[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
Tell me if this sounds right:
Through exercising, your body moves along the would-be deposits that your diet created? or am I looking at that wrong?
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[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 [/quote]
I believe she is the female USA Olympic Heavyweight lifter.
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
Tell me if this sounds right:
Through exercising, your body moves along the would-be deposits that your diet created? or am I looking at that wrong?[/quote]
That is my understanding.
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[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 [/quote]
This isn’t SAMA. That’s way too risque for here.
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[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 [/quote]
fullhouse
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
Tell me if this sounds right:
Through exercising, your body moves along the would-be deposits that your diet created? or am I looking at that wrong?[/quote]
That is my understanding.
[/quote]
The most important thing you can do to protect your arteries is brush your teeth. And the deposits occur under the endothial layer of cells in arteries, they are not removed by exercise. The exact protective mechanism is unconfirmed.
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
Tell me if this sounds right:
Through exercising, your body moves along the would-be deposits that your diet created? or am I looking at that wrong?[/quote]
That is my understanding.
[/quote]
The most important thing you can do to protect your arteries is brush your teeth. And the deposits occur under the endothial layer of cells in arteries, they are not removed by exercise. The exact protective mechanism is unconfirmed.
[/quote]
Serious question because I’m not familiar with the research at all: Is the brushing thing based on correlations or what? I’ve heard that but have never seen anything about the mechanism, but I’m mostly just ignorant on the issue.
I have been getting, on average, two blood panels per year for the past 8 years or so.
My numbers happen to correlate less with weight/bf than with periods of increase cardiovascular activity-- that is to say, not just lifting weights, but having some period of consistent cardio leading up to a full fasted blood panel. TThat ‘cardio’ in some cases has just been walking daily for 30-40 mins, not necessarily all out HIIT or step mill or sled work conditioning. Talking typical cholesterol/triglycerides profiles (amongst other things). I have been heavier and ‘smoother’ with better numbers than lighter and leaner in those years.
That’s just a personal anecdote, take it for what it is.
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
Tell me if this sounds right:
Through exercising, your body moves along the would-be deposits that your diet created? or am I looking at that wrong?[/quote]
That is my understanding.
[/quote]
And the deposits occur under the endothial layer of cells in arteries, they are not removed by exercise. The exact protective mechanism is unconfirmed.
[/quote]
I wasn’t under the impression exercise removed the deposits; but that they were less likely to form to start with in individuals that exercise properly.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
I have been getting, on average, two blood panels per year for the past 8 years or so.
My numbers happen to correlate less with weight/bf than with periods of increase cardiovascular activity-- that is to say, not just lifting weights, but having some period of consistent cardio leading up to a full fasted blood panel. TThat ‘cardio’ in some cases has just been walking daily for 30-40 mins, not necessarily all out HIIT or step mill or sled work conditioning. Talking typical cholesterol/triglycerides profiles (amongst other things). I have been heavier and ‘smoother’ with better numbers than lighter and leaner in those years.
That’s just a personal anecdote, take it for what it is.[/quote]
Oh I’ll take it.
TO THE STREETS.
Bitches.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
I have been getting, on average, two blood panels per year for the past 8 years or so.
My numbers happen to correlate less with weight/bf than with periods of increase cardiovascular activity-- that is to say, not just lifting weights, but having some period of consistent cardio leading up to a full fasted blood panel. TThat ‘cardio’ in some cases has just been walking daily for 30-40 mins, not necessarily all out HIIT or step mill or sled work conditioning. Talking typical cholesterol/triglycerides profiles (amongst other things). I have been heavier and ‘smoother’ with better numbers than lighter and leaner in those years.
That’s just a personal anecdote, take it for what it is.[/quote]
Oh I’ll take it.
TO THE STREETS.
Bitches.[/quote]
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
I have been getting, on average, two blood panels per year for the past 8 years or so.
My numbers happen to correlate less with weight/bf than with periods of increase cardiovascular activity-- that is to say, not just lifting weights, but having some period of consistent cardio leading up to a full fasted blood panel. TThat ‘cardio’ in some cases has just been walking daily for 30-40 mins, not necessarily all out HIIT or step mill or sled work conditioning. Talking typical cholesterol/triglycerides profiles (amongst other things). I have been heavier and ‘smoother’ with better numbers than lighter and leaner in those years.
That’s just a personal anecdote, take it for what it is.[/quote]
Oh I’ll take it.
TO THE STREETS.
Bitches.[/quote]
We are on the same page my ninja.
In regards to whether or not there is evidence that fat tissue, itself, and not the state of obesity than can contribute directly to adverse health states:
" In this regard, it has been recently demonstrated that abdominal obesity was independently associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease and Type 2 diabetes independently of overall adiposity."
" Intra-abdominal obesity is also unique as a cardiovascular risk state in that it contributes to or directly causes most other modifiable risk factors, namely, hypertension, dysmetabolic syndrome, and type 2 diabetes mellitus."
“In multiple regression analyses of the four fat variables, only intra-abdominal adipose tissue area significantly predicted the levels of six metabolic risk factors: systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, fasting concentrations of capillary whole blood glucose, serum HDL cholesterol, serum triglyceride, and PAI-1.”
