A womanfolk question about gym six-packs

[heresmo]

Can I ask please that if a manfolk person sits down, if "toned", would it not still be true that a little tummy bulge would arrive over the top of one's jeans?

I ask this because a very thin womanfolk thinks this should not be in herself. My contention is that the bend in the waist will cause this in even the fittest people, therefore it is not fatness so mustn't lose more weight to try to avoid the unavoidable. The person in question is not likely to want protein shakes etc, the idea is to define what's normal so that taking even more weight off would not be the plan IMO.

Any replies gratefully received.

Many thanks

Mo

[pixi]

It sounds normal to me.

[devonutopia]

I think it depends if it hangs down to around your kneecaps.

I'm fairly skinny, but then also have a bit of a belly as well - blame the beers. :dtp:

[Irf]

Your bodyfat needs to be under 8% to have a permanent well defined 8 pack. Even then its likely that when your seated there will be a bulge over your tummy and you'll lose the definition. So your right, you will lose it when seated.

[walkie]

Your bodyfat needs to be under 8% to have a permanent well defined 8 pack. Even then its likely that when your seated there will be a bulge over your tummy and you'll lose the definition. So your right, you will lose it when seated.

Not strictly true. It depends on the thickness of your abs.

I know guys who can sit at 16% bodyfat and still have good visable abs.

Moi, ~ 10-12% will visable abs.

To the question... Yes a small amount of roll will be there for most people, its healthy!

[Tech1e]

Yeah but Jim your welll buff mate

[MAPGO]

Can I ask please that if a manfolk person sits down, if "toned", would it not still be true that a little tummy bulge would arrive over the top of one's jeans?

I ask this because a very thin womanfolk thinks this should not be in herself. My contention is that the bend in the waist will cause this in even the fittest people, therefore it is not fatness so mustn't lose more weight to try to avoid the unavoidable. The person in question is not likely to want protein shakes etc, the idea is to define what's normal so that taking even more weight off would not be the plan IMO.

Any replies gratefully received.

Many thanks

Mo

Never mind the six pack I've got a 24 pack, much better value;)

[Tech1e]

Mines more of a Keg than a six pack.

[Irf]

Not strictly true. It depends on the thickness of your abs.

I know guys who can sit at 16% bodyfat and still have good visable abs.

Moi, ~ 10-12% will visable abs.

To the question... Yes a small amount of roll will be there for most people, its healthy!

This is true, I am well over 10% body fat and when tensed there are all 8 there. What I mean is you need less than 10% body fat for a permanent, well defined 8 pack. But there are exceptions to this

[heresmo]

Thanks folks Replies much appreciated.

I'm now curious about an 8-pack - meaning the extra two. :confused:

Regards

Mo

[Irf]

The bottom 2 looks like a heart shape, they're the hardest to get

[TeflonTom]

Mines more of a Keg than a six pack.

:rofl:

[jec]

mm, how do you measure the % of body fat?

I'm probably 99% fat:rofl:

[fluffmeister]

If you did not have that little bit there, then you would snap every time you stand up

[heresmo]

I checked 'em out on a couple of anatomy sites - some seem to link them in line above the navel, though another said that the last two were below :confused: Can't really ask menfolk to drop their pants - might get the wrong idea It'd come to something if I have to consider The Hoff in Speedos. I don't seem to have any abs, being a womanfolk, just have very strong forearms from lifting little childen and carrying shopping around

Dunno jec - there are calliper measures and on some sites, the upper arm is considered a better indication for someone underweight. I doubt that works as well on older "batwing" type arms. Kelloggs used to say "if you can pinch more than an inch". Regrettably, I just don't any scientific stuff on measuring it properly though.

Mo

[jec]

I checked 'em out on a couple of anatomy sites - some seem to link them in line above the navel, though another said that the last two were below :confused: Can't really ask menfolk to drop their pants - might get the wrong idea It'd come to something if I have to consider The Hoff in Speedos. I don't seem to have any abs, being a womanfolk, just have very strong forearms from lifting little childen and carrying shopping around

Dunno jec - there are calliper measures and on some sites, the upper arm is considered a better indication for someone underweight. I doubt that works as well on older "batwing" type arms. Kelloggs used to say "if you can pinch more than an inch". Regrettably, I just don't any scientific stuff on measuring it properly though.

Mo

mm, I know just what you mean about the upper arms, mine are getting flabby:eek: and I a can DEFINITELY pinch more than an inch:D yet, according to BMI, I am not overweight, I think I probably need to tone up, its old age, its all heading south, nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo:eek:

[heresmo]

jec - you're probably right that toning might be an idea. My mum always used to do a tap dance whilst the toast was cooking. I quite like the Charleston, though I am a Daft Bat.

Disco moves which one interprets in time to the music are good, as are moves that mime artists make. (Helps keep shoulders back.) Can't do rigorous exercises myself, so have to use an alternative approach.

Seriously though, my original reason for asking was that someone below body weight (by any measure) shouldn't lose more because of perception of fat - if that fat is normal (my take) and replies very helpful as to what is perceived to be normal

As the recognised standard these days seems to BMI, if you're OK with that, then hopefully someone will come along and say about how to measure body fat? Peeps seem to quote this in % terms so there must be a way. :ne_nau:

Regards to all

Mo

[SteVRs]

Women have a subcutaneous fat layer much thicker than that on a man & it cannot be exercised or dieted away - that's why they require less calories than men - they retain heat better.

As a result even a size 0 woman will still have a tiny amount of fat under her skin which will bunch when she sits down - if she doesn't she's in danger of serious problems.

HTH.

[Tom_vRS]

Mines more of a Lurpack

[jec]

Women have a subcutaneous fat layer much thicker than that on a man & it cannot be exercised or dieted away - that's why they require less calories than men - they retain heat better.

As a result even a size 0 woman will still have a tiny amount of fat under her skin which will bunch when she sits down - if she doesn't she's in danger of serious problems.

HTH.

ooo, I am sooo glad that my fat cannot be exercised or dieted away, I won't even bother wasting energy trying now:rofl: