Body Fat and Heart Disease

Training
501

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[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.[/quote]

LOL

502

So all this means is that fat people like PX have a higher risk of certain illnesses but at the end of the day its just that, an elevated risk of them having a particular disease not a certainty. Yeah that sounds about right given that whenever you visit the GP your weight is often measured and discussed.

I would imagine PX’s weight and especially his fat levels being of concern and would think it sensible that his doctor recommend he at least attempt to lose some of his fat for health reasons.

503

[quote]steven alex wrote:
So all this means is that fat people like PX have a higher risk of certain illnesses but at the end of the day its just that, an elevated risk of them having a particular disease not a certainty. Yeah that sounds about right given that whenever you visit the GP your weight is often measured and discussed.

I would imagine PX’s weight and especially his fat levels being of concern and would think it sensible that his doctor recommend he at least attempt to lose some of his fat for health reasons. [/quote]

but that is not in fact what the study said, it said he should be evaluated to see if he has a genetic predisposition. simply losing weight doesn’t guarantee a reduced risk factor for those carrying fat internally.

504

[quote]steven alex wrote:
So all this means is that fat people like PX have a higher risk of certain illnesses but at the end of the day its just that, an elevated risk of them having a particular disease not a certainty. Yeah that sounds about right given that whenever you visit the GP your weight is often measured and discussed.

I would imagine PX’s weight and especially his fat levels being of concern and would think it sensible that his doctor recommend he at least attempt to lose some of his fat for health reasons. [/quote]

505

[quote]chillain wrote:

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.[/quote]

It would be an incorrect assumption to claim that “intra-abdominal” fat increases when overall body fat increases.

Claiming you are speaking “generally” does not change this.

You also omitted the part of the same sentence where I mentioned how diet is related along with genetics.

506

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Dear Professor,
I have asked you kindly at least 10 times to show me where you got that quote from Brick.
You “quoted” him and used that to be a condescending dickhead to me in order to prove your point.
I have asked close to a dozen times where you got that quote from.
Are we to take your lack of a response to mean that you did in fact make that quote up?

Does this mean that you were blatantly lying in rest to further your argument and now that you were called on it your true colors of cowardice show?
No response, no ownership of your lying bullshit, nothing.
Is this the conclusion that we are left with?

With how many times you have shouted “your reading comprehension sucks”, “stop lying”, “address what was actually written” and all that I’m surprised that you didn’t take one bit of your own advice.

I am still waiting for a response but I won’t hold my breath.[/quote][/quote]
Good post[/quote]

Best Post[/quote]

Forever ignored Post.[/quote]

Resurrected Post

507

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Dear Professor,
I have asked you kindly at least 10 times to show me where you got that quote from Brick.
You “quoted” him and used that to be a condescending dickhead to me in order to prove your point.
I have asked close to a dozen times where you got that quote from.
Are we to take your lack of a response to mean that you did in fact make that quote up?

Does this mean that you were blatantly lying in rest to further your argument and now that you were called on it your true colors of cowardice show?
No response, no ownership of your lying bullshit, nothing.
Is this the conclusion that we are left with?

With how many times you have shouted “your reading comprehension sucks”, “stop lying”, “address what was actually written” and all that I’m surprised that you didn’t take one bit of your own advice.

I am still waiting for a response but I won’t hold my breath.[/quote][/quote]
Good post[/quote]

Best Post[/quote]

Forever ignored Post.[/quote]

Resurrected Post[/quote]

We have all moved past that.

EDIT** not that i don’t enjoy a good public circle jerk as much as the next guy…

508

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]steven alex wrote:
So all this means is that fat people like PX have a higher risk of certain illnesses but at the end of the day its just that, an elevated risk of them having a particular disease not a certainty. Yeah that sounds about right given that whenever you visit the GP your weight is often measured and discussed.

I would imagine PX’s weight and especially his fat levels being of concern and would think it sensible that his doctor recommend he at least attempt to lose some of his fat for health reasons. [/quote]

but that is not in fact what the study said, it said he should be evaluated to see if he has a genetic predisposition. simply losing weight doesn’t guarantee a reduced risk factor for those carrying fat internally.[/quote]
If visceral fat is the bigger risk factor for CVD then how does losing some of that fat not lower your risk?

