"Ideal" body fat percentages by age

[chesspain]

I'm six feet tall and nearly forty-four years old, and in the five months since I've been exercising and eating healthier, I've brought my weight down from 205 lbs to 182 lbs, with a current body fat percentage of approx. 18%. Although I certainly feel and look better, I still have a bit of a spare tire around my waist. While checking for body fat range charts, I found a couple of sites with tables similar to the one below:

MALE
Age Excellent Good Fair Poor
19-24 10.8 % 14.9 % 19.0 % 23.3 %
25-29 12.8 % 16.5 % 20.3 % 24.4 %
30-34 14.5 % 18.0 % 21.5 % 25.2 %
35-39 16.1 % 19.4 % 22.6 % 26.1 %
<font color="blue"> 40-44 17.5 % 20.5 % 23.6 % 26.9 % </font>
45-49 18.6 % 21.5 % 24.5 % 27.6 %
50-54 19.8 % 22.7 % 25.6 % 28.7 %
55-59 20.2 % 23.2 % 26.2 % 29.3 %
60 + 20.3 % 23.5 % 26.7 % 29.8

And I see that for my age, my body fat percentage is considered nearly excellent ("ideal" according to another table I saw). However, I'm obviously kind of far from lean.

Do these charts consider someone my age and bf percentage "excellent/ideal" because so many middle-age men are overweight, or are there biologically imposed barriers to how lean someone can reasonably expect to be as they get older?

[guids]

Do these charts consider someone my age and bf percentage "excellent/ideal" because so many middle-age men are overweight,


I would say a combo of both, but more what I quoted above. Im really suprised to see 17.5 being rated excellent.

[dms]

The ratings are very generous.

[TxRedMan]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm six feet tall and nearly forty-four years old, and in the five months since I've been exercising and eating healthier, I've brought my weight down from 205 lbs to 182 lbs, with a current body fat percentage of approx. 18%. Although I certainly feel and look better, I still have a bit of a spare tire around my waist. While checking for body fat range charts, I found a couple of sites with tables similar to the one below:

MALE
Age Excellent Good Fair Poor
19-24 10.8 % 14.9 % 19.0 % 23.3 %
25-29 12.8 % 16.5 % 20.3 % 24.4 %
30-34 14.5 % 18.0 % 21.5 % 25.2 %
35-39 16.1 % 19.4 % 22.6 % 26.1 %
<font color="blue"> 40-44 17.5 % 20.5 % 23.6 % 26.9 % </font>
45-49 18.6 % 21.5 % 24.5 % 27.6 %
50-54 19.8 % 22.7 % 25.6 % 28.7 %
55-59 20.2 % 23.2 % 26.2 % 29.3 %
60 + 20.3 % 23.5 % 26.7 % 29.8

And I see that for my age, my body fat percentage is considered nearly excellent ("ideal" according to another table I saw). However, I'm obviously kind of far from lean.

Do these charts consider someone my age and bf percentage "excellent/ideal" because so many middle-age men are overweight, or are there biologically imposed barriers to how lean someone can reasonably expect to be as they get older?

[/ QUOTE ]

the problem w/ body fat % is that it's extremely hard to gauge accurately. the calipers are a joke. some people have 10% body fat but have fat deposits on their love handles/thighs, and would register 20% on some measurement tests.

i've heard that under water body fat analysis is the only true test.

also, this scale is a little generous, especially for the 35+ age groups.

20% body fat at age 40 isn't good imho.

&lt; 20% should be maintained at all times imo.

i think that excellent for 19-24 would be &lt;10%

[FatBottomedGirls]

[ QUOTE ]
i think that excellent for 19-24 would be &lt;10%

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Im really suprised to see 17.5 being rated excellent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know the source of these charts or what they mean by "ideal" but I'm guessing their criteria are different from yours. Some people have the opinion that lower bf = better, but that's primarily based on what they think looks good rather than what is healthiest.

Obviously it's not healthy to be a lard ass, but that also doesn't mean that 0% bf should be anyone's goal either. People at the extremes of both very low and very high bf both tend to partake in very unhealthy practices. The interesting thing is that fat people who are eating themselves to death are viewed as unhealthy, while people who cycle through extreme diets while taking diuretics and other unhealthy substances are viewed as people we should emulate.

Also, like the rest of the things related to fitness, an "ideal" bodyfat should be dependent on your goals. You're not going to see many competitive powerlifters at &lt;10% bf and you're not going to see many competitive marathon runners at &gt;10%. It's all relative, but I think there's probably a huge range that's "healthy" and in my opinion it doesn't make a lot of sense to even look at bf unless your goals, such as looks/cardiovascular health, are directly impacted by it.

[BreakfastBurrito]

I think this chart was developed in relation to incidence and onset of hypertension, diabetes, cancer, etc... rather than with respect to athleticism or aesthetic appearance.

I remember reading in the past that as far as disease prevention and longevity is concerned, there isn't much if any bonus effect of being in great competitive athlete shape vs moderately active pretty good shape. So from that perspective, you are likely in excellent health.