Is "skinny fit" an unrealistic goal for most women?

[Taramere]

This is a google image search of Emily Skye

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=emily+skye&safe=off&rlz=1T4NDKB_enUS594US594&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=i-PCVIjnOsucNrbBg-AN&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAg&biw=1280&bih=587

 

 

If you're concerned about triggering anorexia in little girls, you should promote working out towards a body like Emily Skye as you will absolutely not get there without eating.

 

I think maybe just a bit less emphasis on promoting this or that body image generally would be good. If those girls are provided with healthy food and are involved in activities that get them moving, they're probably going to be fine.

 

I don't particularly want to give my niece or any other young girl a "this is what you should look like" message with reference to buxom models who (as another poster said) are common masturbation fodder. I'd prefer to give them the message that they should look like a healthy version of themselves.

[Taramere]

Threads like this show me how little respect women have for other women. Can't point out how a fit girl has a hot body,

 

You're just deliberately misconstruing what I'm saying. There's nothing wrong with pointing out that a fit girl has a hot body. However, that's not really what this thread is about. This thread is consistently driving home the message that women should have a fat percentage of 18% or below. There's post after post stating that. Despite several women posting charts emphasising that this is below the medical ideal for women.

 

So don't start throwing out accusations about women not respecting other women, when most of the women here are trying very hard to counter these "below 18% fat is the ideal for women" with reference to the more responsible guidance given out by the medical profession.

[ThaWholigan]

I think maybe just a bit less emphasis on promoting this or that body image generally would be good. If those girls are provided with healthy food and are involved in activities that get them moving, they're probably going to be fine.

 

I don't particularly want to give my niece or any other young girl a "this is what you should look like" message with reference to buxom models who (as another poster said) are common masturbation fodder. I'd prefer to give them the message that they should look like a healthy version of themselves.

 

I agree with this actually, there's a consistent focus on the image, the result, and I think that focus tends to inadvertently foster the same "instant gratification" that so many people bemoan today. In my opinion, I think adults should start to educate young children on how to process these images and get the right mentality for dealing with them - some will need it more than others.

[WonderKid]

I don't do totem poles! But some people can't help being skinny. "Skinny fit" that word cracks me up idk why. Lol

Its actually not good for women to not have the required body fat. Could hurt their chances in having kids.

 

If a guy was next to me and had a ripped pack, I couldn't get mad at him. He worked to maintain that. I know what he went through lol

I personally wouldn't want to be super buff. I love agility. Buffy guys don't move so quick. Lol

 

Plus from my experience. Most women I have been with said they don't like super ripped hard guys. Which surprised me a bit.

[sweetjasmine]

Which is why I question how committed people really are towards trying to reduce obesity...or if fat shaming is just a bit of a sport really. Because if people were genuinely concerned about obesity, I think they would focus on promoting medically healthy ideals that aren't just realistic but that are the natural outcome of a lifestyle that contains a healthy but not overly restrictive diet and is reasonably active.

 

Right. And again, if people were actually concerned with reducing obesity, they would be discussing the factors involved and reading up on the public health literature. When it comes to population health, "just stop being lazy and get a gym membership, fatass" isn't going to cut it as a real solution any more than "just stop smoking, dummy" is going to do a thing about tobacco use. I just wish people would be honest about their intentions and stop posturing and pretending they have a real concern about public health.

 

You're just deliberately misconstruing what I'm saying. There's nothing wrong with pointing out that a fit girl has a hot body. However, that's not really what this thread is about. This thread is consistently driving home the message that women should have a fat percentage of 18% or below. There's post after post stating that. Despite several women posting charts emphasising that this is below the medical ideal for women.

 

So don't start throwing out accusations about women not respecting other women, when most of the women here are trying very hard to counter these "below 18% fat is the ideal for women" with reference to the more responsible guidance given out by the medical profession.

 

Not to mention, 18% body fat is too low for a woman looking to conceive and carry a healthy child to term. And some research suggests that even if a woman's body fat is 20% or greater, regular intense exercise can cause fertility problems in some people. Interestingly enough, they've found similar issues with excessive exercise affecting men's fertility.

