Body Fat and Heart Disease

Training
181

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
By “highly processed food”, what does that mean?
[/quote]
I am not Ryan and cannot speak for him but to me processed foods are things like:
Breads
Pastas with refined flour
Canned/frozen foods
Meats like hot dogs and chicken nuggets
Cookies
Cakes
Milk (pasteurized)
Chips
Etc.

Refined foods and GMO’s should be avoided IMO[/quote]

By frozen I am assuming you mean the typical microwavable fare and not frozen veggies and the like?[/quote]
Personally I try to stay away from both.
I like to get my food as fresh as possible.
I’m not a paleo guy but the stuff that happens to food is horrible.
Do you know what they do to strawberries?
Ever wonder why you drive by a strawberry field and all the bushes(are they bushes?) are covered with those tarps?
It’s not to keep the sun off or bugs out lol.
The food industry is scary stuff.
[/quote]

I agree no doubt, but if you don’t have a garden of your own or a farmers market, you are going to be exposed to this stuff because the strawberries in grocery store fresh were under the same tarp with the ones that they froze ha. I do prefer fresh as often as I can though but in a pinch I think that frozen veggies are a much better option than the canned.

182

Also, bpick, your study mentioned,

…which means we need to know how high their body fat percentage was and this study implies non-activity as well.

One other factor to consider is that this is when fat cells can also see more growth in number as this is usually not seen in adults unless HUGE changes in weight are seen.

183

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Do you know what they do to strawberries?
Ever wonder why you drive by a strawberry field and all the bushes(are they bushes?) are covered with those tarps?
It’s not to keep the sun off or bugs out lol.
[/quote]

No, I don’t. What do they do?[/quote]
A friend of mine works for a company that regulates this stuff and he told me.
They are treated with this chemical that is so harsh that is has to be pumped into the ground by guys in full on HazMat suits.
The chemical is so harsh it cannot be applied topically.
It is done in the middle of the night for obvious reasons and the fields have to be covered so that it doesn’t openly release into the atmosphere.
And then we rinse those berries under some water for 10 seconds and eat them lol

184

[quote]bpick86 wrote:
I agree no doubt, but if you don’t have a garden of your own or a farmers market, you are going to be exposed to this stuff because the strawberries in grocery store fresh were under the same tarp with the ones that they froze ha. I do prefer fresh as often as I can though but in a pinch I think that frozen veggies are a much better option than the canned.[/quote]
Frozen is better than canned IMO but still not optimal.
The best bet, besides having your own garden or farm, is to research your products and try to buy locally whenever possible.
Organic and from local farms is the most feasible option for most.

Ever read about how orange juice is made and processed?
Oranges are a seasonal fruit but you can get OJ year round.
Hmmmmm…

185

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Do you know what they do to strawberries?
Ever wonder why you drive by a strawberry field and all the bushes(are they bushes?) are covered with those tarps?
It’s not to keep the sun off or bugs out lol.
[/quote]

No, I don’t. What do they do?[/quote]
A friend of mine works for a company that regulates this stuff and he told me.
They are treated with this chemical that is so harsh that is has to be pumped into the ground by guys in full on HazMat suits.
The chemical is so harsh it cannot be applied topically.
It is done in the middle of the night for obvious reasons and the fields have to be covered so that it doesn’t openly release into the atmosphere.
And then we rinse those berries under some water for 10 seconds and eat them lol[/quote]

186

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Do you know what they do to strawberries?
Ever wonder why you drive by a strawberry field and all the bushes(are they bushes?) are covered with those tarps?
It’s not to keep the sun off or bugs out lol.
[/quote]

No, I don’t. What do they do?[/quote]
A friend of mine works for a company that regulates this stuff and he told me.
They are treated with this chemical that is so harsh that is has to be pumped into the ground by guys in full on HazMat suits.
The chemical is so harsh it cannot be applied topically.
It is done in the middle of the night for obvious reasons and the fields have to be covered so that it doesn’t openly release into the atmosphere.
And then we rinse those berries under some water for 10 seconds and eat them lol[/quote]

I wonder where the employees (or at least, executives) of those companies get their own food?

Maybe they have a bunch of private farms and greenhouses that grow food for them as some sort of black-market private vegetable conspiracy.

