Body Fat and Heart Disease

Training
281

[quote]LoRez 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]

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?[/quote]

I have tracked blood sugar since early last summer and blood pressure/resting heart rate since the first of the year.

282

[quote]JoeGood wrote:
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?[/quote]

I have given this question a great deal of thought. I suspect my challenge would be the calorie increase. It is difficult to imagine eating more than I currently do during surplus periods.

283

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]LoRez 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]

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?[/quote]

I have tracked blood sugar since early last summer and blood pressure/resting heart rate since the first of the year.
[/quote]

Age is also a factor especially when it comes to the stress of overall body weight.

284

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[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.)[/quote]

Sorry I wasn’t trying to nitpick you on the healthier comment. I knew what you meant. I meant the same thing. But she could still be at less of a risk than someone with a intense family history of CVD who is much leaner and in decent shape. I had a guy that used to work with me that had a serious family history of CVD (dad and grandfather had heart attacks at 27 each). He was not carrying around very much extra weight at all, could almost see abs, but his doctor told him that due to his family history he was still carrying too much extra weight and that his diet would need to be spot on all the time (he already worked out a lot). He pretty stays about 10% maybe less now, I dunno really I just know he is shredded.

285

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Only health in this discussion.

286

[quote]JoeGood wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Only health in this discussion. [/quote]
Totally agree then :slight_smile:

287

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[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.)[/quote]

Sorry I wasn’t trying to nitpick you on the healthier comment. I knew what you meant. I meant the same thing. But she could still be at less of a risk than someone with a intense family history of CVD who is much leaner and in decent shape. I had a guy that used to work with me that had a serious family history of CVD (dad and grandfather had heart attacks at 27 each). He was not carrying around very much extra weight at all, could almost see abs, but his doctor told him that due to his family history he was still carrying too much extra weight and that his diet would need to be spot on all the time (he already worked out a lot). He pretty stays about 10% maybe less now, I dunno really I just know he is shredded.[/quote]

I see my mistake. Too much time out of school I guess. I meant with the caveat of “all else being equal”, which is obviously not the case if you’re talking about two people.

Using overweight aerobics instructor as the only example…

At 240lbs with decent cardio (benefit of the doubt here), I’m not sure she’s at a lower risk for CVD than a sedentary 210lb version of herself. Possibly, but really not sure.

It’s even less clear here:

Is a 110lb sedentary version of herself at a higher risk for CVD than her current 240lb fairly active self? (This is assuming a version where she never got fat in the first place.)

I’m not really sure about the significance of those two risk factors – all else being equal.

288

Another couple questions, related to that example.

Does losing bodyfat via diet alone, reduce fat-based deposits in arterial walls?

Does gaining bodyfat via diet alone, increase fat-based deposit in arterial walls?

What effect does increasing aerobic capacity have on those same deposits?

289

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[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.)[/quote]

Sorry I wasn’t trying to nitpick you on the healthier comment. I knew what you meant. I meant the same thing. But she could still be at less of a risk than someone with a intense family history of CVD who is much leaner and in decent shape. I had a guy that used to work with me that had a serious family history of CVD (dad and grandfather had heart attacks at 27 each). He was not carrying around very much extra weight at all, could almost see abs, but his doctor told him that due to his family history he was still carrying too much extra weight and that his diet would need to be spot on all the time (he already worked out a lot). He pretty stays about 10% maybe less now, I dunno really I just know he is shredded.[/quote]

I see my mistake. Too much time out of school I guess. I meant with the caveat of “all else being equal”, which is obviously not the case if you’re talking about two people.

Using overweight aerobics instructor as the only example…

At 240lbs with decent cardio (benefit of the doubt here), I’m not sure she’s at a lower risk for CVD than a sedentary 210lb version of herself. Possibly, but really not sure.

It’s even less clear here:

Is a 110lb sedentary version of herself at a higher risk for CVD than her current 240lb fairly active self? (This is assuming a version where she never got fat in the first place.)

I’m not really sure about the significance of those two risk factors – all else being equal.[/quote]

The way that question is posed makes it extraordinarily difficult to answer. A woman that is that size, could potentially be underweight and have to go to drastic measures to get to 110 that could have serious repercussions on her health also. In order for her to go sedentary and drop a tremendous amount of weight she would probably be putting a lot of stress on her body through a crash diet so there could be a whole host of health problems that she could run into along the way. I don’t think I answered your question but I just through some stuff out there.

290

[quote]LoRez wrote:
Another couple questions, related to that example.

Does losing bodyfat via diet alone, reduce fat-based deposits in arterial walls?

Does gaining bodyfat via diet alone, increase fat-based deposit in arterial walls?