[elaine567]

https://gemmaleabroomfield.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/emily-skyes-30-day-shred/

 

Before I went on this diet I was slim. 18.5% body fat and 50.8kg. By the end of the first week I was 17% body fat and weighed 49.2kg.

 

This girl felt it was necessary to go on Emily Skye's shred diet... It doesn't say how much she lost by the end of the 4 weeks.

[USMCHokie]

Just a theory, but perhaps eating disorders are seen by young men and women as the "easy" and "quick fix" to a "skinny fit" physique...? Rather than stay active with physical activity and exercise, you can just sit on the couch and starve yourself!

 

I think a lot of you all hit on the issues of poor parenting which cause kids from a young age to develop disorders of one sort or another. I personally don't think there is an issue with exposing your kids to an "ideal" physique, so long as that exposure is accompanied with guidance on the way to get there. If parents do not stay active themselves, then it is unlikely they will instill an active spirit in their children.

 

So when children are exposed to images of thin and fit men and women, they don't have a base of knowledge and support to turn to...instead, they see mom and dad plopped on the couch eating Cheetos. So they in turn plop on the couch and eat Cheetos...when they want to look like the images, they only know to plop on the couch and NOT eat Cheetos...so they plop and starve to reach their goals rather than lose/maintain weight with a balance of proper nutrition and activity.

 

On the other hand, if the parents are always out walking, hiking, biking, gymming, etc., it will likely encourage their children to do the same. Suddenly, the goal of thin and fit isn't so unrealistic...the solution is activity rather than starvation.

 

It's just unfortunate that so many parents set their kids up for failure from such an early age...

[thefooloftheyear]

Obesity rates are rising. So are rates of anorexia. It's two sides of the same coin - and it involves people having an unhealthy relationship with food and their own bodies.

 

Is 18% fat unrealistic for a woman? Well, not physically - but whether it's possible for a woman to get down to and maintain that level without developing an unhealthy preoccupation with it is an entirely different matter. What's being hammered home by some posters on this thread is that the "ideal percentages" promoted by medical practitioners are unattractive. Well, in culture where that sort of thinking is considered okay - of course you're going to get an increase of people at both extremes. If "normal" isn't attractive any more, a small proportion of people will devote themselves to becoming underfat (by medical standards) and a greater proportion will just stop bothering altogether.

 

Which is why I question how committed people really are towards trying to reduce obesity...or if fat shaming is just a bit of a sport really. Because if people were genuinely concerned about obesity, I think they would focus on promoting medically healthy ideals that aren't just realistic but that are the natural outcome of a lifestyle that contains a healthy but not overly restrictive diet and is reasonably active.

 

OK here is another angle......although I dont think we can really do anything about it....

 

Because I am older than a lot of the posters here, I can share this observation I have made...I wish I could post a picture of myself, my kid brother and the a bunch of my cousins and some kids from the neighborhood, by a relatives pool on a hot summer day.Id say it was mid.late 70's...In this photo, you see all of the male kids...all about 12-18 years old...Not a fat one in the bunch...not only that, we were all very muscular and sinewy...abs, pecs, arms, etc...

 

No one was on roids, taking creatine, pumping iron, doing Crossfit, or anything else...We ate tons of food, a lot that wasnt exactly healthy...We led very active lives....sun up to sun down...all weather..etc..Same for the girls, maybe to a lesser degree...

 

I think the reason why people see these types of bodies as atypical and "not healthy" is because, quite frankly, its pretty rare now..I see the kids that are my daughters age...What a bunch of creampuffs...Its a total reversal...Thank technology and overprotective parenting...Just think of the thought of letting your 12 year old son out of the house at 10am and not returning til 8 or 9 pm....Gone...all day...no cell or other way of communication...We might have rode bikes for 40+ miles a day with ungodly heavy, makeshift 3 or 5 speed bicycles that would wind Lance Armstrong riding it around the block.......Unheard of today...

