Body Fat and Heart Disease

Training
521

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

I added a few photos to my hub to show how my fat is distributed and how I look at lower body fat. I have been successful in getting lean, but I think my tendency to store visceral fat has made getting super lean more difficult than it is for others.

I don’t care to argue your point as I don’t think that losing bf is a bad thing when it comes to health.

I will say that increased fat does allow for greater weight to be lifted increasing the likelihood that the person may gain muscle and be stronger when they are leaner.

522

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

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]

this is an absolute…

523

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

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

[/quote]

I personally thought there were people claiming that gaining any body fat at all put you at more risk of a CVD.

I thought there were people claiming that someone at 10% is “healthier” than someone at 18%.

Maybe I was wrong and no one thinks this at all now. If so, I deeply apologize for my mistake in perception.

524

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

I will say that increased fat does allow for greater weight to be lifted increasing the likelihood that the person may gain muscle and be stronger when they are leaner. [/quote]

Agreed…and long term, who is likely to gain more muscle…the guy lifting more or the guy lifting less?

525

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

I will say that increased fat does allow for greater weight to be lifted increasing the likelihood that the person may gain muscle and be stronger when they are leaner. [/quote]

Agreed…and long term, who is likely to gain more muscle…the guy lifting more or the guy lifting less?[/quote]

I use to care about the bar weight, but I am a bodybuilder now. I am like Kai Green on this I am not a weight lifter, I dont care about that.

The biggest guy is the one who has a method to measure and continue their progress. It all comes down to have the most consecutive days of training, diet (growing or cutting), and not getting injured.

I did not grow my rear delts with adding weight to the bar or my waist, I grew them with UN-godly volume.

****Edit

526

[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.
[/quote]
So if visceral fat isn’t gained by gaining body fat then how is it formed?

527

http://www.wellnessjunction.com/athome/exercise/101305.htm

To better understand the effects of differing amounts of exercise, the researchers studied 175 overweight sedentary men and women who were beginning to show signs of lipid problems. They were randomized into one of four groups: no exercise, low dose/moderate intensity (equivalent of 12 miles of walking per week), low dose/vigorous intensity (12 miles of jogging per week) or high dose/vigorous intensity (20 miles of jogging per week).

“On the other hand, participants who exercised at a level equivalent to 17 miles of jogging each week saw significant declines in visceral fat, subcutaneous abdominal fat and total abdominal fat,” Slentz continued. “While this may seem like a lot of exercise, our previously sedentary and overweight subjects were quite capable of doing this amount.”

So exercising and reducing bodyfat also significantly reduced visceral fat.
Who would have thought?
So yes, reducing overall bodyfat seems to also reduce visceral fat.
So what do you think happens to visceral fat when you gain overall bodyfat, hmmmmmmm…?

528

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.
[/quote]
So if visceral fat isn’t gained by gaining body fat then how is it formed?
[/quote]

Let it go, your not interested in understanding. Without a genetic predisposition there maybe an issue. These fucking % likelihoods or even correlations are all imaginary if you actually have a health issue.

What I mean is if you smoke, your risk of lung cancer increases by 50% or whatever according to a study. You choose to smoke and live to 93 years old. Another person starts smoking and has lung cancer 3 years later. For them it was a 50% chance was it? it was 100% chance that they had a genetic predisposition to lung cancer.

If you have a disposition it is 100% accurate, if not, it is possibly not at all accurate or could be to a degree but you were not ever effected.

529

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
http://www.wellnessjunction.com/athome/exercise/101305.htm

To better understand the effects of differing amounts of exercise, the researchers studied 175 overweight sedentary men and women who were beginning to show signs of lipid problems. They were randomized into one of four groups: no exercise, low dose/moderate intensity (equivalent of 12 miles of walking per week), low dose/vigorous intensity (12 miles of jogging per week) or high dose/vigorous intensity (20 miles of jogging per week).

“On the other hand, participants who exercised at a level equivalent to 17 miles of jogging each week saw significant declines in visceral fat, subcutaneous abdominal fat and total abdominal fat,” Slentz continued. “While this may seem like a lot of exercise, our previously sedentary and overweight subjects were quite capable of doing this amount.”

So exercising and reducing bodyfat also significantly reduced visceral fat.
Who would have thought?
So yes, reducing overall bodyfat seems to also reduce visceral fat.
So what do you think happens to visceral fat when you gain overall bodyfat, hmmmmmmm…?
[/quote]

They did not organize them in to amount of visceral fat carried and lost? so whats your point? they can have a healthy lipid profile and still have increased risk factor.

530

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.
[/quote]
So if visceral fat isn’t gained by gaining body fat then how is it formed?
[/quote]

Let it go, your not interested in understanding. Without a genetic predisposition there maybe an issue. These fucking % likelihoods or even correlations are all imaginary if you actually have a health issue.

What I mean is if you smoke, your risk of lung cancer increases by 50% or whatever according to a study. You choose to smoke and live to 93 years old. Another person starts smoking and has lung cancer 3 years later. For them it was a 50% chance was it? it was 100% chance that they had a genetic predisposition to lung cancer.