What effect does increasing aerobic capacity have on those same deposits?[/quote]

Someone far more knowledgeable about this than me can probably give a better answer but from what I remember,

Yes, if your diet is such that it creates a very high HDL/LDL ratio then diet alone can reduce fat based deposits on the walls (maybe) but I think that a good diet is actually most useful in stopping build up so that exercise can begin to reverse it. I haven’t looked at any of this stuff in a long time so I am flying blind here a little bit. And yes, diet has a tremendous amount to do with the build up of fat in the arteries.

Feel free to correct anything here that is totally wrong.

291

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
I see my mistake. Too much time out of school I guess. I meant with the caveat of “all else being equal”, which is obviously not the case if you’re talking about two people.

Using overweight aerobics instructor as the only example…

At 240lbs with decent cardio (benefit of the doubt here), I’m not sure she’s at a lower risk for CVD than a sedentary 210lb version of herself. Possibly, but really not sure.

It’s even less clear here:

Is a 110lb sedentary version of herself at a higher risk for CVD than her current 240lb fairly active self? (This is assuming a version where she never got fat in the first place.)

I’m not really sure about the significance of those two risk factors – all else being equal.[/quote]

The way that question is posed makes it extraordinarily difficult to answer. A woman that is that size, could potentially be underweight and have to go to drastic measures to get to 110 that could have serious repercussions on her health also. In order for her to go sedentary and drop a tremendous amount of weight she would probably be putting a lot of stress on her body through a crash diet so there could be a whole host of health problems that she could run into along the way. I don’t think I answered your question but I just through some stuff out there.[/quote]

Hm, I guess I still wasn’t being specific enough.

18yo girl, 5’0", 100lbs. (Not underweight, not overweight.)

In 10 years, she goes in one of 3 directions:

Version 1: remains sedentary – desk job, tv at night – but watches her weight enough that, at 28, weighs 110 lbs.

Version 2: same lifestyle as version 1, but doesn’t watch her weight, and ends up weighing 210 at age 28.

Version 3: same lifestyle as above for 9 years, gets to 250lbs before deciding to do something about it, adds in light aerobics and starts cutting calories slowly to get to 240lbs at age 28.

All are basically eating the same foods; same macro percentages, just different quantities.

(If I were to specify, I’d say something like fast food lunches (not just BK/MCD, but subway etc.) 3x a week, microwave dinners 3x a week, and hamburger helper or other quickly prepared foods for dinner the rest of the time. Occasional salads. But they’re ALL eating the same way.)

My guess:
Version 3 is at a lower risk for CVD than Version 2, because the increased aerobic capacity trumps that 30 lbs of fat.

Not really sure about Version 1 vs Version 3.

292

Hm, I forgot to add the chocolate and the ice cream to that hypothetical diet. Not to be sexist, but I, so far, have not met a girl who doesn’t have chocolate and ice cream as a regular part of a weekly diet.

293

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
I see my mistake. Too much time out of school I guess. I meant with the caveat of “all else being equal”, which is obviously not the case if you’re talking about two people.

Using overweight aerobics instructor as the only example…

At 240lbs with decent cardio (benefit of the doubt here), I’m not sure she’s at a lower risk for CVD than a sedentary 210lb version of herself. Possibly, but really not sure.

It’s even less clear here:

Is a 110lb sedentary version of herself at a higher risk for CVD than her current 240lb fairly active self? (This is assuming a version where she never got fat in the first place.)

I’m not really sure about the significance of those two risk factors – all else being equal.[/quote]

The way that question is posed makes it extraordinarily difficult to answer. A woman that is that size, could potentially be underweight and have to go to drastic measures to get to 110 that could have serious repercussions on her health also. In order for her to go sedentary and drop a tremendous amount of weight she would probably be putting a lot of stress on her body through a crash diet so there could be a whole host of health problems that she could run into along the way. I don’t think I answered your question but I just through some stuff out there.[/quote]

Hm, I guess I still wasn’t being specific enough.

18yo girl, 5’0", 100lbs. (Not underweight, not overweight.)

In 10 years, she goes in one of 3 directions:

Version 1: remains sedentary – desk job, tv at night – but watches her weight enough that, at 28, weighs 110 lbs.

Version 2: same lifestyle as version 1, but doesn’t watch her weight, and ends up weighing 210 at age 28.

Version 3: same lifestyle as above for 9 years, gets to 250lbs before deciding to do something about it, adds in light aerobics and starts cutting calories slowly to get to 240lbs at age 28.

All are basically eating the same foods; same macro percentages, just different quantities.

(If I were to specify, I’d say something like fast food lunches (not just BK/MCD, but subway etc.) 3x a week, microwave dinners 3x a week, and hamburger helper or other quickly prepared foods for dinner the rest of the time. Occasional salads. But they’re ALL eating the same way.)

My guess:
Version 3 is at a lower risk for CVD than Version 2, because the increased aerobic capacity trumps that 30 lbs of fat.

Not really sure about Version 1 vs Version 3.[/quote]
Purely speculating here but I don’t think the increased cardiovascular training will negate the 30 pounds of fat. I would say 2&3 are probably pretty close to equal but that’s just a guess.