We are speaking in general here.
Inb4 beating @GENETICS" to death with the natural trainee who only plays basketball and eats Mc Donald’s who is a better basketball player than MJ and is bigger than Ronnie Coleman all while getting healthier as they get fatter.

509

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]steven alex wrote:
So all this means is that fat people like PX have a higher risk of certain illnesses but at the end of the day its just that, an elevated risk of them having a particular disease not a certainty. Yeah that sounds about right given that whenever you visit the GP your weight is often measured and discussed.

I would imagine PX’s weight and especially his fat levels being of concern and would think it sensible that his doctor recommend he at least attempt to lose some of his fat for health reasons. [/quote]

but that is not in fact what the study said, it said he should be evaluated to see if he has a genetic predisposition. simply losing weight doesn’t guarantee a reduced risk factor for those carrying fat internally.[/quote]
If visceral fat is the bigger risk factor for CVD then how does losing some of that fat not lower your risk?

We are speaking in general here.
Inb4 beating @GENETICS" to death with the natural trainee who only plays basketball and eats Mc Donald’s who is a better basketball player than MJ and is bigger than Ronnie Coleman all while getting healthier as they get fatter.[/quote]

I get your point and so does everyone else. It is not an absolute and requires individuals be evaluated on an individual bases.

There are plenty of health concerns with being overweight. They become more when you are obese. The problem is that the health community in general does not account for lean body mass when making these assumptions. I have been told I am overweight many times, and that I am I nearing obese which is simply not true. All of these without any scientific verification of the information. You are X ft tall and Weigh X amount you have a BMI approaching Obese. You should loose some weight…

look up the definition of obese, it leaves room for may not be of any issue to your health.

Anyway, a more interesting idea to me is if simply body weight, even pure muscle puts one at risk for things like diabetes when approaching 300lbs. That rich piana guy for example. Is he at risk for diabetes or most likely type 2 simply because of his mass?

510

http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/288/4/E768.full
Who knew that packing on more subcutaneous adipose tissue also means more visceral and liver fat!

Edit: All full articles for June 2012 and before are free for the American Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism! http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/by/year

511

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]steven alex wrote:
So all this means is that fat people like PX have a higher risk of certain illnesses but at the end of the day its just that, an elevated risk of them having a particular disease not a certainty. Yeah that sounds about right given that whenever you visit the GP your weight is often measured and discussed.

I would imagine PX’s weight and especially his fat levels being of concern and would think it sensible that his doctor recommend he at least attempt to lose some of his fat for health reasons. [/quote]

but that is not in fact what the study said, it said he should be evaluated to see if he has a genetic predisposition. simply losing weight doesn’t guarantee a reduced risk factor for those carrying fat internally.[/quote]
If visceral fat is the bigger risk factor for CVD then how does losing some of that fat not lower your risk?

We are speaking in general here.
Inb4 beating @GENETICS" to death with the natural trainee who only plays basketball and eats Mc Donald’s who is a better basketball player than MJ and is bigger than Ronnie Coleman all while getting healthier as they get fatter.[/quote]

I get your point and so does everyone else. It is not an absolute and requires individuals be evaluated on an individual bases.

There are plenty of health concerns with being overweight. They become more when you are obese. The problem is that the health community in general does not account for lean body mass when making these assumptions. I have been told I am overweight many times, and that I am I nearing obese which is simply not true. All of these without any scientific verification of the information. You are X ft tall and Weigh X amount you have a BMI approaching Obese. You should loose some weight…

look up the definition of obese, it leaves room for may not be of any issue to your health.

Anyway, a more interesting idea to me is if simply body weight, even pure muscle puts one at risk for things like diabetes when approaching 300lbs. That rich piana guy for example. Is he at risk for diabetes or most likely type 2 simply because of his mass? [/quote]
I understand this and that is why it has been stated countless times that we are not using BMI as a basis of anything.
We are purely talking about excessive fat that doesn’t fall into the obese range of 25+%
So more in the 18-24% range which would be fat but not obese.