“Abdominal obesity, due to intra-abdominal adiposity, drives the progression of multiple cardiometabolic risk factors independently of body mass index.”
http://eurheartjsupp.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/suppl_B/B4.full
" In this regard, body fat distribution, especially visceral adipose tissue accumulation, has been found to be a major correlate of a cluster of diabetogenic, atherogenic, prothrombotic and proinflammatory metabolic abnormalities referred to as the metabolic syndrome…Evidence suggests that this dysmetabolic profile is predictive of a substantially increased risk of coronary heart disease even in the absence of classical risk factors.
“In conclusion, these findings support the concept that it is not obesity per se, but rather metabolic dysfunction of adipose tissue that is associated with systemic insulin resistance and the metabolic syndrome.”
“Such differences are also reflected in their contrasting roles in the pathogenesis of obesity-related cardiometabolic problems, in either lean or obese individuals… The term “Metabolic Obesity”, in reference to visceral fat accumulation in either lean or obese individuals may identify those at risk for cardiovascular disease better than the currently used definitions of obesity.”
Picture sauce:
See this for further illustration of the potential significance of intra-abdominal fat in cardiometabolic diseases. Note that it’s been edited because Week 1 is really all I want to show.
Yes, subjects WERE obese… and yet they normalized hepatic insulin sensitivity and glucose levels within a single week while STILL being very much obese. And, really, what kind of lifestyle changes can one make in a single week with only ~5 pounds of fat lost?
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
Tell me if this sounds right:
Through exercising, your body moves along the would-be deposits that your diet created? or am I looking at that wrong?[/quote]
That is my understanding.
[/quote]
The most important thing you can do to protect your arteries is brush your teeth. And the deposits occur under the endothial layer of cells in arteries, they are not removed by exercise. The exact protective mechanism is unconfirmed.
[/quote]
Serious question because I’m not familiar with the research at all: Is the brushing thing based on correlations or what? I’ve heard that but have never seen anything about the mechanism, but I’m mostly just ignorant on the issue.[/quote]
There’s a thing called Focal Infection Theory that, really badly paraphrased, states that most diseases in the body start in and around the mouth and nose, and likewise that you can stop the spread of disease by keeping those areas clean… things like nasal rinses/neti pots, brushing your teeth, mouth wash etc.
I don’t really have an opinion one way or another, but that’s probably a good starting point for research if you want to look into it.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
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.
I wouldn’t say those are "FACT"s, but they do seem to be decent guidelines.[/quote]
I’m not sure that last part is true, least as far as heart health goes. I seem to remember some studies that suggested that all size increases requires the heart to work harder, regardless of the size composition, and if true then no matter how lean you stay there will be some increased stress on the heart.
I’ll try to find that later.
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
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.
I wouldn’t say those are "FACT"s, but they do seem to be decent guidelines.[/quote]
I’m not sure that last part is true, least as far as heart health goes. I seem to remember some studies that suggested that all size increases requires the heart to work harder, regardless of the size composition, and if true then no matter how lean you stay there will be some increased stress on the heart.
I’ll try to find that later. [/quote]
I think what LoRez was getting at was that having some muscle on a person is good.
Example: a 5’11 guy who weighs 175 would generally be healthier if he was 175 @ 10% vs 175 @ 18%
I took his statment to mean something like that and not being 240 but I could be interpreting it wrong.
[quote]anonym wrote:
In regards to whether or not there is evidence that fat tissue, itself, and not the state of obesity than can contribute directly to adverse health states:
" In this regard, it has been recently demonstrated that abdominal obesity was independently associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease and Type 2 diabetes independently of overall adiposity."
[/quote]
I don’t plan to spend my day going through each study you posted because I have things to do, but the first alone doesn’t say anything that hints at body fat itself being the cause of anything. They only looked at patients with ABDOMINAL OBESITY.
This doesn’t say anything we don’t already know.
None of this points to some one to one correlation with body fat. it points to overall lifestyle and genetics.
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
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.
I wouldn’t say those are "FACT"s, but they do seem to be decent guidelines.[/quote]
I’m not sure that last part is true, least as far as heart health goes. I seem to remember some studies that suggested that all size increases requires the heart to work harder, regardless of the size composition, and if true then no matter how lean you stay there will be some increased stress on the heart.
I’ll try to find that later. [/quote]
I think what LoRez was getting at was that having some muscle on a person is good.
Example: a 5’11 guy who weighs 175 would generally be healthier if he was 175 @ 10% vs 175 @ 18%
I took his statment to mean something like that and not being 240 but I could be interpreting it wrong.[/quote]
That’s what I meant, but the heart health issue is a good point.
The heart will have to work less on a person who’s 5’11 and weighs 130 lbs than one who weighs 175, because there’s literally more area to pump blood through.
[quote]anonym wrote:
" Intra-abdominal obesity is also unique as a cardiovascular risk state in that it contributes to or directly causes most other modifiable risk factors, namely, hypertension, dysmetabolic syndrome, and type 2 diabetes mellitus."
Second reference posted.
This also only looked at obese patients…which again indicates lifestyle issues which the first link you posted stated, [quote]“Lifestyle modification programs have shown the benefits on cardiometabolic risk variables”[/quote]…which again means that fat gain itself isn’t the issue but HOW MUCH and WHERE.