294

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
I see my mistake. Too much time out of school I guess. I meant with the caveat of “all else being equal”, which is obviously not the case if you’re talking about two people.

Using overweight aerobics instructor as the only example…

At 240lbs with decent cardio (benefit of the doubt here), I’m not sure she’s at a lower risk for CVD than a sedentary 210lb version of herself. Possibly, but really not sure.

It’s even less clear here:

Is a 110lb sedentary version of herself at a higher risk for CVD than her current 240lb fairly active self? (This is assuming a version where she never got fat in the first place.)

I’m not really sure about the significance of those two risk factors – all else being equal.[/quote]

The way that question is posed makes it extraordinarily difficult to answer. A woman that is that size, could potentially be underweight and have to go to drastic measures to get to 110 that could have serious repercussions on her health also. In order for her to go sedentary and drop a tremendous amount of weight she would probably be putting a lot of stress on her body through a crash diet so there could be a whole host of health problems that she could run into along the way. I don’t think I answered your question but I just through some stuff out there.[/quote]

Hm, I guess I still wasn’t being specific enough.

18yo girl, 5’0", 100lbs. (Not underweight, not overweight.)

In 10 years, she goes in one of 3 directions:

Version 1: remains sedentary – desk job, tv at night – but watches her weight enough that, at 28, weighs 110 lbs.

Version 2: same lifestyle as version 1, but doesn’t watch her weight, and ends up weighing 210 at age 28.

Version 3: same lifestyle as above for 9 years, gets to 250lbs before deciding to do something about it, adds in light aerobics and starts cutting calories slowly to get to 240lbs at age 28.

All are basically eating the same foods; same macro percentages, just different quantities.

(If I were to specify, I’d say something like fast food lunches (not just BK/MCD, but subway etc.) 3x a week, microwave dinners 3x a week, and hamburger helper or other quickly prepared foods for dinner the rest of the time. Occasional salads. But they’re ALL eating the same way.)

My guess:
Version 3 is at a lower risk for CVD than Version 2, because the increased aerobic capacity trumps that 30 lbs of fat.

Not really sure about Version 1 vs Version 3.[/quote]

I would say version 1 is at a far less risk than version 3 for sure. 9 years of damage and build up to your arteries is not going to be reversed in a year, and I am not completely sure she is healthier than version 2 because someone that overweight that only did enough exercise to cut 10 lbs in a year is probably not getting very much benefit. The version 1 of this girl has prevented the damage through her diet so the sedentary lifestyle, while not ideal, does not have as severe of an effect on her health as just completely letting go for 9 years and then half assing it for a year.

295

Ok, so Version 4, based on Version 3… what if she ballooned up from 100lbs to 250lbs in 8 years, then in 2 years, using actually good diet, training, cardio methodologies, dropped to 120lbs? (Fairly leaned, nice and “toned”, lol.)

Did the arterial damage get reversed? Are there still latent effects from the added fat cells that increase risk, even if they’re just sitting there dormant?

296

[quote]LoRez wrote:
Ok, so Version 4, based on Version 3… what if she ballooned up from 100lbs to 250lbs in 8 years, then in 2 years, using actually good diet, training, cardio methodologies, dropped to 120lbs? (Fairly leaned, nice and “toned”, lol.)

Did the arterial damage get reversed? Are there still latent effects from the added fat cells that increase risk, even if they’re just sitting there dormant?[/quote]
That’s a good question.
I have no idea lol

297

I do not know enough personally to make the determination between version 1 and version 4. My gut tells me 1 still might have the edge because of the years of damage but I think as time passes they will balance out and 4 would probably be better. It would all depend on the extensiveness of the damage done which would be controlled partly by her genetic predispositions.

Shit meet wall.

298

I’m just asking hypothetical questions. I really have no clue either.

I mean, “don’t get 100lbs over your target lean weight” seems like a good rule in general.

  • Not having the fat cells in the first place seems to be better.
  • Minimizing the arterial plaque that accumulates in the first place seems to be better.
  • Having a decent cardiovascular system seems to be better than not (ok, that was poorly worded… maybe “actively and progressively training the cardiovascular system” is better than not training it)
  • Having more muscle mass… in general… seems to be beneficial to everyone.

I wouldn’t say those are "FACT"s, but they do seem to be decent guidelines.

299

[quote]bpick86 wrote:
…diet has a tremendous amount to do with the build up of fat in the arteries.

Feel free to correct anything here that is totally wrong.[/quote]

More so in individuals that do not exercise than otherwise.

300

[quote]LoRez wrote:
Version 3: same lifestyle as above for 9 years, gets to 250lbs before deciding to do something about it, adds in light aerobics and starts cutting calories slowly to get to 240lbs at age 28.
[/quote]
Version 3 in action