 

So maybe its not societal pressure for a "look"...maybe its not poor eating habits either...Perhaps we have gotten so sedentary that the bars for men and women are so low that these types of physiques, while pretty normal back in the day, are now stuff for the Smithsonian...

 

Just a thought...

 

TFY

[sweetjasmine]

I'm sure you're aware that women can gain weight while pregnant, right?

 

Reread what I wrote. Women with low body fat percentages have fertility problems. I'm sure you're aware that women can't gain weight while pregnant if they can't conceive in the first place, right?

[sweetjasmine]

While some studies have indeed shown that under 18% body fat can cause issues with fertility, being overweight actually contributes far more to infertility than being under weight.

 

Where's your evidence for that? Being under and overweight both cause fertility problems.

 

Not that any of this is really relevant to being with. IMO, it's just more reaching for excuses. Science also suggests that being overweight can help someone survive the extreme cold. Yet another reason people shouldn't try to lose weight and be fit.

 

It's not "reaching for excuses." It's providing another reason why someone might decide that they DON'T WANT to aim for 18% body fat. You can be fit without having 18% body fat.

[guest569]

Hmm i dont think these body types have ever been the norm. The average person has never been ripped. I haven't seen much criticism in this thread, just that a lot of people dont think it is realistic, or wouldn't want that body type. Nothing wrong with that. And a heap of fit peopple getting offended by the fact. Not sure why you even care?

[Ninjainpajamas]

You're just deliberately misconstruing what I'm saying. There's nothing wrong with pointing out that a fit girl has a hot body. However, that's not really what this thread is about. This thread is consistently driving home the message that women should have a fat percentage of 18% or below. There's post after post stating that. Despite several women posting charts emphasising that this is below the medical ideal for women.

 

So don't start throwing out accusations about women not respecting other women, when most of the women here are trying very hard to counter these "below 18% fat is the ideal for women" with reference to the more responsible guidance given out by the medical profession.

 

I'm going to just smash this, this whole thing has gone too far.

 

Your arguments are so ridiculous and in vain, I can't even grasp what end of them I feel like attacking first...it's just all so misguided and utter nonsense, with contradicting arguments.

 

You choose to base your arguments on body percentage graphs and other links that are supposedly going to support your overall argument, which is the justification that people, mostly children, are overweight and anorexic...or suffering from any eating disorder for that matter, due to the kind of comments placed here and subject material...mainly the "unrealistic" bodies attained through magazines or promoted by social media because of "ridiculously low" body percentages.

 

All the while showing no respect for other people with other body types while claiming that to be your main priority, which it seems clearly designed to help one side of an argument more than the other.

 

In reality you didn't come here to talk about anything, a blind man can see it's just another thread-jacking to derail the original question in the post to bring to "light" the kind of agenda you'd like to promote....you want to want to talk about this as much as a advertising or marketing manager wants to talk about a product he's trying to sell.

 

Your agenda is clearly to prove that it is US (men or women, society) and our preferences, that is portrayed throughout the media, is the reason all these bad things are happening, and discretely implying that it is wholly responsible for this epidemic when it can't even be farther from the truth. I'm sure you'd say differently in your on words, but this is clear for any knucklehead to see.

 

In fact in every damn show I've ever seen, featuring people trying to lose weight, when these people are asked why they have weight problems...the most common answer that I've ever heard was it started FAR before their adult minds have developed, somewhere in their childhood...but not from magazines, or movies and tv...but in order to cope with loneliness, emotional distresses, and other psychological and family/environmental affects...I NEVER, once heard a person say they were overweight solely or even largely due to the factors in the media or from what people are saying in online forums...and yet here you are with your entourage, and the funniest part is that you actually feel like together, you're establishing great points to support an argument.

 

But you know what kind of people say that kind of crap, the kind of things that dish responsibility out on some external factor?

 

PEOPLE LIKE YOU!

 

With your adult mind, and superior "intellect" you somehow play the child psychologist role...claiming to understand the links between children and obesity...WHEN THE ENTIRE TIME YOU BASE YOUR ARGUMENTS OFF ADULT FACTORS and adult psychology...you're looking from the outside in, or from the bottom down without even considering the other factors that would influence children..NOT YOU, or any other "adult".

