and that 15 - 16% is generally considered the threshold below which you can start mucking with your body's hormones. At first I was like "what's the big deal, so I can't get pregnant", but it has long-term consequences for a woman's health to drop that much estrogen. I had a friend on the UO track team (incredibly competitive and full of Olympic hopefuls) that actually started growing a beard, I guess her estrogen/testosterone got so out of whack, but she was extremely lean like that photo of Marla Runyan. If you are feeling healthy at 15%, then there's no reason to worry.

I'm glad to hear you're feeling good about your nutrition, health, and weight. I have to admit that alarm bells went off in my head with that first post where you said you were still trying to drop weight but everyone said you were too skinny. But I know I am probably overly sensitive to the anorexia issue. I watched someone close to me keep dropping and dropping, eventually ending up at 88 pounds before miraculously she got turned around. And she was doing triathlons during this time. We were very lucky she didn't die, she looked like something out of a concentration camp. And the whole time we who love her are trying to convince her she's too thin, and she's thinking "if I just drop a few more pounds I'll be perfect". Scary stuff.

[quote=RPMacDonald]Throw out the personal trainer / body builder - saying you "look" like you are a certain BF% is like saying you "look" like you have diabetes [/quote]

LOVE this...

Furthermore, 3 lbs is well within the margin of error of the tools you are using to measure BF. Bio-electrical can ONLY be used successfully under the most controlled circumstances. Your friend eye balling it is a crap shoot. If you really want to know you need to find an exercise testing/health and human performance lab that will put you in a water tank or a bod pod. The cost on these range hugely and I haven't been around them recently to be comfortable guessing.

Back to your 3 lbs. Water weights 8 lbs/gal (3 lbs is about two bike bottles of water) so as you can see that you can lose 3 lbs by going for a long ride if you don't hydrate. (again, you need to have someone do a hydro etc. test) Concerning normal, I WISH that normal was 18% BF for women OR men. think about how much healthier our society would be! As you start losing weight, working toward your goal of 18%, be aware that if you build muscle your weight might not go down but your % BF will. My guess is that if you are only looking to drop 3 lbs you will do this by keeping on your current training plan and dropping the french fries from your burger or going with oil and vinegar dressing (assuming you are training like an average age grouper or better). I wouldn't fret over 3 lbs to be honest. If you are trying to be a leaner, meaner triathlete there are some things you can do to get your body to preferentially use stored fat sources but for the most part your body will rip into those before it starts losing muscle mass (but it likes glucose the best), aka just exercise and don't worry about it. If you are REALLY good about fueling during your workouts you will actually reduce the amount of fat used during your workouts.

Whatever you do, make sure you don't take this weight loss thing to far. BAD ... VERY BAD things can happen when "I want to drop a few lbs" turns into (like was addressed above by ironmom) obsessive, over the top weight loss.

[quote=hamlet_cat] I guess people don't get what it is like when you were once the "fat" kid. [/quote]

oh, me too... I shared a nickname with a cartoon pig for many years. I wear a smaller shirt and pant size than I did in jr. High! There is nothing wrong with reading labels, or exercising. From what I've read, lean muscle mass actually helps keep a more consistent body weight. I honestly just exercise how I want to and eat things that are ACTUALLY food and the rest kind of takes care of itself.

@Ironmom: Estrogen also plays a role in bone density and when women get that thin they put themselves at HUGE risk for future osteoporosis. Broken bones, mustaches... bad stuff. :(

Oh, dunk tanks are not THAT fancy. It's just a really good bathroom scale in a big bathtub. The nearest university to you has something like a 75% chance of having one. I'm serious, don't trust anything else for reliable measure of body fat. Bod pods, that's another story. Those are hard to find anywhere. Like I said though, from what you wrote you are by no stretch over weight (for a triathlete) and within the margin of error that you can say that you ARE at 15% BF. I say at this point just start training. Be good to your body, it will be good to you.

ham_cat,
you wrote, "when I look in the mirror I think I look fit".
why the strong need to find a dunk tank to learn a number. It's just... a number.

[quote=dkhartung]ham_cat,
you wrote, "when I look in the mirror I think I look fit".
why the strong need to find a dunk tank to learn a number. It's just... a number.[/quote]

+1. Pay attention to your body and be good to it, and you're good to go!

BTW, I've had BF measured in a dunk tank, when I was on swim team in college. Back before electrical impedence scales, in the days of the dinosaurs, LOL. It's not a pleasant experience. To get an accurate reading, you have to blow ALL the air out of your lungs underwater, then sit very still until they get the accurate reading. Sitting very still underwater with NO air in your body is difficult, your mind is in full-blown panic mode. You have to do that 2 - 3 times and if you don't manage to get the air out, it's just not accurate.

I understand that it is JUST a number, but then again there is some comfort in the arbitrary some of the time. If you are looking for more info on where to have these sort of tests done you can email a faculty member in of the departments that is likely to have information for you. I would start with exercise science, health and human performance etc. There is a good chance that they don't do this as a for profit/open to the public thing but around here you can sneak into them some of the time when they need volunteers for experiments where BF is something they are measuring. I have had friends get there VO2, Lactate threshold, BF, and all sorts of other nice to know things and get paid for it by volunteering for experiments.

Every uni is different but it can't hurt to ask around.

[quote=hamlet_cat]I found some information that said for triathlon women are 10% - 15%.[/quote]

1. Not a good idea. Too low.
2. Probably amenorrheic (see #1).

[quote=TriSooner][quote=hamlet_cat]I found some information that said for triathlon women are 10% - 15%.[/quote]

1. Not a good idea. Too low.
2. Probably amenorrheic (see #1).
[/quote]

As nearly always, I agree. Amenorrheia trumps it all. Numbers be damned, and 10-15% is low, I don't think it is necessarily a problem UNLESS #1.