Personally my agenda is to learn and expand my knowledge this place is hard to do that in[/quote]
Agreed.
It’s terribly evident when you look at a thread like this.
People arguing semantics, twisting words and nitpicking every study posted based on one word or phrase.
It would be nice to have a thread where this doesn’t happen but I guess that can’t happen.
Thanks to everyone who actually contributed to this thread.
[/quote]
[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.[/quote]
No, that isn’t really important to the argument. It’s an interesting point that warrants its own discussion, but it doesn’t help us in the argument on bodyfat gain and how that affects health. If we are assuming visceral fat doesn’t remain static with the increase in total bodyfat (not much of a leap there), we’ve then established that gaining moderate amounts of bodyfat is, to some degree, going to make you less healthy. The degree to which health will be affected is going to vary among individuals (as it always does), but it’s absurd to state that we can’t say there’s an effect.
Personally my agenda is to learn and expand my knowledge this place is hard to do that in[/quote]
Agreed.
It’s terribly evident when you look at a thread like this.
People arguing semantics, twisting words and nitpicking every study posted based on one word or phrase.
It would be nice to have a thread where this doesn’t happen but I guess that can’t happen.
Thanks to everyone who actually contributed to this thread.
[/quote]
That’s agreed but what was learned?
I learned that visceral and overall bf are not that closely related and that there’s no evidence that small differences below obesity make any significant difference to cvd risk in ‘general’ such that we cannot claim going from x% to x-3%, for example, actually does anything to change the risk
What was known before is that obesity is bad and visceral fat is bad (though we didn’t establish absolutes or percentages on that iirc)
[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.[/quote]
No, that isn’t really important to the argument. It’s an interesting point that warrants its own discussion, but it doesn’t help us in the argument on bodyfat gain and how that affects health. If we are assuming visceral fat doesn’t remain static with the increase in total bodyfat (not much of a leap there), we’ve then established that gaining moderate amounts of bodyfat is, to some degree, going to make you less healthy. The degree to which health will be affected is going to vary among individuals (as it always does), but it’s absurd to state that we can’t say there’s an effect. [/quote]
Gaining overall body fat in percentage does not always mean significantly more visceral or “intra-abdominal” fat is gained. It also does not mean that if there is a gain in visceral fat, that it puts one at risk of any disease as there is a genetic component as well as the relation of diet and exercise.
[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]
The gain of visceral body fat is genetically determined along with its general increase with age and also with poor diet and lack of exercise. It is not gained in all cases proportionately with subcutaneous body fat.
[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]
The gain of visceral body fat is genetically determined along with its general increase with age and also with poor diet and lack of exercise. It is not gained in all cases proportionately with subcutaneous body fat.[/quote]
If you’re trying to reduce visceral fat, do you take the same approach as with any fat loss program?
I’m guessing it hasn’t really been studied, but I’m wondering how visceral vs subq fat are added and lost/removed. Does the visceral fat remain after losing the subq fat, or do you lose them relatively in proportion to each other?
[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]
The gain of visceral body fat is genetically determined along with its general increase with age and also with poor diet and lack of exercise. It is not gained in all cases proportionately with subcutaneous body fat.[/quote]
If you’re trying to reduce visceral fat, do you take the same approach as with any fat loss program?
I’m guessing it hasn’t really been studied, but I’m wondering how visceral vs subq fat are added and lost/removed. Does the visceral fat remain after losing the subq fat, or do you lose them relatively in proportion to each other?[/quote]
From what I have seen clinically and in studies suggests that LIFESTYLE is the determinant factor along with genetics.
If you see some guy who isn’t that fat all over but has a HUGE beer gut, that is high visceral fat…and his lack of exercise and poor diet (alcohol) contributed.
You do not see the same effect on people who train often yet just gain some body fat.
[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]
The gain of visceral body fat is genetically determined along with its general increase with age and also with poor diet and lack of exercise. It is not gained in all cases proportionately with subcutaneous body fat.[/quote]
I never said “in all cases proportionately with sub q fat.”
Please stop.
So visceral fat is gained by a poor diet and lack of sufficient exercise?
Seems like that’s how sub q fat is gained as well?
Since they are both gained the exact same way, it would seem that IN GENERAL gaining body fat results in the gain of both types.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
From what I have seen clinically and in studies suggests that LIFESTYLE is the determinant factor along with genetics.
If you see some guy who isn’t that fat all over but has a HUGE beer gut, that is high visceral fat…and his lack of exercise and poor diet (alcohol) contributed.
You do not see the same effect on people who train often yet just gain some body fat.[/quote]
Agreed.
[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]
The gain of visceral body fat is genetically determined along with its general increase with age and also with poor diet and lack of exercise. It is not gained in all cases proportionately with subcutaneous body fat.[/quote]
If you’re trying to reduce visceral fat, do you take the same approach as with any fat loss program?
