“Moderete bodyfat” (which im assuming he means less than clinical obesity) and “Abdominal adipose tissue/visceral fat/intra-abdominal fat/ etc” are the same thing.
Moderate bodyfat is just a laymans term for those other labels.[/quote]
This would be incorrect. Moderate body fat and intra-abdominal fat are by no means the same thing.[/quote]
There are basically two different kinds of fat.
Subcutaneous fat (the majority if fat) and visceral fat.
Intra abdominal fat is the same thing as visceral fat.
The term “moderate bodyfat” is a blanket statement that covers all types of fat.
So no, I am not incorrect.
Want to stop lying or address my other question for the 1,000 time I ask?[/quote]
Actually, you are incorrect…as not one study is showing moderate body fat itself to be an issue…but ABDOMINAL ADIPOSITY or INTRA-ABDOMINAL FAT.
They are not the same…as someone could be moderately fat with minimal “intra-abdominal fat”.
Yes, they are two different kinds of fat…which is why they are NOT the same.
Some people just feel the need to justify carrying extra bf rather than accepting that having excess bf will not help health and only hinder it. And by excess I mean over about 12%. It’s a down hill slide from there getting worse the more fat there is. Just accept its unhealthy and move on. I know my goal of being bigger even though I want it as lean mass is not healthy. I get it I accept the risks. Same with eating. I like some “dirty” food that certainly isn’t healthy. I accept that and won’t argue it’s good for me just because I enjoy it
“Moderete bodyfat” (which im assuming he means less than clinical obesity) and “Abdominal adipose tissue/visceral fat/intra-abdominal fat/ etc” are the same thing.
Moderate bodyfat is just a laymans term for those other labels.[/quote]
This would be incorrect. Moderate body fat and intra-abdominal fat are by no means the same thing.[/quote]
There are basically two different kinds of fat.
Subcutaneous fat (the majority if fat) and visceral fat.
Intra abdominal fat is the same thing as visceral fat.
The term “moderate bodyfat” is a blanket statement that covers all types of fat.
So no, I am not incorrect.
Want to stop lying or address my other question for the 1,000 time I ask?[/quote]
Actually, you are incorrect…as not one study is showing moderate body fat itself to be an issue…but ABDOMINAL ADIPOSITY or INTRA-ABDOMINAL FAT.
They are not the same…as someone could be moderately fat with minimal “intra-abdominal fat”.
Yes, they are two different kinds of fat…which is why they are NOT the same.[/quote]
So are you trying to say that it is unreasonable to conclude that gaining fat will mean gaining inta-abdominal fat? Because it seems obvious to me that it is a virtual certainty that any substantial fat gain will lead to an increase in IA fat, thus supporting the argument that gaining fat is a risk factor.
“Moderete bodyfat” (which im assuming he means less than clinical obesity) and “Abdominal adipose tissue/visceral fat/intra-abdominal fat/ etc” are the same thing.
Moderate bodyfat is just a laymans term for those other labels.[/quote]
This would be incorrect. Moderate body fat and intra-abdominal fat are by no means the same thing.[/quote]
There are basically two different kinds of fat.
Subcutaneous fat (the majority if fat) and visceral fat.
Intra abdominal fat is the same thing as visceral fat.
The term “moderate bodyfat” is a blanket statement that covers all types of fat.
So no, I am not incorrect.
Want to stop lying or address my other question for the 1,000 time I ask?[/quote]
Actually, you are incorrect…as not one study is showing moderate body fat itself to be an issue…but ABDOMINAL ADIPOSITY or INTRA-ABDOMINAL FAT.
They are not the same…as someone could be moderately fat with minimal “intra-abdominal fat”.
Yes, they are two different kinds of fat…which is why they are NOT the same.[/quote]
Someone COULD be moderately fat with minimal visceral fat BUT THEY WOULD STILL HAVE IT AND REFERRING TO THEM AS MODWRATLY FAT ENCOMPASSES BOTH (but you already know this)
Keep being fat, keep being purposefully dense, keep ignoring the blatant lie you were caught in.
You are a whinny, weasely, pathetic troll.
Please leave this thread so actual discussion may happen.
I’ve asked you at least 20+ times to address your lie and you skip it every time.
You only come in here to disagree and start arguments.
I am sure there are less than 5 people viewing this thread who do not think you are completely full of it.
You’ve been exposed and no one is buying your crap anymore.
You may have had this forum fooled 10, 5 maybe even 3 years ago but it’s not happening anymore.
