- honest questions for Prof X -
Have you ever learned anything at all from these forums?
Or are they strictly viewed as a platform to disseminate your pre-existing views?
Also puts one at risk for diabetes and certain cancers.
[quote]gswork 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]
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![/quote]
I don’t read studies but maybe one of the study gurus on here has one saved I have no idea
The large amount of things that fat negatively impact is enough reason for me to keep it limited. Until its shown to have even one benefit I see no reason to have extra fat. If you want extra fat and want to justify it by thinking hey it only slightly increases my CVD risk then I don’t think we have much to discuss, as I see that it quite short sighted IMO.
Yes being bigger in any way will be harder on your body. I would argue that having most of that size from muscle will be the worse evil than the majority as fat
[quote]gswork wrote:
… 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![/quote]
You can still generalize that extra fat is bad for health no matter which way you look at it
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]gswork wrote:
… 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![/quote]
You can still generalize that extra fat is bad for health no matter which way you look at it[/quote]
Extra fat is bad mmmmkay
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[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 [/quote]
You’re a year younger than me…
Also I wasn’t advising anyone to do anything lol.
[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]
Did you read the first couple pages of the thread?
We already had a big, long discussion about threshold variables and the statistical significance of body fat alone as an explanatory variable on heart disease below certain levels as opposed to the primary driver by a mile, which is cardiovascular training.
I have not seen data to suggest someone at 15% bodyfat is incapable of being as healthy as someone at 10% bodyfat. It is merely a correlation given that cardiovascular exercise is strongly correlated to bodyfat levels in the general population. Obviously at a certain level bodyfat becomes damaging to your health regardless of cardio, but to say there are appreciable differences between someone 10% and 15% if they both keep their heart and lungs in good shape is asinine.
[quote]csulli wrote:]
Did you read the first couple pages of the thread?
We already had a big, long discussion about threshold variables and the statistical significance of body fat alone as an explanatory variable on heart disease below certain levels as opposed to the primary driver by a mile, which is cardiovascular training.
I have not seen data to suggest someone at 15% bodyfat is incapable of being as healthy as someone at 10% bodyfat. It is merely a correlation given that cardiovascular exercise is strongly correlated to bodyfat levels in the general population. Obviously at a certain level bodyfat becomes damaging to your health regardless of cardio, but to say there are appreciable differences between someone 10% and 15% if they both keep their heart and lungs in good shape is asinine.[/quote]
Why would it be asinine to think that carrying around 30 pounds of pure fat would be unhealthier than carrying 20?
210lbs @ 15% vs 200lbs @ 10%
That is a lot of extra fat.
That picture is what 5 pounds of fat looks like.
You’re telling me carrying 4 of those on your body won’t make you any healthier than carrying 4?
[quote]csulli 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]
Did you read the first couple pages of the thread?
We already had a big, long discussion about threshold variables and the statistical significance of body fat alone as an explanatory variable on heart disease below certain levels as opposed to the primary driver by a mile, which is cardiovascular training.
I have not seen data to suggest someone at 15% bodyfat is incapable of being as healthy as someone at 10% bodyfat. It is merely a correlation given that cardiovascular exercise is strongly correlated to bodyfat levels in the general population. Obviously at a certain level bodyfat becomes damaging to your health regardless of cardio, but to say there are appreciable differences between someone 10% and 15% if they both keep their heart and lungs in good shape is asinine.[/quote]
So someone at 15% will be healthier than the same person at 10%? Please go read more on the new roles that fat plays on a variety of disease and overall metabolism and get back to me
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[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 [/quote]
You’re a year younger than me…
Also I wasn’t advising anyone to do anything lol.[/quote]
It’s not about actual age. It’s about the mindset
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
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]
Did you read the first couple pages of the thread?
We already had a big, long discussion about threshold variables and the statistical significance of body fat alone as an explanatory variable on heart disease below certain levels as opposed to the primary driver by a mile, which is cardiovascular training.
I have not seen data to suggest someone at 15% bodyfat is incapable of being as healthy as someone at 10% bodyfat. It is merely a correlation given that cardiovascular exercise is strongly correlated to bodyfat levels in the general population. Obviously at a certain level bodyfat becomes damaging to your health regardless of cardio, but to say there are appreciable differences between someone 10% and 15% if they both keep their heart and lungs in good shape is asinine.[/quote]
So someone at 15% will be healthier than the same person at 10%? Please go read more on the new roles that fat plays on a variety of disease and overall metabolism and get back to me[/quote]
Maybe and maybe not. I’m not really trying to make that assertion. All I’m saying is that fat levels below 20% or so are not a very big player in this game. Cardiovascular exercise and genetics are the biggies. A change from 12% to 16% is like pissing on a forest fire relative to the actual factors.
I don’t think there’s much debate that someone very fat is going to be at more risk of CVD. I think the debate is if there is a real difference between say 10% and 15% and if so is the difference so great as to warrant that being a motivating factor rather than many other things.
I doubt there is any statistical evidence comparing the two, though I’d certainly be glad to read some that is, but my hunch is that getting lean to avoid CVD is subject to the law of diminishing returns and that as bf drops other factors become far more important and that chasing an extra 2-3% of bf reduction for those purposes will be statistically insignificant.
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
I don’t think there’s much debate that someone very fat is going to be at more risk of CVD. I think the debate is if there is a real difference between say 10% and 15% and if so is the difference so great as to warrant that being a motivating factor rather than many other things.
I doubt there is any statistical evidence comparing the two, though I’d certainly be glad to read some that is, but my hunch is that getting lean to avoid CVD is subject to the law of diminishing returns and that as bf drops other factors become far more important and that chasing an extra 2-3% of bf reduction for those purposes wil be statistically insignificant.
[/quote]
That’s exactly what I’m thinking. Why do I always feel like other people say what I want to say better than I can lol?
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Why would it be asinine to think that carrying around 30 pounds of pure fat would be unhealthier than carrying 20?
210lbs @ 15% vs 200lbs @ 10%
That is a lot of extra fat.
That picture is what 5 pounds of fat looks like.
You’re telling me carrying 4 of those on your body won’t make you any healthier than carrying 4?[/quote]
Yea that’s what I’m getting at 
It won’t make you look prettier, but I don’t think you should be worried.
Those pictures of fat are always a little misleading I think. Fat is only 18% less dense than muscle, and once 10lbs of it is distributed across 200lbs worth of man, it’s mostly only noticeable as a general “softness”. I mean I don’t have to tell you that, you know that as well as anyone obviously. But yeah that picture is gross haha. People look at that and they imagine having all that fat just around their waist like some sort of tumor lol.
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
I think the debate is if there is a real difference between say 10% and 15% and if so is the difference so great as to warrant that being a motivating factor rather than many other things.
[/quote]
That’s exactly what I’m thinking. Why do I always feel like other people say what I want to say better than I can lol?[/quote]
I recently dropped 24lbs to prep for summer. (there is a progress pic every two weeks in the BCT: How do you…thread)to gauge BF levels.
I take blood pressure/resting heart rate/ and blood sugar every morning. I do cardio year round; regardless of surplus or deficit…100 minutes per week minimum during surplus and close to double that during a deficit.
Both my systolic & diastolic number average 5 points lower while I am leaner. That 5 points is enough to move my averages from the lower end of the prehypertension to the normal category. My resting heart rate also averages a little over 5 beats slower. While heavier my 7/14/30 day sugar reading run in the mid to high 90s, while leaner they are in the upper 80s to low 90s. This is all specific to me and I’ve certainly ‘crested the hill’ relative to most of you boys…offered for consideration.
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Why would it be asinine to think that carrying around 30 pounds of pure fat would be unhealthier than carrying 20?
210lbs @ 15% vs 200lbs @ 10%
That is a lot of extra fat.
That picture is what 5 pounds of fat looks like.
You’re telling me carrying 4 of those on your body won’t make you any healthier than carrying 4?[/quote]
Yea that’s what I’m getting at
It won’t make you look prettier, but I don’t think you should be worried.
Those pictures of fat are always a little misleading I think. Fat is only 18% less dense than muscle, and once 10lbs of it is distributed across 200lbs worth of man, it’s mostly only noticeable as a general “softness”. I mean I don’t have to tell you that, you know that as well as anyone obviously. But yeah that picture is gross haha. People look at that and they imagine having all that fat just around their waist like some sort of tumor lol.[/quote]
Haha yes and no I would say.
10 pounds of fat is a lot.
I guess how it looks on a person would be based off of how they carry their fat but 10 pounds is still a lot.
The visual difference between 210 @ 15% and 200 @ 10% would be quite drastic but I get what you’re saying.
Still, and I’m bringing this all back around to the original point of this thread, being fatter puts you more at risk of CVD than if you were leaner IMO.
That risk could be very small but it would still increase.
It has to.
Being overweight (extra fat) IS a risk factor for heart disease.
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
I think the debate is if there is a real difference between say 10% and 15% and if so is the difference so great as to warrant that being a motivating factor rather than many other things.
