Body Fat and Heart Disease

Training
221

[quote]gswork wrote:
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[/quote]
Oh I agree with all of this.
The original point of the thread was to see who thinks being overweight (aka carrying excess bodyfat, not BMI) is a risk factor for CVD.
I didn’t even think that was debatable.
The thread has gotten a bit off track, not sure how that could have happened? Lol

Is the risk factor reduced significantly because of a 5% bodyfat loss?
I don’t know.
If I had to guess, for most people I would say no but I do feel like the risk WOULD be reduced.

Reducing bodyfat usually means a change, for the positive, in activity level and nutrition.
Is it the fat loss that reduces the risk or is it what is done to lose the fat that reduces the risk?
I don’t think there is any way to accurately discern one way or the other.

222

[quote]gswork wrote:
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[/quote]

Please inform us why lowering bf should not be done if you want to live healthy and have a low risk of disease?

I am baffled that people still want to try and argue that carrying extra body does any good? If it doesn’t do any good and only negatively affects your life whether its a little or a lot why would you? And little things add up over time to become larger factors fyi

223

[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]

Shit this about what I replied. Agreed with this.

224

[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]

Advice coming form a young indestructible youth. I am sorry you are so naive. I hope you end up opening your mind more

225

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]gswork wrote:
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[/quote]

Please inform us why lowering bf should not be done if you want to live healthy and have a low risk of disease?

I am baffled that people still want to try and argue that carrying extra body does any good? If it doesn’t do any good and only negatively affects your life whether its a little or a lot why would you? And little things add up over time to become larger factors fyi[/quote]

The only point was that when you get comfortably under obesity it stops being a significant factor rather than its healthier to have more, I.e. that having got to the ok level losing a bit more gives insignificant incremental benefits
It would also be interesting to see if being very low in bf becomes a negative after some lower range

226

[quote]gswork wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]gswork wrote:
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[/quote]

Please inform us why lowering bf should not be done if you want to live healthy and have a low risk of disease?

I am baffled that people still want to try and argue that carrying extra body does any good? If it doesn’t do any good and only negatively affects your life whether its a little or a lot why would you? And little things add up over time to become larger factors fyi[/quote]

The only point was that when you get comfortably under obesity it stops being a significant factor rather than its healthier to have more, I.e. that having got to the ok level losing a bit more gives insignificant incremental benefits
It would also be interesting to see if being very low in bf becomes a negative after some lower range
[/quote]

It does I wrote a short post on this on a reply earlier today.

But to think that being at 10% vs 15 that you will be as healthily at 15 is odd? Again why be at 15 if it only does bad things. Why be at 17 ect? Slight increase in bad health is still an increase the wrong way?

227

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]rds63799 wrote:
it still can be!

X, would you not say that, using Bauber as an example, that the increased fat he added when he got huge would have increased a lot of his negative health markers?

(Sorry for using you as an example big guy, I mean no disrespect)[/quote]

I don’t know anyone who actually diagnoses patients who would ever only look at one variable to judge a patient’s risk unless it was something like smoking.

A good diagnostician would look at the activity level of the patient and genetic factors along with blood work, not “body fat”. [/quote]

Which genetic factors would you examine and which blood tests would you order?[/quote]

Family history. General blood work looking for diabetes or cholesterol issues. If someone had no symptoms, there would be little need to focus on “body fat” outside of obesity or recent huge weight changes that are unexplained.[/quote]

General blood work?

Which tests specifically? There’s a number that indicate diabetes and cholesterol issues.[/quote]

You know, all the blood work that dentists usually run on their patients.[/quote]

LOL

228

[quote]rds63799 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]rds63799 wrote:

I see what you’re saying, but could the increase in fat, and lets be honest his bodyfat was pretty high, not be indicative of an “unhealthy” lifestyle which is increasing the negative health markers? [/quote]

NO…BECAUSE I CAN SEE THOSE BIG FUCKING MUSCLES THAT INDICATE HE HAS A LIFE SPENT IN THE GYM AND ISN’T SEDENTARY.

Look, I don’t have the time today to fuss with 10 different people all focusing on something different to bitch about.

I have answered you. No doctor would look at a patient and indicate health risk JUST BECAUSE THEY GAINED A LITTLE BODY FAT ALONE excluding the activity and lifestyle and genetic history of the patient. That makes no sense.[/quote]

Wow.

I wasn’t bitching, I was genuinely curious as to your opinion on a subject I thought you might have interesting insights on. I thought I had made it pretty clear in my post that I knew that Bauber’s muscle mass made a difference, and wanted to know what you thought about that, compared to someone sedentary. I also deliberately used examples where people had gained more than “a little bodyfat alone” because I didn’t want the discussion to focus on small increases, because I actually agree with the points you have made about that previously.

Instead I get sworn at and accused of bitching.

I can see why everyone hates you.

I HAVE NOW OFFICIALLY JOINED THE POSSE! HAI GUYS![/quote]

Welcome, Brother.

