I read that if you have low body fat % you will not menstruate. What is the physiological reason for this? I mean, why would having a low amount of fat do such a thing? Also, what are the side effects of not being able to menstruate, I mean, couldn't you just put on some fat when you do want to be able to menstruate and then you can still have a baby? Supposedly, a woman needs 22% bf to be able to menstruate. I find that unrealistically high, on account of I know plenty of girls that are able to menstruate that are most certainly not 22% bf, most of those girls are gnarly ectomorphs and it's not completely their fault that they carry such low bf%. Therefore, I'm assuming that when they say you'd need 22% bf, it is including fat stored intramuscularly and fat stored in the liver, this theory of mine would make a lot more sense. bf% tests do not include the fat stored in the muscles or in the liver, it only counts fat stored inbetween the skin and muscles. Therefore, it would probably be more realistic to say that you'd need about 10% bf to menstruate. anyways gimme some insight, I may be married to a girl one day believe it or not and this is on a need to know basis. How will I be able to support my wife financially if I don't knwo this stuff, come on now!
-
No Menstruation if you have low bf%?
-
See this thread.> How will I be able to support my wife financially if I don't knwo this stuff, come on now!Huh?
-
My wife became anorexic for a couple of years (before I knew her) and lost her period. In practice it seems to only happen when women go on very severe diets. It came back when she started eating properly again.
You don't have to know everything about women to be married to one, jamesters. She can tell you some stuff you need to know but don't; some you find by painful experience (like when she asks you how she looks she only wants praise, not an accurate and impartial assessment); there's other stuff no man can ever understand. :smile:
-
i know that if you get on a body fat scale, it shoots an electric current through ur body and it usually gets a slightly higher reading ( i think it might be lower) anyway, its usually withing 5%. Most girls in my grade 12 gym class a couple years ago were over 25%. Im not sure how many women don't have a period, but judging from that, most women do have over 22% body fat. remember that women have boobs, they are just basically fat. it adds up
-
Ok, bf% for girls would generally be higher for girls (22% btw is healthy and normal) because we have breast (ie, two sacs of fat hanging off our chest). I don't know exactly why menstruation stops at very low bf % but I think (and i'll probably be corrected on this) it's because lipids (fats) help absorb/manufacture certain hormones that make the period happed (estrogen, progesterone). Without fat, hormones have a tough time doing their job.
-
i read the thread stevea posted and i understand much better now. and ys i know the average woman's bf IS about 25% but at the same time there are plenty of girls lower than that and they still have regular periods, that why I'm sayng, if your going by a bf% test then you'd probably need about 10% bf or more. cuz a healthy woman is about 18% bf and I'm assuming the healthy woman has regular periods, whereas a fitness model is in extremely good shape and fitness models are generally around 7% for men and 12% for woman. I know that some fitness model woman say they don't get periods, so I guess when you get to the 8-12% range as most fitness model woman are, that's about when you may have problems having a period, but I would imagine anything 15% and above is safe. and ya as Pete inelegiable was saying abotu anorexia, anorixic girls are likely even more prone to not having periods than fitness models are because fitness models still eat very healthily so often even though they may not have much fat between there skin and muscles, there muscles will still carry a good supply of fat as will there liver, whereas when you have crash diets or jsut not much food at all like anorexics do, the body cant handle that and it will eat lots of the muscles supply and livers suply of fat as well so there really gonna have not enoguh fat on them to have periods. Can I get an Amen and a discount on aisle 9? Thank you very much.
-
> How can your muscles carry fat?
Think of well-marbled prime beef. But I would think that fat content would be a function of total body fat, and if anything, toned muscles would carry less fat.
-
"How can your muscles carry fat? Are you saying muscles are made up of fat? If so, that's completely false."Ahhahaha no muscles are not made up of fat. but yes they do carry small amounts of fat inside them. it's not such a crazy concept you know. i mean muscles carry glucose in them you know? how is fat so different? btw, i know glucose is stored in the form of glycogen but still it's practically the same thing. It simply has to travel to the liver to get converted back to glucose and be usable. anyways, there's loads of stuff that stores in msucle, it's not like muscles are made up of just proteins an nothign else.
-
"But I would think that fat content would be a function of total body fat, and if anything, toned muscles would carry less fat."I agree with you, Mr. Steve A, in the theory that it would be a function of total body fat. As for toned muscles carrying less fat, I really don't know. I'm studying to be a personal trainer but there's still quite a bit i don't know yet. Although, toned muscles DO carry a higher glycogen store, it likes to so it can have more energies. It may want to also carry more fat in the muscles for energy purposes and carry less fat outside the muscles since the fat outside effects performance more. but then again, maybe the body usually burns fat pretty evenly and if you start losing fat inbetween skin and muscles, you may also be losing fat in the muscles and in the lvier as well. Again, I'm not sure but I'll be sure to study up on this subject when I get a chance. I haven't completely finished my ACE course yet so this subject may come up later on.
-
\> glycogen but still it's practically the same thing
But it's not the same thing. And glycogen is a very small (~1%) part of the skeletal muscles. The question is, do muscle cells contain fat lipids? Fat cells store fat, and they're found adjacent to muscle fibers; hence marbleized beef. -
"The question is, do muscles whore fat lipids?"lol ya they do, I didn't know anyone two was doubting that. It says so in my ACE course which is the most trusted word on exercise physiology. Also, here's a link to another fitness site that talks about intramuscular stores of fat. http://www.afpafitness.com/articles/FATSTOR.HTMI still think fat found elsewhere besides the fat directly underneath the skin must make a decent contribution towards total body fat %, but I'm just not sure as of now. Maybe there really isn't a whole lot of fat stored in muscles and liver. Maybe girls really do need to be about 22% bf to have periods, I just don't know at this point and I don't think I care to know. I'm certain I'll be finding out soon enoguh though. For I am Jamie Stroud, avenger of the last relic of the lost relish.
-
They're talking about lipids stored in fat cells, intramuscularly (i.e., among the muscle fibers), but not within muscle cells.
-
haha o man im almost certain of it though. intramuscular means with in the muscle cell. and the book specifically said fat can be stored between the skin and muscles, inide the muscles, and in the lvier. i wouldn't be surprised if it stored other places as well. here is an article on bb.com that talks specifically about intramuscular triglycerides which is the most abundant form that lipids store as. now im not saying that there are actual fat cells within muscle cells woa-no! fat cells are only located between skin and muscle as far as i know, but lipids do indeed store in muscles and the liver. anyways, here is the article http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/issa108.htm
-
That was a pretty complicated article. They talked about triglycerides (used by the mitochondria) within the muscle cells, as opposed to actual fat. In any case, it seems like the amount of lipids within the cell is not large, although they didn't actually give the amount. I've reached the limit of my knowledge in this area....tell us more about it when you come across it in your course.
-
ill try my best ;: