Body Fat and Heart Disease

Training
261

[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 :stuck_out_tongue:

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]

The last paragraph is what people seem to be ignoring. Oh it’s a small increase. But damnit its still an increase. As BC just showed small changes can really add up

262

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

[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]
Oh I think it’s extremely low. I mean only contest bodybuilders get to that stage, and they’ll be the first ones to tell you they stay there as briefly as possible.

The question is mostly academic.

263

[quote]rds63799 wrote:

[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.[/quote]

You will receive a welcome packet in the mail shortly. Read through it and let me know if you have any questions. BBQ pork chops will be a nice addition to our next meet and greet.

264

[quote]csulli wrote:

[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.[/quote]
I think you are right and the analogy is good
Once comfortably below obesity you have enough to put out the fire, going further doesn’t put out the fire ‘better’

Bf and cvd, taken as generally as possible, is likely scalar but not linear - the risk profile is a curve with a very very shallow part around healthy bf levels and an increasingly steep curve at obesity and above - assuming all other factors are the same
Losing yet more for cvd avoidance is a bit like the reverse of ‘if some is good more is better’ mindset often associated with bbers
I’m not against the idea that losing more might be beneficial even inside safe bf levels but it would need real evidence that isolates bf as the factor

265

[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]

I really appreciate that you’ve captured the data to quantify things.

What all do you track? When did you start tracking sugar, blood pressure and resting heart rate?

266

[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]

For clarification you’ve been on a caloric deficit during this time period which means you’ve, in essense, doubled your cardio over the same time period. Wouldn’t that also have an effect on your BP being normal? I know from personal experience that my BP, which is always in the normal range, drops a fair bit with increased cardio.

267

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[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 :stuck_out_tongue:

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]

The last paragraph is what people seem to be ignoring. Oh it’s a small increase. But damnit its still an increase. As BC just showed small changes can really add up[/quote]

I don’t think anyone is ignoring it. I think people are saying the overall increase doesn’t concern them which is completely different. You’ll also note that despite the improvement BC doesn’t stay that lean year round. he judges the risk and then makes his decisions.

We know the faster our traffic speed increases so does our risk but do you always drive the speed limit or do you accept the greater risk because of a host of reasons?

We take all sorts of risks everyday. I somehow doubt that carrying an extra 2-3% bodyfat is the biggest risk anyone commenting here takes.

Also, I’m not sure I believe the results in this study but I’m going to leave it here for any who might like to see it.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1555137

268

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[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 :stuck_out_tongue:

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]

The last paragraph is what people seem to be ignoring. Oh it’s a small increase. But damnit its still an increase. As BC just showed small changes can really add up[/quote]
5% may sound small but it’s really not.
That is a pretty big jump.
It’s funny because people think that a 5% bodyfat increase is t very much but if you had a 5% increase in muscle everyone would say “holy crap that’s amazing!”
If you got a
5% raise at work that would be a lot!
If you had a 5% hike in gas prices from $4 a gallon to $4.20 a gallon people would say it’s a lot.
If you were having sex 100 times a year and got a 5% bump you would be pretty excited too

I think a lot of people aren’t acknowledging 5% as being a significant increase because not doing so makes them feel better about themselves?
Maybe that’s not it but that’s my theory.

269

[quote]JoeGood wrote:

[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]

For clarification you’ve been on a caloric deficit during this time period which means you’ve, in essense, doubled your cardio over the same time period. Wouldn’t that also have an effect on your BP being normal? I know from personal experience that my BP, which is always in the normal range, drops a fair bit with increased cardio. [/quote]
This all goes back to the question of:
Is it the act of losing weight that improves health or the weight loss?
There really is no way to know for sure.

270

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]JoeGood wrote:

[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]

For clarification you’ve been on a caloric deficit during this time period which means you’ve, in essense, doubled your cardio over the same time period. Wouldn’t that also have an effect on your BP being normal? I know from personal experience that my BP, which is always in the normal range, drops a fair bit with increased cardio. [/quote]
This all goes back to the question of:
Is it the act of losing weight that improves health or the weight loss?
There really is no way to know for sure.[/quote]

I think (nothing to support this) that its a little bit of both but doing what it takes to lose the weight (improved diet and exercise) has the greater effect.

271

Damnit why did you bring up gas prices. That just reminds me mine has done just what you said :frowning:

272

[quote]JoeGood wrote:
We know the faster our traffic speed increases so does our risk but do you always drive the speed limit or do you accept the greater risk because of a host of reasons? [/quote]

I’m totally cherry picking here and straying off topic.

But that statement isn’t totally true. If “everyone is speeding”, it’s a lot safer than if only a few people are speeding. The difference in speed among the cars is often a higher risk factor than the average speed.

However, I completely get your point and agree. I’m just nitpicking.

273

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]JoeGood wrote:

[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]

For clarification you’ve been on a caloric deficit during this time period which means you’ve, in essense, doubled your cardio over the same time period. Wouldn’t that also have an effect on your BP being normal? I know from personal experience that my BP, which is always in the normal range, drops a fair bit with increased cardio. [/quote]
This all goes back to the question of:
Is it the act of losing weight that improves health or the weight loss?
There really is no way to know for sure.[/quote]

Well in BC’s case couldn’t you double the cardio while increasing caloric intake so that in effect his weight and ratios don’t changed markedly. Then check the BP and pulse after the same amount of time? If the BP drops than its clearly not the fat loss but the increased cardio. If it doesn’t then its clearly the los of body fat that did it in the previous case.