229

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Dear Professor,
I have asked you kindly at least 10 times to show me where you got that quote from Brick.
You “quoted” him and used that to be a condescending dickhead to me in order to prove your point.
I have asked close to a dozen times where you got that quote from.
Are we to take your lack of a response to mean that you did in fact make that quote up?

Does this mean that you were blatantly lying in rest to further your argument and now that you were called on it your true colors of cowardice show?
No response, no ownership of your lying bullshit, nothing.
Is this the conclusion that we are left with?

With how many times you have shouted “your reading comprehension sucks”, “stop lying”, “address what was actually written” and all that I’m surprised that you didn’t take one bit of your own advice.

I am still waiting for a response but I won’t hold my breath.[/quote]

230

[quote]gswork wrote:
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[/quote]

I think it would make some difference but very little. Especially if you are just considering the difference that the lower fat mass makes by itself. However when you think of the improved diet and exercise regime one would start to lose that 5%, I think it becomes more significant from a cardiovascular health standpoint. Not extremely significant, just more than considering fat alone.

231

??? Do some of you really think you can argue this stuff with PX?

He’s a DOCTOR OF DENTAL SURGERY for crying out loud. You don’t stand a chance.

232

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]gswork wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]gswork wrote:
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[/quote]

Please inform us why lowering bf should not be done if you want to live healthy and have a low risk of disease?

I am baffled that people still want to try and argue that carrying extra body does any good? If it doesn’t do any good and only negatively affects your life whether its a little or a lot why would you? And little things add up over time to become larger factors fyi[/quote]

The only point was that when you get comfortably under obesity it stops being a significant factor rather than its healthier to have more, I.e. that having got to the ok level losing a bit more gives insignificant incremental benefits
It would also be interesting to see if being very low in bf becomes a negative after some lower range
[/quote]

It does I wrote a short post on this on a reply earlier today.

But to think that being at 10% vs 15 that you will be as healthily at 15 is odd? Again why be at 15 if it only does bad things. Why be at 17 ect? Slight increase in bad health is still an increase the wrong way?[/quote]

What do you think the peak is, I mean what bf % do you think an average male would be sitting at their healthiest and if they lose more fat is doing more harm than good?

233

He’s the joke of these forums, is more like it.

234

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]gswork wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]gswork wrote:
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[/quote]

Please inform us why lowering bf should not be done if you want to live healthy and have a low risk of disease?

I am baffled that people still want to try and argue that carrying extra body does any good? If it doesn’t do any good and only negatively affects your life whether its a little or a lot why would you? And little things add up over time to become larger factors fyi[/quote]

The only point was that when you get comfortably under obesity it stops being a significant factor rather than its healthier to have more, I.e. that having got to the ok level losing a bit more gives insignificant incremental benefits
It would also be interesting to see if being very low in bf becomes a negative after some lower range
[/quote]

It does I wrote a short post on this on a reply earlier today.

But to think that being at 10% vs 15 that you will be as healthily at 15 is odd? Again why be at 15 if it only does bad things. Why be at 17 ect? Slight increase in bad health is still an increase the wrong way?[/quote]

What do you think the peak is, I mean what bf % do you think an average male would be sitting at their healthiest and if they lose more fat is doing more harm than good?[/quote]

Genetics will have spme pull here. Some it will be a bit easier to maintain leanness ie I have never been much over 10-12 if I have. But I am very active which helps a ton.

So back to topic I would say 8-12. Depending on how much stress it takes to stay at that level. The more stress the worse it will be for your body in terms of health.

Goes both ways. Adding weight is a stressor on the body. Extra fat is as well those are just two more pieces to why pushing weight up a ton and adding extra fat is bad news for health.

Hope that wasn’t too ambiguous. I would be interested what some of the other serious people on here think and why

235

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]gswork wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]gswork wrote:
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[/quote]

Please inform us why lowering bf should not be done if you want to live healthy and have a low risk of disease?

I am baffled that people still want to try and argue that carrying extra body does any good? If it doesn’t do any good and only negatively affects your life whether its a little or a lot why would you? And little things add up over time to become larger factors fyi[/quote]

The only point was that when you get comfortably under obesity it stops being a significant factor rather than its healthier to have more, I.e. that having got to the ok level losing a bit more gives insignificant incremental benefits
It would also be interesting to see if being very low in bf becomes a negative after some lower range
[/quote]

It does I wrote a short post on this on a reply earlier today.

But to think that being at 10% vs 15 that you will be as healthily at 15 is odd? Again why be at 15 if it only does bad things. Why be at 17 ect? Slight increase in bad health is still an increase the wrong way?[/quote]

What do you think the peak is, I mean what bf % do you think an average male would be sitting at their healthiest and if they lose more fat is doing more harm than good?[/quote]

Genetics will have spme pull here. Some it will be a bit easier to maintain leanness ie I have never been much over 10-12 if I have. But I am very active which helps a ton.