 

Because that's what adults say and like to think! this is the agenda that is being pushed in today's society, that if everything around them was fixed, then all the world would be right again, and WHY?

 

Because adults don't like to have to take responsibility for their own adult actions and behaviors and would rather instead get to blame exterior factors that have nothing to do with the core problem. Why am I having difficulty in my life? must be god doesn't like me or has another plan. Why did this happen to me? guess the world hates me and is targeting me for *insert reason*...I mean it couldn't possibly be your own fault alone, always has to be another attributing factor and so let's like in true adult 2015 form...start blaming those little smaller things on the outside instead of blaming the core issue...that way, we never have to change and at least we have an excuse for being how we are and "suffering" the way we do.

 

Adult thinking:

 

Why do I do drugs? because they're too available

 

Why am I an alcoholic? because there's bars on every corner

 

Why am I overweight? because there's a Mcdonlands on every corner, fast-food is easier to get and cheaper, too many commercials with food, girls are too skinny in magazines, and If I'm a guy I guess I'm just a douche because women have it harder.

 

EXCUSES!

 

These are not the REAL factors of why these people have their issues, what don't YOU and the people that support you get about that?

 

You even go as far as bringing in a child who suffered from anorexia to support the pathetic point of view and argument...WHEN YOU KNOW NOTHING JOHN SNOW! YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THAT CHILD'S MIND OR HOME.

 

But true to being a typical citizen of the "blame" culture...you'd rather chuck the issues conveniently on the factors that you WISH to attribute to, without even having the facts. It's fear-mongering more than anything else.

 

This is just another reason to be entirely disappointed with human-beings...even the people that band together with your arguments, not out any truth, and because you're making a great argument...it's because they LIKE YOU, that's it. They like you because they side with you, because you're telling them what they want to hear.

 

Congratulations on another moot point that establishes for reasons beyond me, support nothing...which is based on entirely nothing that supports your nothing argument.

 

But I'm sure your next post will garner as many high raves for absolutely no reason.

 

Talking about body fat percentages...ha, what a ridiculous derailing argument this thread has turned into.

[Taramere]

OK here is another angle......although I dont think we can really do anything about it....

 

Because I am older than a lot of the posters here, I can share this observation I have made...I wish I could post a picture of myself, my kid brother and the a bunch of my cousins and some kids from the neighborhood, by a relatives pool on a hot summer day.Id say it was mid.late 70's...In this photo, you see all of the male kids...all about 12-18 years old...Not a fat one in the bunch...not only that, we were all very muscular and sinewy...abs, pecs, arms, etc...

 

Are you saying that you look like junior versions of the 3-7% pics here? I did a fair bit of competitive sport in the 1980s. Boys and girls training together (running and swimming). Some of the thinner boys, with reference to those fat percentage pics, might have been 9 to 10% - ie very thin and wiry. I don't recall anybody looking as sinewy as the lower fat pics. You just didn't see that sort of thing.

 

Same with women. Models would look like the picture in the 15 to 17% range, because they've always been expected to look very slim. It's hard to know what a model really looks like, because airbrushing in professional pics will get rid of too much of a bony appearance or bunched up muscles.

 

Referring still to those pics, 20 to 30% is what I recall most women looking like. Here's a 1979 picture of cheerleaders.

 

https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1020/4723918303_57dc4503cd_z.jpg

 

Nothing like you'd see today, really. That was more what you associated with sporty girls at school in the 1980s too. They weren't particularly glamorous, and they weren't trying to be. Neither were they always particularly thin. That, I think, is a very good representation of normal, healthy girls (probably a provincial school cheerleading team) from that era who weren't concerned with looking like models in social media pictures. People like to hark back to a past when everybody was so much thinner and more beautiful - but the reality is more like that most people just fell into a healthy mid point.