If you have a disposition it is 100% accurate, if not, it is possibly not at all accurate or could be to a degree but you were not ever effected. [/quote]

I understand what you are saying but I said, for the millionth time, we are speaking IN GENERAL.
Obviously there are genetic factors and predispositions that play a part but IN GENERAL gaining bodyfat will not make you healthier.

So would you not say that smoking is bad for you because of the guy who smoked and lived to be 93 without a problem?
Or would you say, IN GENERAL, that smoking is bad for your health?
Come on guy.

531

From the same study:

Specifically, those participants exercising at the highest level saw a 6.9 percent decrease in visceral fat and a 7 percent decrease in subcutaneous fat.

The group that exercised the hardest saw almost the exact same % of loss between sub q fat and visceral fat.
Damn near the exact same decrease percentage wise.

532

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

I added a few photos to my hub to show how my fat is distributed and how I look at lower body fat. I have been successful in getting lean, but I think my tendency to store visceral fat has made getting super lean more difficult than it is for others.

I don’t care to argue your point as I don’t think that losing bf is a bad thing when it comes to health.

I will say that increased fat does allow for greater weight to be lifted increasing the likelihood that the person may gain muscle and be stronger when they are leaner. [/quote]

Well I still have yet to see a lean healthy person that has considerable visceral fat. A gut can also come from food, weak abdominals, bad posture ect

And weight lifted does not equal more muscle per se

Also more bf increasing the fat the muscle ratio making it less than ideal

533

In for genetic cop out

534

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.
[/quote]
So if visceral fat isn’t gained by gaining body fat then how is it formed?
[/quote]

Let it go, your not interested in understanding. Without a genetic predisposition there maybe an issue. These fucking % likelihoods or even correlations are all imaginary if you actually have a health issue.

What I mean is if you smoke, your risk of lung cancer increases by 50% or whatever according to a study. You choose to smoke and live to 93 years old. Another person starts smoking and has lung cancer 3 years later. For them it was a 50% chance was it? it was 100% chance that they had a genetic predisposition to lung cancer.

If you have a disposition it is 100% accurate, if not, it is possibly not at all accurate or could be to a degree but you were not ever effected. [/quote]

I understand what you are saying but I said, for the millionth time, we are speaking IN GENERAL.
Obviously there are genetic factors and predispositions that play a part but IN GENERAL gaining bodyfat will not make you healthier.

So would you not say that smoking is bad for you because of the guy who smoked and lived to be 93 without a problem?
Or would you say, IN GENERAL, that smoking is bad for your health?
Come on guy.[/quote]

I would not say either.

I would say i don’t harbor any eternal life fantasy. You can eat healthy and workout and still get cancer, or a heart attack or whatever. Does it appear that doing these things lowers the general populations risk? yes, but simply moderate exercising while at a higher body fat lowers the risk. getting into contest shape can be unhealthy. I know it is for me…

I don’t give a shit what people choose to do with their body. If they like carrying fat and feel healthy enough doing so then fine. There are a lot more old fat asses, then old doctors as the modern version of the song would go.

535

Also everyone using the genetics cop out should start reading about epigenetics and how your life choices can I flue des your genes and the genes you pass to your offspring

536

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

I added a few photos to my hub to show how my fat is distributed and how I look at lower body fat. I have been successful in getting lean, but I think my tendency to store visceral fat has made getting super lean more difficult than it is for others.

I don’t care to argue your point as I don’t think that losing bf is a bad thing when it comes to health.

I will say that increased fat does allow for greater weight to be lifted increasing the likelihood that the person may gain muscle and be stronger when they are leaner. [/quote]

Well I still have yet to see a lean healthy person that has considerable visceral fat. A gut can also come from food, weak abdominals, bad posture ect

And weight lifted does not equal more muscle per se

Also more bf increasing the fat the muscle ratio making it less than ideal
[/quote]

You have not seen a lean person with cardiac vascular health issues?

537

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:
I would not say either.
[/quote]
So you wouldn’t say that in general smoking cigarettes is bad for a persons health.
Gotcha.

538

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Also everyone using the genetics cop out should start reading about epigenetics and how your life choices can I flue des your genes and the genes you pass to your offspring [/quote]

It would be nice if we could get guarantees though wouldn’t it? not arguing the possibility alone is not reason enough to try, but yeah for most it will never be enough to give up an “unhealthy life style”.

539

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

I added a few photos to my hub to show how my fat is distributed and how I look at lower body fat. I have been successful in getting lean, but I think my tendency to store visceral fat has made getting super lean more difficult than it is for others.

I don’t care to argue your point as I don’t think that losing bf is a bad thing when it comes to health.

I will say that increased fat does allow for greater weight to be lifted increasing the likelihood that the person may gain muscle and be stronger when they are leaner. [/quote]

Well I still have yet to see a lean healthy person that has considerable visceral fat. A gut can also come from food, weak abdominals, bad posture ect

And weight lifted does not equal more muscle per se

Also more bf increasing the fat the muscle ratio making it less than ideal
[/quote]

You have not seen a lean person with cardiac vascular health issues? [/quote]
is that what I wrote?

540

Not seeing a lean person with considerable visceral fat =/= not seeing a lean person with cardiac health issues