So back to topic I would say 8-12. Depending on how much stress it takes to stay at that level. The more stress the worse it will be for your body in terms of health.

Goes both ways. Adding weight is a stressor on the body. Extra fat is as well those are just two more pieces to why pushing weight up a ton and adding extra fat is bad news for health.

Hope that wasn’t too ambiguous. I would be interested what some of the other serious people on here think and why [/quote]

This is along the lines of what I was thinking. I think 10% would be a real nice number for most to shoot for but some of your bigger framed guys would probably come in a little higher while some could drop a little lower and be just fine.

236

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]rds63799 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]rds63799 wrote:

I see what you’re saying, but could the increase in fat, and lets be honest his bodyfat was pretty high, not be indicative of an “unhealthy” lifestyle which is increasing the negative health markers? [/quote]

NO…BECAUSE I CAN SEE THOSE BIG FUCKING MUSCLES THAT INDICATE HE HAS A LIFE SPENT IN THE GYM AND ISN’T SEDENTARY.

Look, I don’t have the time today to fuss with 10 different people all focusing on something different to bitch about.

I have answered you. No doctor would look at a patient and indicate health risk JUST BECAUSE THEY GAINED A LITTLE BODY FAT ALONE excluding the activity and lifestyle and genetic history of the patient. That makes no sense.[/quote]

Wow.

I wasn’t bitching, I was genuinely curious as to your opinion on a subject I thought you might have interesting insights on. I thought I had made it pretty clear in my post that I knew that Bauber’s muscle mass made a difference, and wanted to know what you thought about that, compared to someone sedentary. I also deliberately used examples where people had gained more than “a little bodyfat alone” because I didn’t want the discussion to focus on small increases, because I actually agree with the points you have made about that previously.

Instead I get sworn at and accused of bitching.

I can see why everyone hates you.

I HAVE NOW OFFICIALLY JOINED THE POSSE! HAI GUYS![/quote]

Welcome, Brother.[/quote]

who do I talk to about memberships, name badges, shit like that? Also how’s the calendar looking? I can whip up some pretty good barbecue pork chops for the next get together but I dunno if someone does the catering or what. I don’t want to step on any toes being the new guy.

237

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]gswork wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]gswork wrote:
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[/quote]

Please inform us why lowering bf should not be done if you want to live healthy and have a low risk of disease?

I am baffled that people still want to try and argue that carrying extra body does any good? If it doesn’t do any good and only negatively affects your life whether its a little or a lot why would you? And little things add up over time to become larger factors fyi[/quote]

The only point was that when you get comfortably under obesity it stops being a significant factor rather than its healthier to have more, I.e. that having got to the ok level losing a bit more gives insignificant incremental benefits
It would also be interesting to see if being very low in bf becomes a negative after some lower range
[/quote]

It does I wrote a short post on this on a reply earlier today.

But to think that being at 10% vs 15 that you will be as healthily at 15 is odd? Again why be at 15 if it only does bad things. Why be at 17 ect? Slight increase in bad health is still an increase the wrong way?[/quote]
It would be odd if it was significantly correlated with cvd risk even within that range

I may have missed it, is there a long term large population study specifically looking at categories of bf% below obesity, eg 10ish, 15ish, 20ish% and then correlating cvd outcomes? (that Korean study isn’t it)

That would be interesting and then id accept that small changes within the healthy non obese range can correlate to differences, otherwise I suspect it makes no difference to actual outcomes and its other factors that do

Now those other factors like diet and exercise may have lower bf as a consequence but the lower bf may not be the reason for the lower risk and if carried out by some one who nevertheless had a few more lbs of fat that person may be just as healthy

Understandably studies focus mostly on dangers like obesity rather than modest variations among active healthy range bf people so its difficult to assert anything without needing to say its an informed guess

Just being large, even muscular, is something I’ve seen correlated with risk though, extra work for the heart I guess and muscle is more work than fat in blood flow terms, shame though!

238

[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]

I don’t know if there is going to be a clear cut answer.

I think many many behaviors that can lead to overweightness or obesity can also lead to heart disease. Such behaviors are common enough that all studies will show correlation between the two. However, an individual who is overweight for other reasons would not thereby have a higher risk of heart disease. I take it as given that almost nobody becomes morbidly obese without having one of the aforementioned patterns of behavior so the obese are almost certainly at higher risk

239

[quote]whatever2k wrote:
I dont know if looking at this from just bf% is a good idea. Jason was ripped to shreds in one of those videos, but sounded like he was about to drop dead from a heart attack at any moment. C [/quote]

It’s hard to tell. I don’t understand how you can say this since he’s always walking in the shadows or its at night in the woods. He can carry a girl pretty easy on his shoulder.

240

… Also 15%bf in one person may be evenly spread and in another may be visceral fat, much worse, so the latter may have more interest in losing it. Too many variables to generalise beyond the obvious overweight. So many variables so little time!