[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
I agree that carrying extra weight in general isn’t the best for your body systems and joints but carrying around 30 pounds of extra fat is worse for you than 30 pounds of extra muscle.
Would you guys agree?[/quote]
I agree. I wonder if anyone disagrees.
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
With all that said, I have to kind of dumb down the whole discussion and say that debating whether or not increased bodyfat is related to increased health problems is along the lines of debating if lifting weights builds strength and muscle. It does. We know it does. Because it just does.[/quote]
Agreed increased body fat is related to increased health problems, the point to ponder though, is how??
Is it because increased body fat itself causes the complications??
Or is it because increased body fat is a result of several things that do cause complications, bad diet and lack of exercise namely??
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
With all that said, I have to kind of dumb down the whole discussion and say that debating whether or not increased bodyfat is related to increased health problems is along the lines of debating if lifting weights builds strength and muscle. It does. We know it does. Because it just does.[/quote]
Agreed increased body fat is related to increased health problems, the point to ponder though, is how??
Is it because increased body fat itself causes the complications??
Or is it because increased body fat is a result of several things that do cause complications, bad diet and lack of exercise namely??
[/quote]
I think it’s both.
It’s like that famous saying:
“I eat because I’m unhappy and I’m unhappy because I eat.”
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
With all that said, I have to kind of dumb down the whole discussion and say that debating whether or not increased bodyfat is related to increased health problems is along the lines of debating if lifting weights builds strength and muscle. It does. We know it does. Because it just does.[/quote]
exactly! It’s common knowledge.
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
With all that said, I have to kind of dumb down the whole discussion and say that debating whether or not increased bodyfat is related to increased health problems is along the lines of debating if lifting weights builds strength and muscle. It does. We know it does. Because it just does.[/quote]
Agreed increased body fat is related to increased health problems, the point to ponder though, is how??
Is it because increased body fat itself causes the complications??
Or is it because increased body fat is a result of several things that do cause complications, bad diet and lack of exercise namely??
[/quote]
I get what you’re saying, but I’m not sure those are good questions.
Male drivers between the age of 18-24 who drive a two-door car that’s red have higher car insurance rates than if the car was, say, blue. Presumably because they’re involved in more car accidents.
The questions you asked seem to be more along the lines of asking “why does red paint cause car accidents?” – implying that the color is the reason for the accidents – rather than asking the question “why do accident-prone young males choose to drive red cars?”
–
Personally, I think it’s a combination. I think increased bodyfat deposits cause issues in and of themselves, but I also think that there are factors clustered in with high bodyfat (e.g., poor diet, poor exercise) that cause a number of issues and it’s not the bodyfat itself. One example of this is in the flying spaghetti monster letter where they showed a very strong and clear correlation between declining numbers of pirates and an increase of global warming.
I don’t mean to demean the questions you’re asking… I think those are good sub-topics to be explored. I just think the phrasing implied that things work in a way that we’re not really sure is accurate.
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
This. Obviously, not all weight was created equal, but excess is still excess. Drugs aside, you think Ronnie Coleman at his bodybuilding peak was healthy? Ever wonder why big dogs have shorter lives? Too much excess weight, in any form, is stressful to the body.[/quote]
The one sure-fire way to extend your life is to basically starve yourself :-/
But hey, I’d rather die 5 years earlier and live my life with big muscles than have to eek out a 90 year existence as a twink 
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
I also found it interesting in the chat shown that listed the various groups and their bf %'s, that in the sub 10% group there were 4 people with bad cholesterol readings, and 4 who were sedentary. I wonder if they were the same four.[/quote]
omg nice catch lol[/quote]
I didn’t even see that!
Very cool observation and I don’t think it would be a stretch to assume it was the same 4.
I agree that carrying extra weight in general isn’t the best for your body systems and joints but carrying around 30 pounds of extra fat is worse for you than 30 pounds of extra muscle.
