[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Also puts one at risk for certain cancers. [/quote]
Being “overweight” alone does not put you at risk for cancer.[/quote]
I didn’t say alone. It’s ONE risk factor among others. Same with the other two conditions we speak of here. [/quote]
That is the problem. None of this happens in a vacuum, so no, being overweight alone does NOT put you at risk of what you wrote.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
“At risk” doesn’t apply certainty. We know this.
Yeah, I know BMI doesn’t apply to those who regularly lift or athletes.
However considering most peopel do not regularly lift or involve themselves in sports, it’s a good tool. [/quote]
Uh, no it isn’t if it is being used here as if someone being overweight is being put at risk of CANCER like you wrote.
It says something for its use with SEDENTARY PEOPLE…which is why there is debate in this thread…SINCE WE ARE NOT SEDENTARY.
get it now?
That is why saying someone is healthier just because they are leaner is FALSE.
This has been explained ad nauseum.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
“At risk” doesn’t apply certainty. We know this.
Yeah, I know BMI doesn’t apply to those who regularly lift or athletes.
However considering most peopel do not regularly lift or involve themselves in sports, it’s a good tool. [/quote]
Uh, no it isn’t if it is being used here as if someone being overweight is being put at risk of CANCER like you wrote.
It says something for its use with SEDENTARY PEOPLE…which is why there is debate in this thread…SINCE WE ARE NOT SEDENTARY.
get it now?
That is why saying someone is healthier just because they are leaner is FALSE.
This has been explained ad nauseum.[/quote]
If a non-sedentary person leans up in a healthy manner (as most in this thread would), and by healthy I mean with diet and exercise, as long as they are not dropping to far below 10%, then they are making themselves healthier.
There seems to be a semantics issue we haven’t addressed. (Among the ones we have addressed, you know, like correlation.)
When I’ve used the word “healthy” in these discussions, I’ve used the word to mean the same thing as “lower risk for disease”.
So in this statement:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
This again does not show that someone is less healthy just because they are carrying more fat than someone else. It means patient with high visceral adipose tissue accumulation are at greater risk for disease…something we already know. [/quote]
Based on the way I’ve used the word “healthy”, I would say the person with less visceral adipose tissue is “healthier” than someone with more, because they have less risk for disease.
But if we’re talking about healthy in terms of “health at this very moment”, then certainly you can have a 5’11 120 lb man dying from cancer, and a 320 lb man who isn’t. The cancer is the determinant here, not the fat.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
There seems to be a semantics issue we haven’t addressed. (Among the ones we have addressed, you know, like correlation.)
When I’ve used the word “healthy” in these discussions, I’ve used the word to mean the same thing as “lower risk for disease”.
So in this statement:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
This again does not show that someone is less healthy just because they are carrying more fat than someone else. It means patient with high visceral adipose tissue accumulation are at greater risk for disease…something we already know. [/quote]
Based on the way I’ve used the word “healthy”, I would say the person with less visceral adipose tissue is “healthier” than someone with more, because they have less risk for disease.
But if we’re talking about healthy in terms of “health at this very moment”, then certainly you can have a 5’11 120 lb man dying from cancer, and a 320 lb man who isn’t. The cancer is the determinant here, not the fat.[/quote]
Yes but at this point we have established what healthier means as it pertains to this thread numerous times so I don’t really know why anyone would still be confused by that at this point unless they were doing it on purpose to make arguing easier.
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
There seems to be a semantics issue we haven’t addressed. (Among the ones we have addressed, you know, like correlation.)
When I’ve used the word “healthy” in these discussions, I’ve used the word to mean the same thing as “lower risk for disease”.
So in this statement:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
This again does not show that someone is less healthy just because they are carrying more fat than someone else. It means patient with high visceral adipose tissue accumulation are at greater risk for disease…something we already know. [/quote]
Based on the way I’ve used the word “healthy”, I would say the person with less visceral adipose tissue is “healthier” than someone with more, because they have less risk for disease.
But if we’re talking about healthy in terms of “health at this very moment”, then certainly you can have a 5’11 120 lb man dying from cancer, and a 320 lb man who isn’t. The cancer is the determinant here, not the fat.[/quote]
Yes but at this point we have established what healthier means as it pertains to this thread numerous times so I don’t really know why anyone would still be confused by that at this point unless they were doing it on purpose to make arguing easier.[/quote]
Yeah… I’ll shut up here. We don’t need more fodder to get sidetracked on.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
I’ve done THOUSANDS of assesments in healthcare setting in my job and I’ve yet to calculate a BMI of 26 or more BEFORE meeting the resident/patient and then upon seeing them realize it’s a muscular, lean individual. I’ve NEVER seen one. This says something for a tool to use GENERALLY. [/quote]
Really? This actually really surprises me. When I was 205 with a 32 inch waist and visible abs I was still at a 26.3 BMI. I’m surprised that you haven’t seen more people like that. And I’m not muscular by a long shot.