[quote]cally wrote:
I’ve never seen a guy with minimal intra-abdonminal fat that was moderately fat in all other areas. These people exist?[/quote]
Yeah, PX has officially jumped the shark. [/quote]
PX is all about the potential genetic outliers:
The natural lifter who gets bigger than Ronnie Coleman.
The basketball player from the streets who’s better than MJ
The person who goes from 15% to 20% bodyfat and gets healthier.
The person who gets fat but has minimal visceral fat.
I’m less interested in justifying fatness (lol) and more interested in just science. I was a statistics major in college, and I am quick to nerd out over what you can say causes something or what you can call a factor/independent variable or a dependent variable or something you simply have to say is correlated. I’m only interested in most accurately representing the data.
Now in design of experiments one of the very first things you do is define all the terms! If you want to define “moderate levels of body fat” as synonymous with “intra-abdominal obesity” as it is referenced in the studies, then I guess that’s fine, but it doesn’t make any sense to me.
Ryan liked to define it as over 12% For example. I can find TONS of people over 12% body fat who don’t have a gut (including me!). There are some people who have more fat distributed in their abdomen who could be leaner than me overall and the data would predict them to be at a higher risk. It doesn’t matter what you or anyone else personally believes or what your ideology is. In science it is extremely disadvantageous to have such a poorly defined variable. They just are not the same thing. Moderate body fat is based off of body fat percentage. Intra-abdominal fat is positional and visceral. If they were the same, the studies shouldn’t have even bothered measuring for both of them and treating them as separate indicators (which were statistically significantly different even!). I mean if you ask me that pretty well eliminates the possibility that they could be the same at all!
[quote]csulli wrote:
I’m less interested in justifying fatness (lol) and more interested in just science. I was a statistics major in college, and I am quick to nerd out over what you can say causes something or what you can call a factor/independent variable or a dependent variable or something you simply have to say is correlated. I’m only interested in most accurately representing the data.
Now in design of experiments one of the very first things you do is define all the terms! If you want to define “moderate levels of body fat” as synonymous with “intra-abdominal obesity” as it is referenced in the studies, then I guess that’s fine, but it doesn’t make any sense to me.
Ryan liked to define it as over 12% For example. I can find TONS of people over 12% body fat who don’t have a gut (including me!). There are some people who have more fat distributed in their abdomen who could be leaner than me overall and the data would predict them to be at a higher risk. It doesn’t matter what you or anyone else personally believes or what your ideology is. In science it is extremely disadvantageous to have such a poorly defined variable. They just are not the same thing. Moderate body fat is based off of body fat percentage. Intra-abdominal fat is positional and visceral. If they were the same, the studies shouldn’t have even bothered measuring for both of them and treating them as separate indicators (which were statistically significantly different even!). I mean if you ask me that pretty well eliminates the possibility that they could be the same at all![/quote]
This is one of those times when you reflect on the context that this argument even began over. Brick’s original statement was based around/within arguments about how a natural should go about bulking with health concerns in mind. This means that the statement needs to be put in a box for general populations. It can almost certainly be said that for the general population(lifters included, in fact I’m pretty sure one of the studies from the aforementioned thread used only high school and college football players as their sample), gaining ‘fat’ will lead to some non-zero gain of IA fat. Thus, fat gain(or, overweightness) can be said to be a risk factor for the negative health effects listed.
Anonym basically put that line of thinking in his post summary, noting that he picked the studies that in some cases weren’t related at all, on purpose to show that independently the statements are true(IA fat is bad, gaining fat = generally more IA fat), and thus can be put together to form the statement ‘gaining fat is bad.’
He had a number of other qualifications he posted to avoid semantic picking at his argument which have basically been thrown out at this point.
You do know that “intra abdominal fat” or visceral fat is the fat that is underneath the muscles of the abdomen right?
The fat the surrounded and coats our organs.
This isn’t what is going to give someone a “gut.”
That is sub q fat, the fat that is right below the skin.
[quote]csulli wrote:
I’m less interested in justifying fatness (lol) and more interested in just science. I was a statistics major in college, and I am quick to nerd out over what you can say causes something or what you can call a factor/independent variable or a dependent variable or something you simply have to say is correlated. I’m only interested in most accurately representing the data.
Now in design of experiments one of the very first things you do is define all the terms! If you want to define “moderate levels of body fat” as synonymous with “intra-abdominal obesity” as it is referenced in the studies, then I guess that’s fine, but it doesn’t make any sense to me.
