Body Fat and Heart Disease

Training
201

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

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.
[/quote]

I don’t have to. A study on Korean man where the Korean women do not show the same does not show that body fat alone has a one to one correlation with risk.

[quote]
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.[/quote]

Late apology on that one. It is interesting that all of these little remarks get thrown but if I respond to any of them I get a tidal wave in response.

You need to stop acting like one sentence in a study negates everything else written in a study. That isn’t science, kid.

202

Professor will you continue your shameful cowardice or will you address my question?
Why did you lie?
Why did you make up fake quote and try to insult me with it?
Are you not man enough to admit it?
Don’t you think you’re a little old for that?
Is that how a doctor should act?
Do I need to re quote the whole thing for you?

203

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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”.[/quote]

You are correct that they considered multiple aspects however the other factors while, good indicators, where not as accurate at predicting as body fat %, mostly because all those things you mentioned are indicated by body fat %. And again I merely used that study to refute the statement you made about body fat % NOT and NEVER being an indication of CVD risk. The Korean study is the one that supports my claim that 9% is healthier than 14% body fat in an individual.

204

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

You are correct that they considered multiple aspects however the other factors while, good indicators, where not as accurate at predicting as body fat %, mostly because all those things you mentioned are indicated by body fat %. [/quote]

This is where study interpretation comes into play. That study basically said, “what is a good way to look at someone and determine risk with no tests?”. It then tested and found, “Gee, 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”” show it the best…aka THE FAT KIDS WHO DON’T EXERCISE.

You are the only one trying to make more of it than what it is.

That does not show a direct relationship with body fat with a one to one occurrence rate.

It shows FAT KIDS ARE AT GREATER RISK OF DISEASE. To which I say, no shit.

[quote]

And again I merely used that study to refute the statement you made about body fat % NOT and NEVER being an indication of CVD risk. The Korean study is the one that supports my claim that 9% is healthier than 14% body fat in an individual. [/quote]

IT ISN’T A RISK IN ITSELF. It was NOT a risk in itself here.

It was looked at along with…wait for it…

wait for it…

low VO2max showed significantly high total cholesterol, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and high total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels

Yeah, the insults to me aren’t changing the truth.

205

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

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.
[/quote]

I don’t have to. A study on Korean man where the Korean women do not show the same does not show that body fat alone has a one to one correlation with risk.

The fact is that I have shown more to support what I have said in this thread than you have. Which you have shown nothing. And the women do not show the same because women are naturally meant to hold more body fat than men. Therefore their body’s healthiest (again in relation to CVD risk) body fat levels will be higher than a man’s, which is backed up by that graph. It would be far more likely that the graph was incorrect if the men and women’s were the same.

Also, I am not your kid so do not refer to me as such. I will remain civil with you from this point on, but the same consideration would be nice.

206

Is it possible to make a Professor X: The Shit Storm thread and relegate all questions and discussion to that thread so that threads like this can dispense with the semantics and foster helpful and productive discussion?

100% serious.

207

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

The fact is that I have shown more to support what I have said in this thread than you have. Which you have shown nothing. [/quote]

Dude, you have shown nothing. Not one study posted shows a one to one risk rate with body fat alone.

Looking at Korean men and seeing a difference between them and Korean women that great implies environmental or sex factors.

This last study you posted looked at fat teens who don’t move and found they are at more risk.

NONE OF THIS SHOWS SOME RISK FROM ANY GAIN OF BODY FAT AT ALL.

I don’t have to prove the absence of disease at fat percentages under obesity. We see that everyday. You do realize there are healthy people who are not lean?

[quote]
And the women do not show the same because women are naturally meant to hold more body fat than men.[/quote]

This is how info can be used incorrectly. The truth is women are usually the first to show many of these diseases especially diabetes…so seeing none of that until nearer obesity with them implies environmental or social factors affecting the men…since you do NOT see the same across all cultures.

I have explained this to you many times.