[/quote]
That’s exactly what I’m thinking. Why do I always feel like other people say what I want to say better than I can lol?[/quote]
I recently dropped 24lbs to prep for summer. (there is a progress pic every two weeks in the BCT: How do you…thread)to gauge BF levels.
I take blood pressure/resting heart rate/ and blood sugar every morning. I do cardio year round; regardless of surplus or deficit…100 minutes per week minimum during surplus and close to double that during a deficit.
Both my systolic & diastolic number average 5 points lower while I am leaner. That 5 points is enough to move my averages from the lower end of the prehypertension to the normal category. My resting heart rate also averages a little over 5 beats slower. While heavier my 7/14/30 day sugar reading run in the mid to high 90s, while leaner they are in the upper 80s to low 90s. This is all specific to me and I’ve certainly ‘crested the hill’ relative to most of you boys…offered for consideration.
[/quote]
That’s a good point. This is the kind of stuff I am interested in. What was your actual bodyweight before and after? Like 230 to 205 or something? I wonder how much being heavier in general whether by muscle or fat affects blood pressure readings and heart rate.
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
I don’t think there’s much debate that someone very fat is going to be at more risk of CVD. I think the debate is if there is a real difference between say 10% and 15% and if so is the difference so great as to warrant that being a motivating factor rather than many other things.
I doubt there is any statistical evidence comparing the two, though I’d certainly be glad to read some that is, but my hunch is that getting lean to avoid CVD is subject to the law of diminishing returns and that as bf drops other factors become far more important and that chasing an extra 2-3% of bf reduction for those purposes will be statistically insignificant.
[/quote]
I’ll pose this question to you and Csulli, What do you think that point is that you are doing more harm by trying to reduce bodyfat than you are doing good?
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Why would it be asinine to think that carrying around 30 pounds of pure fat would be unhealthier than carrying 20?
210lbs @ 15% vs 200lbs @ 10%
That is a lot of extra fat.
That picture is what 5 pounds of fat looks like.
You’re telling me carrying 4 of those on your body won’t make you any healthier than carrying 4?[/quote]
Yea that’s what I’m getting at
It won’t make you look prettier, but I don’t think you should be worried.
Those pictures of fat are always a little misleading I think. Fat is only 18% less dense than muscle, and once 10lbs of it is distributed across 200lbs worth of man, it’s mostly only noticeable as a general “softness”. I mean I don’t have to tell you that, you know that as well as anyone obviously. But yeah that picture is gross haha. People look at that and they imagine having all that fat just around their waist like some sort of tumor lol.[/quote]
Haha yes and no I would say.
10 pounds of fat is a lot.
I guess how it looks on a person would be based off of how they carry their fat but 10 pounds is still a lot.
The visual difference between 210 @ 15% and 200 @ 10% would be quite drastic but I get what you’re saying.
Still, and I’m bringing this all back around to the original point of this thread, being fatter puts you more at risk of CVD than if you were leaner IMO.
That risk could be very small but it would still increase.
It has to.
Being overweight (extra fat) IS a risk factor for heart disease. [/quote]
Also the distribution of that body will make a difference, some guys carry fat much better as it spreads out all over the body and I would guess that their optimum bf% is higher than someone like me who’s extra fat does not distribute well at all (all around my waist and in my face). I would also think that for the guys who gain fat like I do, that extra 5% will make a greater difference. I don’t know this and it is just conjecture but I don’t think it is to far out there.
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
I think the debate is if there is a real difference between say 10% and 15% and if so is the difference so great as to warrant that being a motivating factor rather than many other things.
[/quote]
That’s exactly what I’m thinking. Why do I always feel like other people say what I want to say better than I can lol?[/quote]
I recently dropped 24lbs to prep for summer. (there is a progress pic every two weeks in the BCT: How do you…thread)to gauge BF levels.
I take blood pressure/resting heart rate/ and blood sugar every morning. I do cardio year round; regardless of surplus or deficit…100 minutes per week minimum during surplus and close to double that during a deficit.
Both my systolic & diastolic number average 5 points lower while I am leaner. That 5 points is enough to move my averages from the lower end of the prehypertension to the normal category. My resting heart rate also averages a little over 5 beats slower. While heavier my 7/14/30 day sugar reading run in the mid to high 90s, while leaner they are in the upper 80s to low 90s. This is all specific to me and I’ve certainly ‘crested the hill’ relative to most of you boys…offered for consideration.
[/quote]
Very interesting. Good evidence that the lower bf is a good thing. The higher blood pressure can really add up. Thanks for sharing.