187

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Do you know what they do to strawberries?
Ever wonder why you drive by a strawberry field and all the bushes(are they bushes?) are covered with those tarps?
It’s not to keep the sun off or bugs out lol.
[/quote]

No, I don’t. What do they do?[/quote]
A friend of mine works for a company that regulates this stuff and he told me.
They are treated with this chemical that is so harsh that is has to be pumped into the ground by guys in full on HazMat suits.
The chemical is so harsh it cannot be applied topically.
It is done in the middle of the night for obvious reasons and the fields have to be covered so that it doesn’t openly release into the atmosphere.
And then we rinse those berries under some water for 10 seconds and eat them lol[/quote]

I wonder where the employees (or at least, executives) of those companies get their own food?

Maybe they have a bunch of private farms and greenhouses that grow food for them as some sort of black-market private vegetable conspiracy.[/quote]
Without a doubt.
I in no way believe that the top dogs (owners/execs/ceo’s) actually consume their own products.

188

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

Tracking of health and risk indicators of cardiovascular diseases from teenager to adult: Amsterdam Growth and Health Study - PubMed little reading but I will quote the important part.

“It can be concluded that measurement of percentage body fat in the early teenage period seems to be the most important cardiovascular disease indicator in predicting risk levels in the young adult.”
[/quote]

You missed
"The amount of physical activity measured at young adult age is the only behavioral parameter to show a significant interrelation with other cardiovascular disease "

How do you know how “clean” his diet is from a body fat percentage?

So when you read 80lbs gain with only a 5% increase in body fat…what did you think the rest of the weight was?

[quote]
This is incorrect. Yes they are. Albeit very slightly. But they are. [/quote]

No, someone at 9% is NOT more at risk for a CVD just because they are later 14%. That is not truth. It has no basis in science.

I don’t have time to go through the rest but this much is enough to show what you really understand.[/quote]

Your reading comprehension sucks.

"The amount of physical activity measured at young adult age is the only behavioral parameter to show a significant interrelation with other cardiovascular disease "

The other two behavioral parameters where type A personality and smoking. It does state however that “measurement of percentage body fat in the early teenage period seems to be the most important cardiovascular disease indicator.” But you ignored that the study found bf% was the most significant factor because that little bit of real science pops that bro science bubble you have floating around.

And to the body fat. The rest of the weight is the only thing that matters. The fat has no relevance to quantifying amount of muscle gained and it would be bizarre and foolish for someone to suggest that it should.

Also that graph that popped up there, does have a scientific base and it suggests that there is a difference in 9% and 14%. Again you refute that but have nothing to back up your own open except bro science conjecture.

All of those things that I just pointed out are plenty to show how weak your argument truly is and that you have basically filled up a thread with inaccurate bullshit.

189

Noooooooooooooo!!! BPick! Don’t get sucked back in

190

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Do you know what they do to strawberries?
Ever wonder why you drive by a strawberry field and all the bushes(are they bushes?) are covered with those tarps?
It’s not to keep the sun off or bugs out lol.
[/quote]

No, I don’t. What do they do?[/quote]
A friend of mine works for a company that regulates this stuff and he told me.
They are treated with this chemical that is so harsh that is has to be pumped into the ground by guys in full on HazMat suits.
The chemical is so harsh it cannot be applied topically.
It is done in the middle of the night for obvious reasons and the fields have to be covered so that it doesn’t openly release into the atmosphere.
And then we rinse those berries under some water for 10 seconds and eat them lol[/quote]

I wonder where the employees (or at least, executives) of those companies get their own food?

Maybe they have a bunch of private farms and greenhouses that grow food for them as some sort of black-market private vegetable conspiracy.[/quote]
Without a doubt.
I in no way believe that the top dogs (owners/execs/ceo’s) actually consume their own products.[/quote]

Is it wrong that in the back of my mind I’m trying to figure out how to poison/pollute their food supply?

191

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Do you know what they do to strawberries?
Ever wonder why you drive by a strawberry field and all the bushes(are they bushes?) are covered with those tarps?
It’s not to keep the sun off or bugs out lol.
[/quote]

No, I don’t. What do they do?[/quote]
A friend of mine works for a company that regulates this stuff and he told me.
They are treated with this chemical that is so harsh that is has to be pumped into the ground by guys in full on HazMat suits.
The chemical is so harsh it cannot be applied topically.
It is done in the middle of the night for obvious reasons and the fields have to be covered so that it doesn’t openly release into the atmosphere.
And then we rinse those berries under some water for 10 seconds and eat them lol[/quote]

I wonder where the employees (or at least, executives) of those companies get their own food?