Would you guys agree?[/quote]
Thanks. I’ve read about starvation (or at the minimum, severely restricting dietary intake) for longevity, though that seems a little extreme going the other way. I think (and this applies to the “bulk vs lean gains” debate, too) that there should be a happy medium. We all lift and eat the way we do to look and feel better. Personally, I feel and perform best between 170-180 and 10-13-ish percent. That’s tiny to some here, and I’m ok with that, but my frame (5’9" and naturally thin) starts crumbling under much more than that. Obviously, we’re all built differently, so if you can successfully push and be comfortable, go for it. I just personally believe there’s a point of diminishing returns, though our points might be on complete opposite ends of the spectrum.
SW, I think it’s a safe assumption that 30 lbs of useless blubber will inflict more internal harm than 30lbs of muscle, but again, I think there’s that point of diminishing returns. How much of that 30 lbs of muscle will your buddy deem useless, or worse yet, harmful? I think it’s also fair to ask how much above your “set point” (I know, sorry) is that 30? I mean, let’s say your untrained weight is 185, and you build yourself up to a lean 225, is there any need or advantage (for lack of a better word) to hit 255? Obviously a blanket question, but all things considered, I’d say “no” more often than not.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
The questions you asked seem to be more along the lines of asking “why does red paint cause car accidents?” – implying that the color is the reason for the accidents – rather than asking the question “why do accident-prone young males choose to drive red cars?”
[/quote]
red ones go faster, obvs
dumbass
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Just to throw this out there… this isn’t always the case.
Plenty of people (as in, some but certainly not all) participate in cardiovascular exercise and are overweight (above average bodyfat). The stereotypical pudgy marathon runner or chubby recreational tennis player/golfer, who think “getting some aerobic exercise” a few days a week is reason to slack off on diet.
The “obesity paradox” is also something interesting, if not confusing.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/01/us-obesity-paradox-idUSBRE9000BJ20130101
[/quote]
Bingo. It’s not fair to say that people in the sub-10 percent category are doing more cardio. I know a LOT of people who run (albeit slowly) who are carrying a lot of excess fat. And, as I mentioned in the other thread, why can the women of the 50s be lean but not do one lick of exercise? My mom is tiny and always has been. She’s also never exercised and has never had a physical job. My father is much the same. There’s more at play with obesity than just our exercise.
james
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
Another way of putting would be to say that you look at the extra body fat as an indicator of poor nutrition and exercise habits, while I think that extra body fat is a factor that increases the risk just like poor nutrition and bad exercise habits.[/quote]
Just to throw this out there… this isn’t always the case.
Plenty of people (as in, some but certainly not all) participate in cardiovascular exercise and are overweight (above average bodyfat). The stereotypical pudgy marathon runner or chubby recreational tennis player/golfer, who think “getting some aerobic exercise” a few days a week is reason to slack off on diet.
The “obesity paradox” is also something interesting, if not confusing.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/01/us-obesity-paradox-idUSBRE9000BJ20130101
If I’m understanding it right, in the long-term, being “overweight” to “slightly obese” is somehow connected to a lower risk of death compared to being “normal” weight. The studies do state that being “obese” to “severely obese” does increase risk of death. And they acknowledge that it’s based on BMI, which they clearly state doesn’t account for muscle mass.
[/quote]
I find these to things kind of odd. In the first article they never really define “fit”. To me being 240 lbs as a women automatically removes her from the category of fit. By what standard are these fit obese people judged so that someone thinks that they are not actually out of shape?
To the second article: We are all going to die. And being slightly overweight (keep in mind this is by BMI so this could just be a few trained individuals throwing this anomaly into things) might not contribute to all manners of death but we are not speaking of death in general, just death by heart complications. I don’t get her study, she is essentially saying that more skinny people die than overweight which I have no doubt is true because a lot of people lose weight in their old age through illness before they die. That seems to be a very misleading study.
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
I find these to things kind of odd. In the first article they never really define “fit”. To me being 240 lbs as a women automatically removes her from the category of fit. By what standard are these fit obese people judged so that someone thinks that they are not actually out of shape?[/quote]
Because they can do aerobics?