I do think overall body weight is a health risk.
Carrying extra fat is worse than extra muscle but the added weight in general is taking on body systems for sure.

512

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]steven alex wrote:
So all this means is that fat people like PX have a higher risk of certain illnesses but at the end of the day its just that, an elevated risk of them having a particular disease not a certainty. Yeah that sounds about right given that whenever you visit the GP your weight is often measured and discussed.

I would imagine PX’s weight and especially his fat levels being of concern and would think it sensible that his doctor recommend he at least attempt to lose some of his fat for health reasons. [/quote]

but that is not in fact what the study said, it said he should be evaluated to see if he has a genetic predisposition. simply losing weight doesn’t guarantee a reduced risk factor for those carrying fat internally.[/quote]
If visceral fat is the bigger risk factor for CVD then how does losing some of that fat not lower your risk?

We are speaking in general here.
Inb4 beating @GENETICS" to death with the natural trainee who only plays basketball and eats Mc Donald’s who is a better basketball player than MJ and is bigger than Ronnie Coleman all while getting healthier as they get fatter.[/quote]

You have to be able to reduce the visceral fat. Bottom line this would need to be monitored through out the process. It could be that you are losing sub Q only and not visceral.

513

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]steven alex wrote:
So all this means is that fat people like PX have a higher risk of certain illnesses but at the end of the day its just that, an elevated risk of them having a particular disease not a certainty. Yeah that sounds about right given that whenever you visit the GP your weight is often measured and discussed.

I would imagine PX’s weight and especially his fat levels being of concern and would think it sensible that his doctor recommend he at least attempt to lose some of his fat for health reasons. [/quote]

but that is not in fact what the study said, it said he should be evaluated to see if he has a genetic predisposition. simply losing weight doesn’t guarantee a reduced risk factor for those carrying fat internally.[/quote]
If visceral fat is the bigger risk factor for CVD then how does losing some of that fat not lower your risk?

We are speaking in general here.
Inb4 beating @GENETICS" to death with the natural trainee who only plays basketball and eats Mc Donald’s who is a better basketball player than MJ and is bigger than Ronnie Coleman all while getting healthier as they get fatter.[/quote]

You have to be able to reduce the visceral fat. Bottom line this would need to be monitored through out the process. It could be that you are losing sub Q only and not visceral.[/quote]
I don’t have the sources with me now but I believe in general when one loses weight the biggest chucks are from the visceral area followed by subcutaneous.

514

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]steven alex wrote:
So all this means is that fat people like PX have a higher risk of certain illnesses but at the end of the day its just that, an elevated risk of them having a particular disease not a certainty. Yeah that sounds about right given that whenever you visit the GP your weight is often measured and discussed.

I would imagine PX’s weight and especially his fat levels being of concern and would think it sensible that his doctor recommend he at least attempt to lose some of his fat for health reasons. [/quote]

but that is not in fact what the study said, it said he should be evaluated to see if he has a genetic predisposition. simply losing weight doesn’t guarantee a reduced risk factor for those carrying fat internally.[/quote]
If visceral fat is the bigger risk factor for CVD then how does losing some of that fat not lower your risk?

We are speaking in general here.
Inb4 beating @GENETICS" to death with the natural trainee who only plays basketball and eats Mc Donald’s who is a better basketball player than MJ and is bigger than Ronnie Coleman all while getting healthier as they get fatter.[/quote]

I get your point and so does everyone else. It is not an absolute and requires individuals be evaluated on an individual bases.

There are plenty of health concerns with being overweight. They become more when you are obese. The problem is that the health community in general does not account for lean body mass when making these assumptions. I have been told I am overweight many times, and that I am I nearing obese which is simply not true. All of these without any scientific verification of the information. You are X ft tall and Weigh X amount you have a BMI approaching Obese. You should loose some weight…

look up the definition of obese, it leaves room for may not be of any issue to your health.

Anyway, a more interesting idea to me is if simply body weight, even pure muscle puts one at risk for things like diabetes when approaching 300lbs. That rich piana guy for example. Is he at risk for diabetes or most likely type 2 simply because of his mass? [/quote]
I understand this and that is why it has been stated countless times that we are not using BMI as a basis of anything.
We are purely talking about excessive fat that doesn’t fall into the obese range of 25+%
So more in the 18-24% range which would be fat but not obese.