james
<— 29.5 BMI here and proud of it 
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
I’ve done THOUSANDS of assesments in healthcare setting in my job and I’ve yet to calculate a BMI of 26 or more BEFORE meeting the resident/patient and then upon seeing them realize it’s a muscular, lean individual. I’ve NEVER seen one. This says something for a tool to use GENERALLY. [/quote]
Really? This actually really surprises me. When I was 205 with a 32 inch waist and visible abs I was still at a 26.3 BMI. I’m surprised that you haven’t seen more people like that. And I’m not muscular by a long shot.
james[/quote]
How tall are you? And were you lifting regularly when you were 205 pounds with a 32 inch waist? Most men above 205# at average height don’t have a 32 inch waist so I’m surprised if you weren’t particularly muscular with those stats.
[quote]csulli wrote:
<— 29.5 BMI here and proud of it :)[/quote]
28,7 here:P
Gotta find a way to gain 4 more kg’s to get into the obese category:D
You are practically there already!
My experience also shows just how few people regularly exercise.
I live in one of the most densely populated and racially and ethnically diverse communities on earth–literally–Queens, NY–and hardly ever see anyone who looks like they exercise at all.
People in Manhattan, just 25 minutes away, actually look like they give a shit though.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
“At risk” doesn’t apply certainty. We know this.
Yeah, I know BMI doesn’t apply to those who regularly lift or athletes.
However considering most peopel do not regularly lift or involve themselves in sports, it’s a good tool. [/quote]
Uh, no it isn’t if it is being used here as if someone being overweight is being put at risk of CANCER like you wrote.
It says something for its use with SEDENTARY PEOPLE…which is why there is debate in this thread…SINCE WE ARE NOT SEDENTARY.
get it now?
That is why saying someone is healthier just because they are leaner is FALSE.
This has been explained ad nauseum.[/quote]
Yeah, which is why body composition is ONE risk factor, as is sedentary being another risk factor.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Also puts one at risk for certain cancers. [/quote]
Being “overweight” alone does not put you at risk for cancer.[/quote]
I didn’t say alone. It’s ONE risk factor among others. Same with the other two conditions we speak of here. [/quote]
That is the problem. None of this happens in a vacuum, so no, being overweight alone does NOT put you at risk of what you wrote.[/quote]
It’s ONE risk factor, which means it can be THE risk factor that actually makes it happen for some people.
OK, X, we’ll just go along and say there’s nothing wrong with being overweight.
[quote]whatever2k wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
<— 29.5 BMI here and proud of it :)[/quote]
28,7 here:P
Gotta find a way to gain 4 more kg’s to get into the obese category:D
You are practically there already!
[/quote]
Hahaha yeah. I’m around 5’10" and I’m usually just a few pounds over 200. If I can add just a couple more pounds I could crack that magical 30 BMI mark and enter obesity land!
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
How tall are you? And were you lifting regularly when you were 205 pounds with a 32 inch waist? Most men above 205# at average height don’t have a 32 inch waist so I’m surprised if you weren’t particularly muscular with those stats. [/quote]
I’m 6’2" and naturally skinny. I just went through my measurements and it was 34 not 32 but I was wearing size 32 jeans (go figure). I went down from a 41 inch waist just by diet. I was training though but more circuits than trying to build muscle. I think it’s easier to carry weight and still be relatively lean if you’re athletic or genetically predisposed to it.
james
Please stop responding to X’s trolling in this thread.
It has been informative and insightful.
Lets keep that up.
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]whatever2k wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
<— 29.5 BMI here and proud of it :)[/quote]
28,7 here:P
Gotta find a way to gain 4 more kg’s to get into the obese category:D
You are practically there already!
[/quote]
Hahaha yeah. I’m around 5’10" and I’m usually just a few pounds over 200. If I can add just a couple more pounds I could crack that magical 30 BMI mark and enter obesity land![/quote]
Why would you apply BMI for a weight training person such as yourself?
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
If a non-sedentary person leans up in a healthy manner (as most in this thread would), and by healthy I mean with diet and exercise, as long as they are not dropping to far below 10%, then they are making themselves healthier. [/quote]
This has no basis in science. You are literally making things up with this. You can NOT say that someone will be healthier just because they lose some body fat if they are NOT obese and are NOT sedentary…because ACTIVITY matters that much as well as genetics and diet.
I have explained this to you. It makes no sense to keep typing untruths.
Someone at 15% is NOT necessarily healthier just because they drop to 12%. That has no basis in real world science.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
My experience also shows just how few people regularly exercise. [/quote]
This means nothing since the entire discussion is whether gaining any body fat alone causes a risk factor. If activity changes the equation that much, you can not make this claim.