I’m not suggesting BC do that but it’s not out of the realm of possibility that it could be done, right?

274

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
This all goes back to the question of:
Is it the act of losing weight that improves health or the weight loss?
There really is no way to know for sure.[/quote]

I think (nothing to support this) that its a little bit of both but doing what it takes to lose the weight (improved diet and exercise) has the greater effect.[/quote]

I think the same.

And I think that overweight aerobics instructor from before is quite possibly healthier than someone 30 pounds lighter than her who’s sedentary.

Although, I’m not sure that the 240lb (that’s how much she weighed, right?) aerobics instructor is healthier than someone her height who’s 110lbs and sedentary. I think there’s a line where the effects of the increased fat (not bodyweight, but the fat itself) is actually more of a risk factor than being sedentary.

275

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
This all goes back to the question of:
Is it the act of losing weight that improves health or the weight loss?
There really is no way to know for sure.[/quote]

I think (nothing to support this) that its a little bit of both but doing what it takes to lose the weight (improved diet and exercise) has the greater effect.[/quote]

I think the same.

And I think that overweight aerobics instructor from before is quite possibly healthier than someone 30 pounds lighter than her who’s sedentary.

Although, I’m not sure that the 240lb (that’s how much she weighed, right?) aerobics instructor is healthier than someone her height who’s 110lbs and sedentary. I think there’s a line where the effects of the increased fat (not bodyweight, but the fat itself) is actually more of a risk factor than being sedentary.[/quote]

I think the 240 lb aerobics instructor will be a healthier herself for every bit of fat she loses. I think comparing two people and saying which is healthier can get really really twisted up because of all the stuff to consider.

276

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[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 :stuck_out_tongue:

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]

The last paragraph is what people seem to be ignoring. Oh it’s a small increase. But damnit its still an increase. As BC just showed small changes can really add up[/quote]
5% may sound small but it’s really not.
That is a pretty big jump.
It’s funny because people think that a 5% bodyfat increase is t very much but if you had a 5% increase in muscle everyone would say “holy crap that’s amazing!”
If you got a
5% raise at work that would be a lot!
If you had a 5% hike in gas prices from $4 a gallon to $4.20 a gallon people would say it’s a lot.
If you were having sex 100 times a year and got a 5% bump you would be pretty excited too

I think a lot of people aren’t acknowledging 5% as being a significant increase because not doing so makes them feel better about themselves?
Maybe that’s not it but that’s my theory.[/quote]

I also think a lot of it is what the start and end point of that 5% consist of. I’d bet that for most people, even lifters of all kinds, 10% to 15% isn’t a big deal. They’d say 15% to 20% is a bigger deal and that 20% to 25% is enormous deal.

277

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
This all goes back to the question of:
Is it the act of losing weight that improves health or the weight loss?
There really is no way to know for sure.[/quote]

I think (nothing to support this) that its a little bit of both but doing what it takes to lose the weight (improved diet and exercise) has the greater effect.[/quote]

I think the same.

And I think that overweight aerobics instructor from before is quite possibly healthier than someone 30 pounds lighter than her who’s sedentary.

Although, I’m not sure that the 240lb (that’s how much she weighed, right?) aerobics instructor is healthier than someone her height who’s 110lbs and sedentary. I think there’s a line where the effects of the increased fat (not bodyweight, but the fat itself) is actually more of a risk factor than being sedentary.[/quote]

I think the 240 lb aerobics instructor will be a healthier herself for every bit of fat she loses. I think comparing two people and saying which is healthier can get really really twisted up because of all the stuff to consider.[/quote]
Bingo.
This is what is throwing people off, comparing two DIFFERENT people.
We should be trying to compare two different versions of the same person (like BCT)
Too many variables from person to person.

278

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
This all goes back to the question of:
Is it the act of losing weight that improves health or the weight loss?
There really is no way to know for sure.[/quote]

I think (nothing to support this) that its a little bit of both but doing what it takes to lose the weight (improved diet and exercise) has the greater effect.[/quote]

I think the same.

And I think that overweight aerobics instructor from before is quite possibly healthier than someone 30 pounds lighter than her who’s sedentary.

Although, I’m not sure that the 240lb (that’s how much she weighed, right?) aerobics instructor is healthier than someone her height who’s 110lbs and sedentary. I think there’s a line where the effects of the increased fat (not bodyweight, but the fat itself) is actually more of a risk factor than being sedentary.[/quote]

I think the 240 lb aerobics instructor will be a healthier herself for every bit of fat she loses. I think comparing two people and saying which is healthier can get really really twisted up because of all the stuff to consider.[/quote]

Shouldn’t have used the word “healthier” there. Replace “healthy/healthier” with “lower risk for heart disease”, to get the meaning I was trying to convey.

I definitely agree that the cardio and basic strength and balance improvements from an aerobics program, when combined with fat loss, is far better than only one of them.

(I hate using the word “strength” when talking about aerobics… but many participants start so weak/untrained that they do get genuine strength benefits from it.)

279

[quote]JoeGood wrote:
I also think a lot of it is what the start and end point of that 5% consist of. I’d bet that for most people, even lifters of all kinds, 10% to 15% isn’t a big deal. They’d say 15% to 20% is a bigger deal and that 20% to 25% is enormous deal. [/quote]

Are you talking about the visual physique changes being a big deal or the health risks?
I agree if you are talking about health, not as much if you mean physique.

280

[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]

That is what I have said from the start.