I do think overall body weight is a health risk.
Carrying extra fat is worse than extra muscle but the added weight in general is taking on body systems for sure.[/quote]
but if the person is carrying almost no visceral fat at 18-24% then are they unhealthy?

515

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]steven alex wrote:
So all this means is that fat people like PX have a higher risk of certain illnesses but at the end of the day its just that, an elevated risk of them having a particular disease not a certainty. Yeah that sounds about right given that whenever you visit the GP your weight is often measured and discussed.

I would imagine PX’s weight and especially his fat levels being of concern and would think it sensible that his doctor recommend he at least attempt to lose some of his fat for health reasons. [/quote]

but that is not in fact what the study said, it said he should be evaluated to see if he has a genetic predisposition. simply losing weight doesn’t guarantee a reduced risk factor for those carrying fat internally.[/quote]
If visceral fat is the bigger risk factor for CVD then how does losing some of that fat not lower your risk?

We are speaking in general here.
Inb4 beating @GENETICS" to death with the natural trainee who only plays basketball and eats Mc Donald’s who is a better basketball player than MJ and is bigger than Ronnie Coleman all while getting healthier as they get fatter.[/quote]

I get your point and so does everyone else. It is not an absolute and requires individuals be evaluated on an individual bases.

There are plenty of health concerns with being overweight. They become more when you are obese. The problem is that the health community in general does not account for lean body mass when making these assumptions. I have been told I am overweight many times, and that I am I nearing obese which is simply not true. All of these without any scientific verification of the information. You are X ft tall and Weigh X amount you have a BMI approaching Obese. You should loose some weight…

look up the definition of obese, it leaves room for may not be of any issue to your health.

Anyway, a more interesting idea to me is if simply body weight, even pure muscle puts one at risk for things like diabetes when approaching 300lbs. That rich piana guy for example. Is he at risk for diabetes or most likely type 2 simply because of his mass? [/quote]
I understand this and that is why it has been stated countless times that we are not using BMI as a basis of anything.
We are purely talking about excessive fat that doesn’t fall into the obese range of 25+%
So more in the 18-24% range which would be fat but not obese.

I do think overall body weight is a health risk.
Carrying extra fat is worse than extra muscle but the added weight in general is taking on body systems for sure.[/quote]
but if the person is carrying almost no visceral fat at 18-24% then are they unhealthy?[/quote]
I find it hard to believe that a person out there is carrying almost no visceral fat but is borderline obese, but yeah, they would still be unhealthy.
Or less healthy than they would be if they were 12%

516

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]steven alex wrote:
So all this means is that fat people like PX have a higher risk of certain illnesses but at the end of the day its just that, an elevated risk of them having a particular disease not a certainty. Yeah that sounds about right given that whenever you visit the GP your weight is often measured and discussed.

I would imagine PX’s weight and especially his fat levels being of concern and would think it sensible that his doctor recommend he at least attempt to lose some of his fat for health reasons. [/quote]

but that is not in fact what the study said, it said he should be evaluated to see if he has a genetic predisposition. simply losing weight doesn’t guarantee a reduced risk factor for those carrying fat internally.[/quote]
If visceral fat is the bigger risk factor for CVD then how does losing some of that fat not lower your risk?

We are speaking in general here.
Inb4 beating @GENETICS" to death with the natural trainee who only plays basketball and eats Mc Donald’s who is a better basketball player than MJ and is bigger than Ronnie Coleman all while getting healthier as they get fatter.[/quote]

You have to be able to reduce the visceral fat. Bottom line this would need to be monitored through out the process. It could be that you are losing sub Q only and not visceral.[/quote]
I don’t have the sources with me now but I believe in general when one loses weight the biggest chucks are from the visceral area followed by subcutaneous.[/quote]

That maybe true, but just because someone is 23.9% body fat it does not mean that it is majority visceral. I personally carry a ton of fat in my midsection, and do believe I am one of the unfortunate ones with a high visceral fat disposition. Keeping my body fat in check is a certainly a priority. I have never had fat pecks despite having a gut. Some guys look like they have breasts at similar fat levels I have reached, they may not have as much visceral fat and be healthier then I am at the same body fat.

