[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]
Unless you have x-ray vision, you haven’t seen ANYONE’s “intra-abdominal fat”.
Knowledge is power.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
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]
Are you Csulli?
Do you speak for him?
I didn’t think so.
I am trying to have a one on one conversation and I’m sure he can speak for himself, he’s a big boy.
Reposting because apparently it was missed the 20+ other times I asked and it seems like prof really wants to answer questions right now
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Brick said being overweight was a risk factor.[/quote]
Brick wrote,
…which makes you incorrect.
From 6-8-2013 @ 1:30
Page 39 of the Bulking thread
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[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]
No doubt with more fat overall some of it will probably be visceral.
Here’s my first post in case it got lost at the end of last page:
[quote]csulli wrote:
[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]
That is a table from this study:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/85/1/46.full
SAT is sub-q fat, and VAT is visceral fat.
I was interested to see that whole body fat and body fat percentage was massively more correlated to SAT than to VAT.
Meaning it’s way too difficult in my eyes to equate moderate levels of bodyfat to intra-abdominal obesity, which we’ve established as the great enemy!
[quote]csulli wrote:
Meaning it’s way too difficult in my eyes to equate moderate levels of bodyfat to intra-abdominal obesity, which we’ve established as the great enemy![/quote]
Which is why telling people they are less healthy simply because they have a higher body fat percentage is wrong.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
Meaning it’s way too difficult in my eyes to equate moderate levels of bodyfat to intra-abdominal obesity, which we’ve established as the great enemy![/quote]
Which is why telling people they are less healthy simply because they have a higher body fat percentage is wrong.[/quote]
I think that telling them they may have increased health risks, and need to go to a doctor for evaluation is responsible.
We tend to like to moralize any statement as a society Right/Wrong Good/Bad.
I often wonder if it is about making one’s self feel Superior, or simply to make the other person feel inferior?
EDIT: It looks like you had the right information PofX.
[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
Meaning it’s way too difficult in my eyes to equate moderate levels of bodyfat to intra-abdominal obesity, which we’ve established as the great enemy![/quote]
Which is why telling people they are less healthy simply because they have a higher body fat percentage is wrong.[/quote]
I think that telling them they may have increased health risks, and need to go to a doctor for evaluation is responsible.
We tend to like to moralize any statement as a society Right/Wrong Good/Bad.
I often wonder if it is about making one’s self feel Superior, or simply to make the other person feel inferior?
EDIT: It looks like you had the right information PofX. [/quote]
Not having a strong absolute correlation in a population also doesn’t exclude having a good strong correlation for each person.
[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:
I think that telling them they may have increased health risks, and need to go to a doctor for evaluation is responsible. [/quote]
This should go for EVERYONE…not just the people some think are fat.
The best looking people in the room could be the least healthy overall.
It could sometimes simply be about what’s right.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Not having a strong absolute correlation in a population also doesn’t exclude having a good strong correlation for each person.[/quote]
It doesn’t have a good correlation…as NO SCIENCE has been presented showing moderate body fat alone less than obesity is a significant health risk.
Making it one “just to be safe” is on you…but acting like it is “the truth” is taking it too far.
Stop changing the talking points.
Stop lying.
“A risk factor” is not the same thing as “significant health risk” or “the leading factor” or “moderate bodyfat alone causes”
Please stick to the topic or start your own thread to discuss your nonsense.
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Stop changing the talking points.
Stop lying.
“A risk factor” is not the same thing as “significant health risk” [/quote]
WTF?
This is why you get ignored.
Being overweight AKA carrying excess bodyfat (not BMI) is a risk factor for heart disease.
Does anyone deny this? Yes or no.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Stop changing the talking points.
Stop lying.
“A risk factor” is not the same thing as “significant health risk” [/quote]
WTF?
This is why you get ignored. [/quote]
What don’t you understand, liar?
Surely you understand that something can be a risk factor without being a significant health risk?
Surely you understand that something can be a small risk factor while something else can be a large or significant risk factor?
Surely you understand this Professor Liar?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Not having a strong absolute correlation in a population also doesn’t exclude having a good strong correlation for each person.[/quote]
It doesn’t have a good correlation…as NO SCIENCE has been presented showing moderate body fat alone less than obesity is a significant health risk.
Making it one “just to be safe” is on you…but acting like it is “the truth” is taking it too far.[/quote]
I never mentioned any of those things liar. Not a single one.
This is simply to get into the metalogic of our language choices. Tone is hard to establish on the internet. I am simply suggesting that saying something is wrong, is not necessary in conveying one own correctness.You and anyone else can simply ignore my observation and make no effort to acknowledge this concept, but words do matter especially in a discussion where two people seem to have a disagreement, Or a long history of such.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
Meaning it’s way too difficult in my eyes to equate moderate levels of bodyfat to intra-abdominal obesity, which we’ve established as the great enemy![/quote]
Which is why telling people they are less healthy simply because they have a higher body fat percentage is wrong.[/quote]
Just for example, I read Csulli’s post and understood what you had been saying was correct. Your need to moralize the trivial was not in adding to the topic but taking a shot at those who disagreed with you for whatever reason, maybe just for the sake of disagreeing with you.
But either way had you not posted everyone would have known you were correct. But Moralizing the other point was about letting others know how wrong they were… At lease that is the perception. Take it as you would like, because I am not heavily invested in this;.
[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
Meaning it’s way too difficult in my eyes to equate moderate levels of bodyfat to intra-abdominal obesity, which we’ve established as the great enemy![/quote]
Which is why telling people they are less healthy simply because they have a higher body fat percentage is wrong.[/quote]
Just for example, I read Csulli’s post and understood what you had been saying was correct. Your need to moralize the trivial was not in adding to the topic but taking a shot at those who disagreed with you for whatever reason, maybe just for the sake of disagreeing with you.
But either way had you not posted everyone would have known you were correct. But Moralizing the other point was about letting others know how wrong they were… At lease that is the perception. Take it as you would like, because I am not heavily invested in this;. [/quote]
A good observation IMO but also I don’t blame him after all these threads even if it is somewhat inflammatory to some
But you are right. The truth is what mattered and csulli did well to present solid data on it, that was interesting
It means that really there’s nothing much to say now, visceral isn’t visible and may not even be much linked to overall bf, ‘extra’ risk for a bit of extra fat has simply not been established and that was that. Good thread, lots of wading through arguments to get to the end but filter that out and it was a good Q by the OP and now it’s answered well and done with
.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
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]
Nope X.
INDIVIDUAL genetic variation is just that, and in no way diminishes those GENERALIZED assumptions that Smashing listed above.
Surely you can see this.