[quote]
Also, I am not your kid so do not refer to me as such. I will remain civil with you from this point on, but the same consideration would be nice.[/quote]

But you didn’t remain civil. You already failed at that. Now you give rules to me?

LOL

208

[quote]bpick86 wrote:
The fact is that I have shown more to support what I have said in this thread than you have. Which you have shown nothing. And the women do not show the same because women are naturally meant to hold more body fat than men. Therefore their body’s healthiest (again in relation to CVD risk) body fat levels will be higher than a man’s, which is backed up by that graph. It would be far more likely that the graph was incorrect if the men and women’s were the same.

Also, I am not your kid so do not refer to me as such. I will remain civil with you from this point on, but the same consideration would be nice.[/quote]

Stop bpick, just stop.
You know his MO.
The discussion has warped from “is being overweight a risk factor for CVD” to “there aren’t any studies done on non Korean men and women showing a 1 to 1 ratio for bodyfat percentage and CVD risk”
This is just going to continue to deteriorate this thread into the same old crap.
It doesn’t matter what studies you post, he will find one line that disqualifies the entire study some how.
Look how many posters were contributing earlier have disappeared once this crap picked up?
I like you but he’s sucking you in.

I was serious about the All Shit Storm, All PX, All The Time thread lol
This back and forth that will inevitably go no where would be perfect.

209

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

The fact is that I have shown more to support what I have said in this thread than you have. Which you have shown nothing. [/quote]

Dude, you have shown nothing. Not one study posted shows a one to one risk rate with body fat alone.

Looking at Korean men and seeing a difference between them and Korean women that great implies environmental or sex factors.

This last study you posted looked at fat teens who don’t move and found they are at more risk.

NONE OF THIS SHOWS SOME RISK FROM ANY GAIN OF BODY FAT AT ALL.

I don’t have to prove the absence of disease at fat percentages under obesity. We see that everyday. You do realize there are healthy people who are not lean?

[quote]
And the women do not show the same because women are naturally meant to hold more body fat than men.[/quote]

This is how info can be used incorrectly. The truth is women are usually the first to show many of these diseases especially diabetes…so seeing none of that until nearer obesity with them implies environmental or social factors affecting the men…since you do NOT see the same across all cultures.

I have explained this to you many times.

[quote]
Also, I am not your kid so do not refer to me as such. I will remain civil with you from this point on, but the same consideration would be nice.[/quote]

But you didn’t remain civil. You already failed at that. Now you give rules to me?

LOL[/quote]

Yes there are healthy people who are not lean that would be healthier if they were leaner. To get leaner in a healthy fashion they would have to clean up there diet and exercise more so then they become healthier. And I never said body fat alone was the risk. However an increase in body fat indicates an increase in at least one behavior that puts a person more at risk, lack of exercise or unhealthy (for CVD risk) diet.

Also your point about women is incorrect when talking about who is more likely to present with symptoms, men are for more prone to have high cholesterol, high blood pressure and Type 2 diabetes.
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2011/10October/Pages/males-more-likely-to-get-diabetes.aspx

I have also explained this many times and you have not shown me anything to indicate that I am wrong.

And you are correct that I have insulted you in this thread, just as you have insulted me, however, I extended an olive branch in that regard with the apology at the top of the page and meant I would be civil from that point forward. I would appreciate it if you would accept it because hurling insults at one another as not done either of us any favors.

210

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

Yes there are healthy people who are not lean that would be healthier if they were leaner.[/quote]

This statement again has no basis in science. You can NOT say that Person A at 14% will be healthier if they were 12%. There are way to many variables to make any such claim.

Please stop inventing things.

[quote]

To get leaner in a healthy fashion they would have to clean up there diet and exercise more so then they become healthier.[/quote]

So you really think Person A at 14% has a bad diet just because they are carrying more body fat than someone who is 9%?

That makes no sense. There are people who eat “cleaner” than all of us who are fat.

They call them VEGETARIANS.

[quote]

And I never said body fat alone was the risk. However an increase in body fat indicates an increase in at least one behavior that puts a person more at risk, lack of exercise or unhealthy (for CVD risk) diet.[/quote]

Which means it holds no water for the person training everyday with a good diet.