 

There weren't so many of the extremes that exist now - and there certainly weren't lots of adults going around with lots of muscle but next to no fat as depicted in the lower end of the percentages here. I can PM you a picture of a friend of my mother's from the 1960s who was the main "glamour" figure of my childhood (I don't want to post it on here for various reasons). She looked nothing like Emily Skye - and I think she would likely be astounded to see that as the beauty standard being held up today. And she was a Miss Universe finalist...so she can't have been that bad by international standards, plus she was from one of those eras so often cited as "back in the day when people were in far better shape than they are now".

 

Her figure was absolutely nothing like Emily Skye. I can just imagine what she'd have had to say about that sinewy look. I can't accept that sinewy look for women is anything but a very recently popular thing.

[Taramere]

I'm going to just smash this, this whole thing has gone too far.

 

Perhaps you'd be better just going back to the gym and harumphing over a few weights. When it comes to debate, a cool head is better than an overheated one.

[Ninjainpajamas]

Perhaps you'd be better just going back to the gym and harumphing over a few weights. When it comes to debate, a cool head is better than an overheated one.

 

*dainty arms waving* Oh stop the personal attacks, oh my god, I'm so offended...we're not on friendly terms, keep the personal jabs to yourself.

 

I think you're talking to the wrong person try the mirror.

 

It's a stress relief and a pleasure smashing poorly constructed arguments...especially ones from people who are only used to having arguments with people they are more intelligent than.

[Taramere]

*dainty arms waving* Oh stop the personal attacks, oh my god, I'm so offended...we're not on friendly terms, keep the personal jabs to yourself.

 

I'm not so offended. I'm just not going to pretend I'm engaging in any sort of joky banter when there's evident hostility since I think that's a bit dishonest, but I don't see the purpose in getting overly aggressive about it either. I mean that is clearly derailing the discussion. Plus, there are rules of the forum that I think it's respectful to try to adhere to for as long as you're posting on it. I realise it's not always easy when you disagree with somebody's position.

 

Talking about fat percentages is not derailing, since this discussion is about "skinny fit" women - and fat percentages are a key aspect of that. Any fitness professional who doesn't very carefully monitor a woman who's reaching below medically ideal fat limits (and Emily Skye certainly falls into that category) is being irresponsible in my book. A view which seems to me to be supported by the medical profession.

 

It's a stress relief and a pleasure smashing poorly constructed arguments...especially ones from people who are only used to having arguments with people they are more intelligent than.

 

Given my profession, you're on the wrong track there. I haven't claimed to be of superior intelligence at all. You may believe you are of superior intelligence, that's not for me to say. I do believe, though, that "show don't tell" is a good rule in life. Anyway, whatever the intentions of the OP in starting this thread I think it's a cert that he didn't intend for it to become about you and me. If you don't think that fat percentages are relevant in the discussion of "skinny fit" women, you're welcome to explain why without getting too agitated and personal about it.

Edited January 24, 2015 by Taramere

[Ninjainpajamas]

I'm not so offended. I'm just not going to pretend I'm engaging in any sort of joky banter when there's evident hostility since I think that's a bit dishonest, but I don't see the purpose in getting overly aggressive about it either. I mean that is clearly derailing the discussion. Plus, there are rules of the forum that I think it's respectful to try to adhere to for as long as you're posting on it. I realise it's not always easy when you disagree with somebody's position.

 

Talking about fat percentages is not, since this discussion is about "skinny fit" women - and fat percentages are a key aspect of that.

 

 

 

Given my profession, you're on the wrong track there. I haven't claimed to be of superior intelligence at all. You may believe you are of superior intelligence, that's not for me to say. I do believe, though, that "show don't tell" is a good rule in life. Anyway, whatever the intentions of the OP in starting this thread I think it's a cert that he didn't intend for it to become about you and me. If you don't think that fat percentages are relevant in the discussion of "skinny fit" women, you're welcome to explain why without getting too agitated and personal about it.

 

I think you've done a successful job at completely derailing the thread without any moderation, however you are so quick to jump on the rules when you find something offensive because of a silly picture that didn't even directly mock you as a person, or anything you may even represent in the real world unless you've got feathers and a beak.