517

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]steven alex wrote:
So all this means is that fat people like PX have a higher risk of certain illnesses but at the end of the day its just that, an elevated risk of them having a particular disease not a certainty. Yeah that sounds about right given that whenever you visit the GP your weight is often measured and discussed.

I would imagine PX’s weight and especially his fat levels being of concern and would think it sensible that his doctor recommend he at least attempt to lose some of his fat for health reasons. [/quote]

but that is not in fact what the study said, it said he should be evaluated to see if he has a genetic predisposition. simply losing weight doesn’t guarantee a reduced risk factor for those carrying fat internally.[/quote]
If visceral fat is the bigger risk factor for CVD then how does losing some of that fat not lower your risk?

We are speaking in general here.
Inb4 beating @GENETICS" to death with the natural trainee who only plays basketball and eats Mc Donald’s who is a better basketball player than MJ and is bigger than Ronnie Coleman all while getting healthier as they get fatter.[/quote]

I get your point and so does everyone else. It is not an absolute and requires individuals be evaluated on an individual bases.

There are plenty of health concerns with being overweight. They become more when you are obese. The problem is that the health community in general does not account for lean body mass when making these assumptions. I have been told I am overweight many times, and that I am I nearing obese which is simply not true. All of these without any scientific verification of the information. You are X ft tall and Weigh X amount you have a BMI approaching Obese. You should loose some weight…

look up the definition of obese, it leaves room for may not be of any issue to your health.

Anyway, a more interesting idea to me is if simply body weight, even pure muscle puts one at risk for things like diabetes when approaching 300lbs. That rich piana guy for example. Is he at risk for diabetes or most likely type 2 simply because of his mass? [/quote]
I understand this and that is why it has been stated countless times that we are not using BMI as a basis of anything.
We are purely talking about excessive fat that doesn’t fall into the obese range of 25+%
So more in the 18-24% range which would be fat but not obese.

I do think overall body weight is a health risk.
Carrying extra fat is worse than extra muscle but the added weight in general is taking on body systems for sure.[/quote]
but if the person is carrying almost no visceral fat at 18-24% then are they unhealthy?[/quote]
I find it hard to believe that a person out there is carrying almost no visceral fat but is borderline obese, but yeah, they would still be unhealthy.
Or less healthy than they would be if they were 12%[/quote]

you can never give absolutes like that when it comes to health… There are to many variables.

518

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]steven alex wrote:
So all this means is that fat people like PX have a higher risk of certain illnesses but at the end of the day its just that, an elevated risk of them having a particular disease not a certainty. Yeah that sounds about right given that whenever you visit the GP your weight is often measured and discussed.

I would imagine PX’s weight and especially his fat levels being of concern and would think it sensible that his doctor recommend he at least attempt to lose some of his fat for health reasons. [/quote]

but that is not in fact what the study said, it said he should be evaluated to see if he has a genetic predisposition. simply losing weight doesn’t guarantee a reduced risk factor for those carrying fat internally.[/quote]
If visceral fat is the bigger risk factor for CVD then how does losing some of that fat not lower your risk?

We are speaking in general here.
Inb4 beating @GENETICS" to death with the natural trainee who only plays basketball and eats Mc Donald’s who is a better basketball player than MJ and is bigger than Ronnie Coleman all while getting healthier as they get fatter.[/quote]

I get your point and so does everyone else. It is not an absolute and requires individuals be evaluated on an individual bases.

There are plenty of health concerns with being overweight. They become more when you are obese. The problem is that the health community in general does not account for lean body mass when making these assumptions. I have been told I am overweight many times, and that I am I nearing obese which is simply not true. All of these without any scientific verification of the information. You are X ft tall and Weigh X amount you have a BMI approaching Obese. You should loose some weight…

look up the definition of obese, it leaves room for may not be of any issue to your health.