You can’t even argue against what I just wrote…but I am sure you will try.

211

There is a direct correlation between obesity and heart failure - defined as per BMI over 30. Not just by bodyfat alone.

Important part here:
Ejection fraction of <40% was seen in 42% of obese compared with 54% of normal-weight patients with heart failure. Thus, there are more patients with diastolic heart failure among the obese. Approximately 11% of heart failure in men and 14% in women in the community are because of obesity alone.23

Ejection Fraction is very important folks.

212

[quote]Professor X wrote:

You can’t even argue against what I just wrote…but I am sure you will try.

[/quote]

I want to preserve your perfect record of being inaccurate in this thread so I am done.

You are wrong. I am right. I win.

213

[quote]FISCHER613 wrote:
There is a direct correlation between obesity and heart failure - defined as per BMI over 30. Not just by bodyfat alone.

Important part here:
Ejection fraction of <40% was seen in 42% of obese compared with 54% of normal-weight patients with heart failure. Thus, there are more patients with diastolic heart failure among the obese. Approximately 11% of heart failure in men and 14% in women in the community are because of obesity alone.23

Ejection Fraction is very important folks.[/quote]

Agreed. Obesity with all of its associated factors is the problem with CVD.

It is a genetic and lifestyle issue, not a “I gained 1lbs of fat so I am at more risk” issue like some here seem to think.

214

^Who cares?

215

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]bpick86 wrote:
The fact is that I have shown more to support what I have said in this thread than you have. Which you have shown nothing. And the women do not show the same because women are naturally meant to hold more body fat than men. Therefore their body’s healthiest (again in relation to CVD risk) body fat levels will be higher than a man’s, which is backed up by that graph. It would be far more likely that the graph was incorrect if the men and women’s were the same.

Also, I am not your kid so do not refer to me as such. I will remain civil with you from this point on, but the same consideration would be nice.[/quote]

Stop bpick, just stop.
You know his MO.
The discussion has warped from “is being overweight a risk factor for CVD” to “there aren’t any studies done on non Korean men and women showing a 1 to 1 ratio for bodyfat percentage and CVD risk”
This is just going to continue to deteriorate this thread into the same old crap.
It doesn’t matter what studies you post, he will find one line that disqualifies the entire study some how.
Look how many posters were contributing earlier have disappeared once this crap picked up?
I like you but he’s sucking you in.

I was serious about the All Shit Storm, All PX, All The Time thread lol
This back and forth that will inevitably go no where would be perfect.[/quote]

Just out of curiosity, what is your take on a person at 15% losing down to 10%, while maintain all other elements to the lifestyle, being at a lower risk of CVD?

216

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]bpick86 wrote:
The fact is that I have shown more to support what I have said in this thread than you have. Which you have shown nothing. And the women do not show the same because women are naturally meant to hold more body fat than men. Therefore their body’s healthiest (again in relation to CVD risk) body fat levels will be higher than a man’s, which is backed up by that graph. It would be far more likely that the graph was incorrect if the men and women’s were the same.

Also, I am not your kid so do not refer to me as such. I will remain civil with you from this point on, but the same consideration would be nice.[/quote]

Stop bpick, just stop.
You know his MO.
The discussion has warped from “is being overweight a risk factor for CVD” to “there aren’t any studies done on non Korean men and women showing a 1 to 1 ratio for bodyfat percentage and CVD risk”
This is just going to continue to deteriorate this thread into the same old crap.
It doesn’t matter what studies you post, he will find one line that disqualifies the entire study some how.
Look how many posters were contributing earlier have disappeared once this crap picked up?
I like you but he’s sucking you in.

I was serious about the All Shit Storm, All PX, All The Time thread lol
This back and forth that will inevitably go no where would be perfect.[/quote]

Just out of curiosity, what is your take on a person at 15% losing down to 10%, while maintain all other elements to the lifestyle, being at a lower risk of CVD?[/quote]
I think their risk of CVD would be less.
I don’t see how anyone can argue that losing bodyfat wouldn’t make them healthier.
That is mind blowing, especially when it’s a “doctor” who’s trying to do so.