Ryan liked to define it as over 12% For example. I can find TONS of people over 12% body fat who don’t have a gut (including me!). There are some people who have more fat distributed in their abdomen who could be leaner than me overall and the data would predict them to be at a higher risk. It doesn’t matter what you or anyone else personally believes or what your ideology is. In science it is extremely disadvantageous to have such a poorly defined variable. They just are not the same thing. Moderate body fat is based off of body fat percentage. Intra-abdominal fat is positional and visceral. If they were the same, the studies shouldn’t have even bothered measuring for both of them and treating them as separate indicators (which were statistically significantly different even!). I mean if you ask me that pretty well eliminates the possibility that they could be the same at all![/quote]
This is one of those times when you reflect on the context that this argument even began over. Brick’s original statement was based around/within arguments about how a natural should go about bulking with health concerns in mind. This means that the statement needs to be put in a box for general populations. It can almost certainly be said that for the general population(lifters included, in fact I’m pretty sure one of the studies from the aforementioned thread used only high school and college football players as their sample), gaining ‘fat’ will lead to some non-zero gain of IA fat. Thus, fat gain(or, overweightness) can be said to be a risk factor for the negative health effects listed.
Anonym basically put that line of thinking in his post summary, noting that he picked the studies that in some cases weren’t related at all, on purpose to show that independently the statements are true(IA fat is bad, gaining fat = generally more IA fat), and thus can be put together to form the statement ‘gaining fat is bad.’
He had a number of other qualifications he posted to avoid semantic picking at his argument which have basically been thrown out at this point.[/quote]
Really good post, thanks for sharing.
[quote]csulli wrote:
I’m less interested in justifying fatness (lol) and more interested in just science. I was a statistics major in college, and I am quick to nerd out over what you can say causes something or what you can call a factor/independent variable or a dependent variable or something you simply have to say is correlated. I’m only interested in most accurately representing the data.
Now in design of experiments one of the very first things you do is define all the terms! If you want to define “moderate levels of body fat” as synonymous with “intra-abdominal obesity” as it is referenced in the studies, then I guess that’s fine, but it doesn’t make any sense to me.
Ryan liked to define it as over 12% For example. I can find TONS of people over 12% body fat who don’t have a gut (including me!). There are some people who have more fat distributed in their abdomen who could be leaner than me overall and the data would predict them to be at a higher risk. It doesn’t matter what you or anyone else personally believes or what your ideology is. In science it is extremely disadvantageous to have such a poorly defined variable. They just are not the same thing. Moderate body fat is based off of body fat percentage. Intra-abdominal fat is positional and visceral. If they were the same, the studies shouldn’t have even bothered measuring for both of them and treating them as separate indicators (which were statistically significantly different even!). I mean if you ask me that pretty well eliminates the possibility that they could be the same at all![/quote]
You got it exactly. Definitions are being assumed rather than properly defined here, opinions such as anything over 12% are just that, why not 10, 14, 8 what s the supporting evidence, real large population evidence. Finally you’re also right about visceral being different from a general measure of bf
And par for the forum, some people appear to want to have the prof in the role of troll so they can act big billy goat gruff, fun all round I’m sure but gets in the way of the topic and assures that everyone just digs in and stays with their original opinion even more
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
You’ve been exposed and no one is buying your crap anymore.
You may have had this forum fooled 10, 5 maybe even 3 years ago but it’s not happening anymore.[/quote]
This - a total joke and complete clown. No one gives a single fuck about what he has to say anymore - it’s pathetic to watch him continue to swagger around and act as if literally the entire board doesn’t want him GONE!
Seriously, with the exception of a couple of pathetic nut swinging hold-outs, this motherfucker is washed up here - hang him out to dry so we don’t have to listen to his arrogant, deluded nonsense anymore.
[quote]csulli wrote:
I’m less interested in justifying fatness (lol) and more interested in just science. I was a statistics major in college, and I am quick to nerd out over what you can say causes something or what you can call a factor/independent variable or a dependent variable or something you simply have to say is correlated. I’m only interested in most accurately representing the data.
Now in design of experiments one of the very first things you do is define all the terms! If you want to define “moderate levels of body fat” as synonymous with “intra-abdominal obesity” as it is referenced in the studies, then I guess that’s fine, but it doesn’t make any sense to me.