Anyway, a more interesting idea to me is if simply body weight, even pure muscle puts one at risk for things like diabetes when approaching 300lbs. That rich piana guy for example. Is he at risk for diabetes or most likely type 2 simply because of his mass? [/quote]
I understand this and that is why it has been stated countless times that we are not using BMI as a basis of anything.
We are purely talking about excessive fat that doesn’t fall into the obese range of 25+%
So more in the 18-24% range which would be fat but not obese.

I do think overall body weight is a health risk.
Carrying extra fat is worse than extra muscle but the added weight in general is taking on body systems for sure.[/quote]
but if the person is carrying almost no visceral fat at 18-24% then are they unhealthy?[/quote]
I find it hard to believe that a person out there is carrying almost no visceral fat but is borderline obese, but yeah, they would still be unhealthy.
Or less healthy than they would be if they were 12%[/quote]

you can never give absolutes like that when it comes to health… There are to many variables.[/quote]
I already inB4’ed the genetics dead horse and said we were speaking in general remember?
IN GENERAL a person would be healthier at 12% bodyfat than that same person would be at 24% bodyfat.
I really don’t see how people can disagree with this.

519

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]steven alex wrote:
So all this means is that fat people like PX have a higher risk of certain illnesses but at the end of the day its just that, an elevated risk of them having a particular disease not a certainty. Yeah that sounds about right given that whenever you visit the GP your weight is often measured and discussed.

I would imagine PX’s weight and especially his fat levels being of concern and would think it sensible that his doctor recommend he at least attempt to lose some of his fat for health reasons. [/quote]

but that is not in fact what the study said, it said he should be evaluated to see if he has a genetic predisposition. simply losing weight doesn’t guarantee a reduced risk factor for those carrying fat internally.[/quote]
If visceral fat is the bigger risk factor for CVD then how does losing some of that fat not lower your risk?

We are speaking in general here.
Inb4 beating @GENETICS" to death with the natural trainee who only plays basketball and eats Mc Donald’s who is a better basketball player than MJ and is bigger than Ronnie Coleman all while getting healthier as they get fatter.[/quote]

I get your point and so does everyone else. It is not an absolute and requires individuals be evaluated on an individual bases.

There are plenty of health concerns with being overweight. They become more when you are obese. The problem is that the health community in general does not account for lean body mass when making these assumptions. I have been told I am overweight many times, and that I am I nearing obese which is simply not true. All of these without any scientific verification of the information. You are X ft tall and Weigh X amount you have a BMI approaching Obese. You should loose some weight…

look up the definition of obese, it leaves room for may not be of any issue to your health.

Anyway, a more interesting idea to me is if simply body weight, even pure muscle puts one at risk for things like diabetes when approaching 300lbs. That rich piana guy for example. Is he at risk for diabetes or most likely type 2 simply because of his mass? [/quote]
I understand this and that is why it has been stated countless times that we are not using BMI as a basis of anything.
We are purely talking about excessive fat that doesn’t fall into the obese range of 25+%
So more in the 18-24% range which would be fat but not obese.

I do think overall body weight is a health risk.
Carrying extra fat is worse than extra muscle but the added weight in general is taking on body systems for sure.[/quote]
but if the person is carrying almost no visceral fat at 18-24% then are they unhealthy?[/quote]
I find it hard to believe that a person out there is carrying almost no visceral fat but is borderline obese, but yeah, they would still be unhealthy.
Or less healthy than they would be if they were 12%[/quote]

you can never give absolutes like that when it comes to health… There are to many variables.[/quote]

I have yet to see anyone speak in absolutes other than the one.

Also you lose proportionally more visceral fat than sub Q unless you have a pathophysiologic endocrine conditon.

I am still waiting for someone to actually support why losing bf is such a bad thing especially when it comes to health and shit even gaining muscle.

520

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
I have yet to see anyone speak in absolutes other than the one.

Also you lose proportionally more visceral fat than sub Q unless you have a pathophysiologic endocrine conditon.

I am still waiting for someone to actually support why losing bf is such a bad thing especially when it comes to health and shit even gaining muscle.
[/quote]
Looks like you forgot about the all natural guy who got bigger than Mr O Ronnie Coleman by playing basketball and only eating McDonald’s who would have been better than Jordan and got healthier by gaining bodyfat.

Consider yourself educated.