Maybe they have a bunch of private farms and greenhouses that grow food for them as some sort of black-market private vegetable conspiracy.[/quote]
Without a doubt.
I in no way believe that the top dogs (owners/execs/ceo’s) actually consume their own products.[/quote]

Is it wrong that in the back of my mind I’m trying to figure out how to poison/pollute their food supply?[/quote]
lol
And people wonder why obesity is on the rise.
Why heart disease is one of the top killers in the nation.
Why it seems like everyone knows a close friend or family member with cancer.
Obviously there is no “proof” that what is happening to our food is big contributing factor just like there is no conclusive proof that smoking causes lung cancer but I believe it.

192

I’ve always looked at GMO’s and chemically and hormonally treated foods (plants and animals alike) much differently than it seems like most people evidently…

I feel great. I don’t have a bunch of health problems or some shit. I’m getting stronger and in general life is good. I NEVER buy organic anything. I eat probably the worst most “treated” stuff that we have available to us in this country lol. Processed food, poisoned food, bla bla bla.

If those things are really so dangerous, and I’m apparently thriving off of them then either their danger is overblown or my body is fucking amazing. Either one is fine with me.

193

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, bpick, your study mentioned,

…which means we need to know how high their body fat percentage was and this study implies non-activity as well.

One other factor to consider is that this is when fat cells can also see more growth in number as this is usually not seen in adults unless HUGE changes in weight are seen.[/quote]\

This is why I didn’t use this study to prove my 9 to 14 % point. But if you think logically, which I am unsure you are capable of at this point, if gaining an extreme amount of fat puts us at an extreme risk, wouldn’t it make sense that a little extra fat would put us at a little extra risk? That study in Korea indicates that it does.

194

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Lots of interesting discussion towards the end of the Bulking thread.
Anonym posted tons of great info.
If like to hear more from those studies.
Ill copy and paste some of the quotes to get us started here.

QUESTION TO BE DISCUSSED:
Does being overweight (excess bodyfat not BS BMI) put someone at risk for heart disease?
Is being overweight a risk factor for CVD?[/quote]

why is an under-muscled, over-fat body so unattractive? (hint: it’s not arbitrary and it’s not the media)

195

[quote]csulli wrote:
I’ve always looked at GMO’s and chemically and hormonally treated foods (plants and animals alike) much differently than it seems like most people evidently…

I feel great. I don’t have a bunch of health problems or some shit. I’m getting stronger and in general life is good. I NEVER buy organic anything. I eat probably the worst most “treated” stuff that we have available to us in this country lol. Processed food, poisoned food, bla bla bla.

If those things are really so dangerous, and I’m apparently thriving off of them then either their danger is overblown or my body is fucking amazing. Either one is fine with me.[/quote]
You don’t have health problems that you know of.
Feeling good isn’t a very good baramator to gauge health by.
A lot of people feel good until, well one day they don’t.
You are only 25.
Hopefully you continue to have a healthy and long life.

196

[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Lots of interesting discussion towards the end of the Bulking thread.
Anonym posted tons of great info.
If like to hear more from those studies.
Ill copy and paste some of the quotes to get us started here.

QUESTION TO BE DISCUSSED:
Does being overweight (excess bodyfat not BS BMI) put someone at risk for heart disease?
Is being overweight a risk factor for CVD?[/quote]

why is an under-muscled, over-fat body so unattractive? (hint: it’s not arbitrary and it’s not the media)[/quote]

I am going to guess it has something to do with natural selection. But that is just me throwing something out there.

Presence of fat and lack of muscle indicates lack of testosterone, therefore lack of fertility and also a lack of dominance.

197

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]setto222 wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Gonna do a little list of the things fat cells are known to help regulate. Glucose and lipid metabolism, appetite regulation and body weight homeostasis, immunity, coagulation and fibrinolysis, angiogenesis and vascular tone control, and even reproduction. secrete hormones, but also growth factors, cytokines, complement factors and matrix proteins.

insulin resistance, inflammation, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes

Ectopic fat from insulin resistance which fat release restin when they grow, coating arteries and creating metabolic mayhem from fat not being stored.

aromatase (the enzyme converts testosterone and other androgens to estrogens) is located in subcutaneous fat and activated by the glucocorticoid a stress hormone. Bulking adding weight even muscle and fat both raise stress hormones

So bulking up and adding fat is good and healthy?[/quote]

You are way more advanced than me in this realm so I wanted to ask you: would it be possible to add additional fat and still be metabolically healthy? I remember reading a few years ago that many people with low level body fat are metabolically obese and visa-versa. But with that extensive list you just wrote out, it seems that it would be highly unlikely for an overweight person to be healthy in an endocrinological, cardiovascular or even emotional sense. [/quote]

The research is so new and still needs a lot of work so most of what I say after this is just guess based on current knowledge.