 

The context of your arguments IMO are not respectful...but because they are indirect and not in your face, your perception is that they are less offensive. Anyone can take offense to your comments here, especially if the woman in the first pic was here and reading what you people were saying about her, as if she is an object and will undoubtedly have issues with fertility and pregnancy due to your wonderful charts.

 

Bottom line is...

 

I don't care about your profession or what you do in real life, I judge everything based on what you write in this forum along with everyone else. You have taken on an entitlement attitude here and continuously tried to slam down the throats of people using irrelevant information that does not support your argument...which I honestly wouldn't mind if you had a leg to stand on with your arguments rather than the same regurgitated information.

 

My personality is my personality, I don't try to trim up the behavior and start to act like I'm in a corporate meeting in order to tame the way that I really feel...this is an online anonymous forum with people whom I have no personal relationships with...furthermore, you have the right to come and go as you choose, or read or do not read...it is just text and it is your choice to be apart of it.

 

It's unfortunate that adults even need "rules" on an online forum when they can make choices for themselves, and are supposed to be in a place where they can vent out or express things they may not in the real world. But usually those rules are only enforced when someone doesn't like what someone else is saying...let's be honest here, it's being used as a tool more than it is as a moral guideline of mutual respect.

 

I completely find your arguments here to be untruthful and irrelevant, and that is why I so passionately attack them...it is not an uncontrolled and wild aggression. I am not sitting here strung out and hot-headed...I can go outside and throw snowballs, laugh and play with children, as if this conversation never even had taken place. This is not a serious aspect of my life, or even a broader representation of anything...however I will slam down these online "ideals" being promoted with vigorous fury for my own entertainment.

 

If you want to talk about "rules" this thread should have been shut down a long time ago.

Edited January 24, 2015 by Ninjainpajamas

[MidwestUSA]

Man, I can't sleep. I keep singing, and giggling thru, Brad Paisley's 'Online'.

 

Such a hilarious video. William Shatner

 

 

So much cooler online

So much cooler online

 

 

Anyone who's not seen it needs to check it out. Lighten up a little!

[Taramere]

Anyone can take offense to your comments here, especially if the woman in the first pic was here and reading what you people were saying about her, as if she is an object and will undoubtedly have issues with fertility and pregnancy due to your wonderful charts.

 

Low fat in women and increased likelihood of periods stopping is just a medical fact. Which is why athletes require careful monitoring. That people should find it offensive that these facts are relayed makes no sense to me at all. I wouldn't want to see anybody encounter those problems, which is precisely why I think it's important for women to maintain awareness of the problems that can set in with low fat levels.

 

I don't care about your profession or what you do in real life

 

Then don't speculate on what I'm "used to doing", move on from ranting about me and focus on the discussion at hand. If you disagree with my comments and think they're based on faulty information, counter them using what you believe to be better sources. Presenting a series of ad hominem arguments and rants doesn't really constitute "smashing" somebody's argument. You're really not presenting any actual information in this discussion, as far as I can see.

 

You have taken on an entitlement attitude here

 

I do believe I'm entitled to participate in the discussion.

 

I completely find your arguments here to be untruthful and irrelevant, and that is why I so passionately attack them

 

Focus of discussion: women being skinny fit, and whether it's a realistic goal. That invites discussion on what "skinny fit" actually means - and I think most people would agree that it involves having muscle tone and low body fat. The question is about proportions. The model has extremely low body fat, as an athlete would. That makes discussion about female athletes relevant - because basically that's the ideal that's being touted here.

 

Female athletes are monitored by various professionals to ensure that they stay healthy, don't develop problematic eating habits etc. If somebody is going to just throw out the notion that women should look like athletes, then absolutely they should expect exploration of what it means to be in the shape of a very low fat athlete, and what some of the health risks can be. That's not off topic and it's not dishonest.

 

I can go outside and throw snowballs, laugh and play with children, as if this conversation never even had taken place.

 

Well, all credit to you for being fit enough to run from LA to wherever the nearest snowbound location is.