Ryan liked to define it as over 12% For example. I can find TONS of people over 12% body fat who don’t have a gut (including me!). There are some people who have more fat distributed in their abdomen who could be leaner than me overall and the data would predict them to be at a higher risk. It doesn’t matter what you or anyone else personally believes or what your ideology is. In science it is extremely disadvantageous to have such a poorly defined variable. They just are not the same thing. Moderate body fat is based off of body fat percentage. Intra-abdominal fat is positional and visceral. If they were the same, the studies shouldn’t have even bothered measuring for both of them and treating them as separate indicators (which were statistically significantly different even!). I mean if you ask me that pretty well eliminates the possibility that they could be the same at all![/quote]
I would say the unfortunate paradigm now is to think hey I don’t have a bulging 8month pregnant belly, that means I am lean and have no visceral fat. But people that don’t have a “gut” can still have large amounts of visceral fat, obv not as much as their pregnant counter parts. Not sure how much research you have done personally but variables can be very hard to define and categorize so they can be analyzed.
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
You do know that “intra abdominal fat” or visceral fat is the fat that is underneath the muscles of the abdomen right?
The fat the surrounded and coats our organs.
This isn’t what is going to give someone a “gut.”
That is sub q fat, the fat that is right below the skin.
[/quote]
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
I would say the unfortunate paradigm now is to think hey I don’t have a bulging 8month pregnant belly, that means I am lean and have no visceral fat. But people that don’t have a “gut” can still have large amounts of visceral fat, obv not as much as their pregnant counter parts. Not sure how much research you have done personally but variables can be very hard to define and categorize so they can be analyzed. [/quote]
That’s true about visceral fat you’re both right. But that fat surrounding your abdominal organs has to go somewhere, and while “having a gut” or waist circumference is not the same as visceral fat, it’s pretty decent for use as an indicator:
Also interesting to note is that the National Institutes of Health set cutoff points to identify people with high amounts of visceral fat and thereby high risk for obesity related diseases. The cutoff is 40 inches for men, which is surprisingly huge if you ask me lol. I dunno, maybe that’s just for like really high risk or something. Anyway the point is they use “the gut” as an estimator.
Anyway, the point is still that visceral fat is not the same as “moderate levels of bodyfat” which I think you both sort of agreed with just now!
[quote]csulli wrote:
This is a picture from the Harvard Health Publication. I know it’s just kind of an estimation, but in general they seem to think this is how it works.
I’m just trying to explain why I felt justified to use the term “gut” as a layman’s label for intra-abdominal/adipose/visceral fat.[/quote]
I hear ya man.
Doesn’t it seem like a safe assumption to speculate that someone with a moderate amount of fat (between the 18-22% range perhaps?) would also be carrying a moderate amount of visceral fat?
Doesn’t it also seem like a safe assumption to speculate that someone with a low amount of fat (say the 8-10% range perhaps?) would also be carrying a smaller amount of visceral fat?
[quote]csulli wrote:
This is a picture from the Harvard Health Publication. I know it’s just kind of an estimation, but in general they seem to think this is how it works.
I’m just trying to explain why I felt justified to use the term “gut” as a layman’s label for intra-abdominal/adipose/visceral fat.[/quote]
First, thank you for keeping this thread on track.
Second, you are right, intra-abdominal fat is FAT INSIDE YOUR ABDOMINAL CAVITY THAT YOU CAN NOT SEE WITH THE NAKED EYE.
It seemed that some simply don’t understand the basic terms and are arguing over other things than the basic science.
I hear ya man.
Doesn’t it seem like a safe assumption to speculate that someone with a moderate amount of fat (between the 18-22% range perhaps?) would also be carrying a moderate amount of visceral fat?
[/quote]
NO…because the storage of fat there can be as much GENETIC as it is related to being sedentary with a poor diet.
That is why the distinction is being made. You are literally making up science as you go if you take it further than that…which is what “bro science” is.
[quote]
Doesn’t it also seem like a safe assumption to speculate that someone with a low amount of fat (say the 8-10% range perhaps?) would also be carrying a smaller amount of visceral fat?[/quote]
No, because this is as much a genetic factor as it is one related to poor diet.
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
So are you trying to say that it is unreasonable to conclude that gaining fat will mean gaining inta-abdominal fat? Because it seems obvious to me that it is a virtual certainty that any substantial fat gain will lead to an increase in IA fat, thus supporting the argument that gaining fat is a risk factor.[/quote]
That is why knowledge of the fact that your body des NOT gain fat there proportionately as it does with the storage of subcutenous fat is very important.
This is a factor that can change with age as well.