I’m guessing it hasn’t really been studied, but I’m wondering how visceral vs subq fat are added and lost/removed. Does the visceral fat remain after losing the subq fat, or do you lose them relatively in proportion to each other?[/quote]
Yes, the approach is the same.
I already posted that study from Duke Medical Center that was done on overweight (NOT OBESE) people that showed that strenuous exercise (equivalent to jogging 17 miles per week) resulted in a 6.9% reduction of visceral fat and a 7% reduction of sub q fat.
Virtually the exact same percentage of fat reduction between the two.
So yes, taking the same approach reduces both types of fat.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
The gain of visceral body fat is genetically determined along with its general increase with age and also with poor diet and lack of exercise. It is not gained in all cases proportionately with subcutaneous body fat.[/quote]
If you’re trying to reduce visceral fat, do you take the same approach as with any fat loss program?
I’m guessing it hasn’t really been studied, but I’m wondering how visceral vs subq fat are added and lost/removed. Does the visceral fat remain after losing the subq fat, or do you lose them relatively in proportion to each other?[/quote]
Yes, the approach is the same.
I already posted that study from Duke Medical Center that was done on overweight (NOT OBESE) people that showed that strenuous exercise (equivalent to jogging 17 miles per week) resulted in a 6.9% reduction of visceral fat and a 7% reduction of sub q fat.
Virtually the exact same percentage of fat reduction between the two.
So yes, taking the same approach reduces both types of fat.[/quote]
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]
Here ya go LoRez
[quote]Professor X wrote:
The gain of visceral body fat is genetically determined along with its general increase with age and also with poor diet and lack of exercise. It is not gained in all cases proportionately with subcutaneous body fat.[/quote]
If you’re trying to reduce visceral fat, do you take the same approach as with any fat loss program?
I’m guessing it hasn’t really been studied, but I’m wondering how visceral vs subq fat are added and lost/removed. Does the visceral fat remain after losing the subq fat, or do you lose them relatively in proportion to each other?[/quote]
Yes, the approach is the same.
I already posted that study from Duke Medical Center that was done on overweight (NOT OBESE) people that showed that strenuous exercise (equivalent to jogging 17 miles per week) resulted in a 6.9% reduction of visceral fat and a 7% reduction of sub q fat.
Virtually the exact same percentage of fat reduction between the two.
So yes, taking the same approach reduces both types of fat.[/quote]
Ah, thanks. I missed that study in there.[/quote]
That study used sedentary people who started exercising.
Someone already exercising seriously would be expected to have less “intra-abdominal fat” anyway…which is why this discussion arose.
People are using info for sedentary and obese people and applying it across the board without taking into consideration how much of a game changer EXERCISE AND LIFESTYLE are alone.
I never said “in all cases proportionately with sub q fat.”
Please stop.
So visceral fat is gained by a poor diet and lack of sufficient exercise?
Seems like that’s how sub q fat is gained as well?
Since they are both gained the exact same way, it would seem that IN GENERAL gaining body fat results in the gain of both types.[/quote]
They aren’t gained in the exact same way.
Someone does not have to have a poor diet or lack exercise to gain subcutaneous body fat.
Gaining body fat has NOTHING to do in itself with whether someone is eating poorly or not exercising. It simply means more calories were consumed than expended.
No one isn’t taking exercise and lifestyle into account.
You already dismissed the study that was done on college football players that showed the increased risk for CVD in lineman vs skill position players because they carry more fat.
Please just stop.
I never said “in all cases proportionately with sub q fat.”
Please stop.
So visceral fat is gained by a poor diet and lack of sufficient exercise?
Seems like that’s how sub q fat is gained as well?
Since they are both gained the exact same way, it would seem that IN GENERAL gaining body fat results in the gain of both types.[/quote]
They aren’t gained in the exact same way.
Someone does not have to have a poor diet or lack exercise to gain subcutaneous body fat.
Gaining body fat has NOTHING to do in itself with whether someone is eating poorly or not exercising. It simply means more calories were consumed than expended.[/quote]
Seriously?
Gaining fat has nothing to do with a poor diet and lack of sufficient exercise?
This is unreal.
Is this real life?
I never said “in all cases proportionately with sub q fat.”
Please stop.
So visceral fat is gained by a poor diet and lack of sufficient exercise?
Seems like that’s how sub q fat is gained as well?
Since they are both gained the exact same way, it would seem that IN GENERAL gaining body fat results in the gain of both types.[/quote]
They aren’t gained in the exact same way.
Someone does not have to have a poor diet or lack exercise to gain subcutaneous body fat.
Gaining body fat has NOTHING to do in itself with whether someone is eating poorly or not exercising. It simply means more calories were consumed than expended.[/quote]
Seriously?
Gaining fat has nothing to do with a poor diet and lack of sufficient exercise?
This is unreal.
Is this real life?
[/quote]
Woh… where is this going? You cant gain fat with a caloric surplus?