[Eternal Sunshine]

*throws snowball at ninja*

[elaine567]

Talking about low body fat %s is very relevant to a debate that is about holding up women with very low body fat %s as being a "goal" for other women.

 

Talking about obesity and obesity levels is derailing the thread and a bit of a straw man argument.

 

Thin women with low body fat DO have fertility issues; switching off fertility hormones is a real problem for woman athletes.

Very thin women have mental health and medical issues too due to their size; those facts are not altered one bit by moaning about obese women or the problem of obesity in our society.

 

Both ends of the weight spectrum cause issues, but I do not see any threads suggesting women eat a tub of icecream a day and go on a couch potato fitness regime in order to achieve the "goal" of being a BBW.

 

We see the encouragement of thinness to the point of unhealthiness, touted as being something laudable, something all women should strive for, and that is frankly ridiculous.

Real life is not about a model with a fitness career and a talent for self promotion, or some ultra skinny Miss Universe contestant.

 

My main issue here is why are we holding up such ultra thin women as role models for other women? Why is that ever deemed "acceptable" in the first place?

Is our societal revulsion with obesity, causing us to discount the healthy "normal" in favour of the unhealthy ultra thin?

When we view these media images, are we all suffering from some sort of Body Dysmorphic Disorder, where we perceive the ultra thin as being "acceptable" and normal women of healthy weights as being "verging on the obese"...

[thefooloftheyear]

Are you saying that you look like junior versions of the 3-7% pics here? I did a fair bit of competitive sport in the 1980s. Boys and girls training together (running and swimming). Some of the thinner boys, with reference to those fat percentage pics, might have been 9 to 10% - ie very thin and wiry. I don't recall anybody looking as sinewy as the lower fat pics. You just didn't see that sort of thing.

 

Same with women. Models would look like the picture in the 15 to 17% range, because they've always been expected to look very slim. It's hard to know what a model really looks like, because airbrushing in professional pics will get rid of too much of a bony appearance or bunched up muscles.

 

Referring still to those pics, 20 to 30% is what I recall most women looking like. Here's a 1979 picture of cheerleaders.

 

https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1020/4723918303_57dc4503cd_z.jpg

 

Nothing like you'd see today, really. That was more what you associated with sporty girls at school in the 1980s too. They weren't particularly glamorous, and they weren't trying to be. Neither were they always particularly thin. That, I think, is a very good representation of normal, healthy girls (probably a provincial school cheerleading team) from that era who weren't concerned with looking like models in social media pictures. People like to hark back to a past when everybody was so much thinner and more beautiful - but the reality is more like that most people just fell into a healthy mid point.

 

There weren't so many of the extremes that exist now - and there certainly weren't lots of adults going around with lots of muscle but next to no fat as depicted in the lower end of the percentages here. I can PM you a picture of a friend of my mother's from the 1960s who was the main "glamour" figure of my childhood (I don't want to post it on here for various reasons). She looked nothing like Emily Skye - and I think she would likely be astounded to see that as the beauty standard being held up today. And she was a Miss Universe finalist...so she can't have been that bad by international standards, plus she was from one of those eras so often cited as "back in the day when people were in far better shape than they are now".

 

Her figure was absolutely nothing like Emily Skye. I can just imagine what she'd have had to say about that sinewy look. I can't accept that sinewy look for women is anything but a very recently popular thing.

 

 

OK...understand my comments were mostly boys then vs today...And Ill stand by my comments...There is NO WAY boys of today were like us then...Id bet all I had on it...

 

Just think about it...Just about every kld on the street spent their entire day on a bike, skateboard, etc...Young boys cut lawns for people, shoveled driveways, had paper routes that made them walk/run for miles a day, and....God forbid....actually worked...

 

And that didnt even include the sports(both organized and pick up) that we played every day in all types of weather..No comparison...

 

Yes, we were all pretty muscular and ripped......And there wasnt as many fat kids(girls or boys) as there are now....I lived it and can see whats around me...Technology is turning kids to mush...They then carry that into adulthood...Its common sense, really..

 

OK...so lets get back to talking about women...