The more fat you add the farther from optimal metabolic health you go. And general health. That’s why IMO it’s smarter to keep fat at a minimum.

Going to very low bf ie competition is also not exactly the best thing. It’s a stress on the body and if done incorrectly it can crush the metabolism

Yes I would imagine that being overweight it would be very unlikely to find someone even close to optimal in the categories you listed. [/quote]

Thanks for the response!

198

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, bpick, your study mentioned,

…which means we need to know how high their body fat percentage was and this study implies non-activity as well.

One other factor to consider is that this is when fat cells can also see more growth in number as this is usually not seen in adults unless HUGE changes in weight are seen.[/quote]\

This is why I didn’t use this study to prove my 9 to 14 % point. But if you think logically, which I am unsure you are capable of at this point, if gaining an extreme amount of fat puts us at an extreme risk, wouldn’t it make sense that a little extra fat would put us at a little extra risk? That study in Korea indicates that it does.[/quote]

No, it doesn’t…and what you did right there is what Bro science s…looking at real science and then leaping to conclusions that are unfounded based on that.

That study looked at HIGH BODY FAT TEENS and determined that HIGH BODY FAT TEENS are at greater risk…along with “low VO2max showed significantly high total cholesterol, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and high total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels”

all of which indicates a life style of obesity or syndrome x. It does NOT indicate at all that ANY increase in body fat causes a health risk.

You can insult me all you want to, but the real science is what it is.

Fat alone isn’t the issue. It never has been.

199

388×606 48.7 KB

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, bpick, your study mentioned,

…which means we need to know how high their body fat percentage was and this study implies non-activity as well.

One other factor to consider is that this is when fat cells can also see more growth in number as this is usually not seen in adults unless HUGE changes in weight are seen.[/quote]\

This is why I didn’t use this study to prove my 9 to 14 % point. But if you think logically, which I am unsure you are capable of at this point, if gaining an extreme amount of fat puts us at an extreme risk, wouldn’t it make sense that a little extra fat would put us at a little extra risk? That study in Korea indicates that it does.[/quote]

No, it doesn’t…and what you did right there is what Bro science s…looking at real science and then leaping to conclusions that are unfounded based on that.

That study looked at HIGH BODY FAT TEENS and determined that HIGH BODY FAT TEENS are at greater risk…along with “low VO2max showed significantly high total cholesterol, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and high total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels”

all of which indicates a life style of obesity or syndrome x. It does NOT indicate at all that ANY increase in body fat causes a health risk.

You can insult me all you want to, but the real science is what it is.

Fat alone isn’t the issue. It never has been.[/quote]

Here is the real science that supports my point of view. You chose to ignore that however. I am aware that you question this graph but have shown me no real scientific evidence to the contrary.

P.S. I will admit that I have acted childishly in this thread by insulting you out of retaliation and for that I am sorry. I have always tried to remain civil when discussing anything with anyone on here and I failed this time.

200

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

Your reading comprehension sucks.

"The amount of physical activity measured at young adult age is the only behavioral parameter to show a significant interrelation with other cardiovascular disease "

The other two behavioral parameters where type A personality and smoking. It does state however that “measurement of percentage body fat in the early teenage period seems to be the most important cardiovascular disease indicator.” But you ignored that the study found bf% was the most significant factor because that little bit of real science pops that bro science bubble you have floating around.[/quote]

I didn’t ignore it at all. The study itself also mentioned, they had a “low VO2max showed significantly high total cholesterol, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and high total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels”…all of which show that more was involved with this stidy and the findings than just a look at body fat. It was looking at risk factors and determined that HIGH BODY FAT TEENS are at more risk…something we know already as HIGH BODY FAT along with “low VO2max showed significantly high total cholesterol, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and high total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels” means LIFESTYLE was also an issue with this study.

[quote]
Also that graph that popped up there, does have a scientific base and it suggests that there is a difference in 9% and 14%. Again you refute that but have nothing to back up your own open except bro science conjecture.

All of those things that I just pointed out are plenty to show how weak your argument truly is and that you have basically filled up a thread with inaccurate bullshit. [/quote]

Someone at 14% is not at a high body fat percentage…so please show me how small increases in body fat put a patient at risk alone.

So far, you have just shown a study on HIGH BODY FAT TEENS WITH “low VO2max showed significantly high total cholesterol, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and high total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels”.