The question is, how much will it lower their risk?
Of that, I have no idea.
I think going from 15% to 10% would lower the risks less than going from 20% to 15% though.

I don’t see how a person would lose 5% bodyfat without changing some aspect of their lifestyle though.

217

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]bpick86 wrote:
The fact is that I have shown more to support what I have said in this thread than you have. Which you have shown nothing. And the women do not show the same because women are naturally meant to hold more body fat than men. Therefore their body’s healthiest (again in relation to CVD risk) body fat levels will be higher than a man’s, which is backed up by that graph. It would be far more likely that the graph was incorrect if the men and women’s were the same.

Also, I am not your kid so do not refer to me as such. I will remain civil with you from this point on, but the same consideration would be nice.[/quote]

Stop bpick, just stop.
You know his MO.
The discussion has warped from “is being overweight a risk factor for CVD” to “there aren’t any studies done on non Korean men and women showing a 1 to 1 ratio for bodyfat percentage and CVD risk”
This is just going to continue to deteriorate this thread into the same old crap.
It doesn’t matter what studies you post, he will find one line that disqualifies the entire study some how.
Look how many posters were contributing earlier have disappeared once this crap picked up?
I like you but he’s sucking you in.

I was serious about the All Shit Storm, All PX, All The Time thread lol
This back and forth that will inevitably go no where would be perfect.[/quote]

Just out of curiosity, what is your take on a person at 15% losing down to 10%, while maintain all other elements to the lifestyle, being at a lower risk of CVD?[/quote]
I think their risk of CVD would be less.
I don’t see how anyone can argue that losing bodyfat wouldn’t make them healthier.
That is mind blowing, especially when it’s a “doctor” who’s trying to do so.

The question is, how much will it lower their risk?
Of that, I have no idea.
I think going from 15% to 10% would lower the risks less than going from 20% to 15% though.

I don’t see how a person would lose 5% bodyfat without changing some aspect of their lifestyle though.[/quote]

I agree with you that it would be a far less significant decrease in risk as body fat becomes lower. It probably would not effect it very much at all but it would effect it some. Also to me the only conceivable way that someone could lose fat and not decrease their risk of CVD would be if they lost the weight by shooting meth or something.

218

lol
I think if they started shooting meth then CVD wouldn’t be their only medical concern.

219

I doubt changes from 10 to 15 or 17 to 12 % etc mean much (much - not saying nothing) it gets to be too small a factor compared to the many other factors that dominate cvd risks, so small that it it would be statistically insignificant - that would be my estimate anyway

In other words if someone at 17% bf wanted to lower their chances of cvd losing a few % bfat would be among the least important factors,

That high bf correlates with cvd is no surprise, first high bf called obesity is 25%+, roughly, secondly - how do you go over 25? For most people its by being inactive and eating too much

220

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Professor will you continue your shameful cowardice or will you address my question?
Why did you lie?
Why did you make up fake quote and try to insult me with it?
Are you not man enough to admit it?
Don’t you think you’re a little old for that?
Is that how a doctor should act?
Do I need to re quote the whole thing for you?[/quote]

Good luck getting a response. I was reading that thread after it was locked and thinking, “please tell me someone else caught this”. He changed what brick wrote into what he wanted it to mean. Then quoted himself with the change.

Any person without an ego as big or as fragile as his, could simply say my mistake, especially in the face of being blatantly wrong. But we have seen it countless times. The pre exhaust thread comes to mind here.

I’ve never seen someone try so hard to be right all the time, or to be THE guy with the answers, that arguing becomes the most important thing. Sometimes just a simple, “you may be right about this, but blah blah blah is more significant”. Some type of recognition that fault is possible is a normal adult interaction. Everyone can’t ALWAYS be wrong when X is on the other side of the argument. It’s mind blowing.