 

Yes...womens bodies have changed....They have finally saw the light and are now starting to realize the benefits of resistance training(weights)...No longer are women reserved to jogging, Pilates and Yoga/dance....Women are actually lifting...THIS IS A GOOD THING!!!...Why? Well, not only men benefit from a more muscular physique, women do as well..While far more for men, weight training increases testosterone levels in both sexes...Increased testosterone levels(naturally) have many benefits for women..Heightened libido, increased fat synthesis, etc...A muscular body needs more food to exist...So say gooddbye to the brutal 1000 calorie starvation diets..Its a win for all ..As a 223# man with around 14% bf it takes around 6-7000 calories a day to keep me going...Yes...I dont gain fat eating 7000 calories a day.Try that with a "regular" body..

 

A strong frame for a woman is vital as well...Helps with pregnancy and maintains hormonal stability..especially as age creeps in..Women who regularly train and have harder bodies report less osteoporosis, and other age related issues..There are women at my gym in their 50's that look absolutely amazing!!....All of them spend more time in the weight room than anything else..They look sexy as hell...in their 50s!

 

So maybe its time to turn the page on the rubineseque bodies that were the norm..Hell, id think most of the feminists would love this "new" standard...And I also challenge any woman who thinks a man doesnt like a woman that is fit and tight..So long as she doesnt get too carried away, guys love that look..99% of women could never really build that type of stupid looking muscle without going on the juice, so I dont know why some women think they are going to immediately look like a man the minute they pick up a barbell..

 

C'mon ladies...see the light here....you wont regret it!!

 

TFY

Edited January 24, 2015 by thefooloftheyear

[Taramere]

So maybe its time to turn the page on the rubineseque bodies that were the norm..Hell, id think most of the feminists would love this "new" standard...And I also challenge any woman who thinks a man doesnt like a woman that is fit and tight..So long as she doesnt get too carried away, guys love that look..99% of women could never really build that type of stupid looking muscle without going on the juice, so I dont know why some women think they are going to immediately look like a man the minute they pick up a barbell..

 

C'mon ladies...see the light here....you wont regret it!!

 

TFY

 

I'm certainly happy that some muscle on women is seen as acceptable now. I don't think the "waif" image of the 1990s was good news at all. However, I'm thinking more in terms of 20-22% (female). If a man said to me, "I think 6-7% male is impressive looking but personally I'd rather be 10-15% I'd respect his right to that preference...and I'd also agree with it. I think the male bodies in that range are far more pleasing to the eye.

 

While I do get where you're coming from, that women should see a strong body as something to be proud of. But, Emily Sky in that pic in the opening post is just a little bit too much in the low range for me to think the overall look is pleasing. A lot of women are saying "no, that's not how I want to look" and actually I think that's quite a healthy thing because they're intuitively thinking in terms of a healthy fat ratio. I've seen other pictures of her where she looks great. But it seems to vary, and I suspect it varies mainly depending on her fat percentage. I googled to see what it is, and found this:

 

 

"I would like to be 8% by mid August". That was a few years ago. 8% for a woman. It's at the bottom range of the fat percentage experts say is necessary to sustain life. I can see other stuff where she's advocating a very healthy diet, and that's great. But I still can't help thinking that while she's saying all the right things about following clean, healthy eating, the fact that she has set goals like that for herself is concerning.

 

I'm sure Emily Skye doesn't read Loveshack - and yes, I would hate for her to read a thread like this and feel attacked. Particularly given the history of depression and body issues that she's apparently had. But I do believe she looks far better (not just in her body but also in her face) in those pictures where she looks as though she's carrying a bit more fat than she is in the pics at the start of this thread. However, it's hard to tell as professional pics tend to be photoshopped to create a smoother appearance (which some fat, in the right quantities, helps to create).

[xxoo]

Women can get the benefits of weight resistance training without dipping below 18-20 % bf (the ideal to my eye). It's the best of both worlds.

[thefooloftheyear]

Women can get the benefits of weight resistance training without dipping below 18-20 % bf (the ideal to my eye). It's the best of both worlds.

 

 

True....I agree..

 

TFY