Pretty soon they’ll be trying to redefine “hot”.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
With all that said, I have to kind of dumb down the whole discussion and say that debating whether or not increased bodyfat is related to increased health problems is along the lines of debating if lifting weights builds strength and muscle. It does. We know it does. Because it just does.[/quote]
Agreed increased body fat is related to increased health problems, the point to ponder though, is how??
Is it because increased body fat itself causes the complications??
Or is it because increased body fat is a result of several things that do cause complications, bad diet and lack of exercise namely??
[/quote]
I get what you’re saying, but I’m not sure those are good questions.
Male drivers between the age of 18-24 who drive a two-door car that’s red have higher car insurance rates than if the car was, say, blue. Presumably because they’re involved in more car accidents.
The questions you asked seem to be more along the lines of asking “why does red paint cause car accidents?” – implying that the color is the reason for the accidents – rather than asking the question “why do accident-prone young males choose to drive red cars?”
–
Personally, I think it’s a combination. I think increased bodyfat deposits cause issues in and of themselves, but I also think that there are factors clustered in with high bodyfat (e.g., poor diet, poor exercise) that cause a number of issues and it’s not the bodyfat itself. One example of this is in the flying spaghetti monster letter where they showed a very strong and clear correlation between declining numbers of pirates and an increase of global warming.
[/quote]
I agree with this. I was mainly playing devil’s advocate and trying to look at that research with a little more of an open mind than just I am right and this proves it (although I think I am and it does). Sorry if I didn’t convey that well.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
This. Obviously, not all weight was created equal, but excess is still excess. Drugs aside, you think Ronnie Coleman at his bodybuilding peak was healthy? Ever wonder why big dogs have shorter lives? Too much excess weight, in any form, is stressful to the body.[/quote]
The one sure-fire way to extend your life is to basically starve yourself :-/
But hey, I’d rather die 5 years earlier and live my life with big muscles than have to eek out a 90 year existence as a twink
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
I also found it interesting in the chat shown that listed the various groups and their bf %'s, that in the sub 10% group there were 4 people with bad cholesterol readings, and 4 who were sedentary. I wonder if they were the same four.[/quote]
omg nice catch lol[/quote]
I didn’t even see that!
Very cool observation and I don’t think it would be a stretch to assume it was the same 4.
I agree that carrying extra weight in general isn’t the best for your body systems and joints but carrying around 30 pounds of extra fat is worse for you than 30 pounds of extra muscle.
Would you guys agree?[/quote]
Thanks. I’ve read about starvation (or at the minimum, severely restricting dietary intake) for longevity, though that seems a little extreme going the other way. I think (and this applies to the “bulk vs lean gains” debate, too) that there should be a happy medium. We all lift and eat the way we do to look and feel better. Personally, I feel and perform best between 170-180 and 10-13-ish percent. That’s tiny to some here, and I’m ok with that, but my frame (5’9" and naturally thin) starts crumbling under much more than that. Obviously, we’re all built differently, so if you can successfully push and be comfortable, go for it. I just personally believe there’s a point of diminishing returns, though our points might be on complete opposite ends of the spectrum.
SW, I think it’s a safe assumption that 30 lbs of useless blubber will inflict more internal harm than 30lbs of muscle, but again, I think there’s that point of diminishing returns. How much of that 30 lbs of muscle will your buddy deem useless, or worse yet, harmful? I think it’s also fair to ask how much above your “set point” (I know, sorry) is that 30? I mean, let’s say your untrained weight is 185, and you build yourself up to a lean 225, is there any need or advantage (for lack of a better word) to hit 255? Obviously a blanket question, but all things considered, I’d say “no” more often than not.
[/quote]
I agree for the most part.
Using your 185 example:
Lets say your untrained weight is 185 and take two versions of yourself.
Version 1 added 30 pounds of pure muscle with no fat gain and was 215
Version 2 added 30 pounds of pure fat with no muscle gain and was 215
There is not a doubt in my mind that version 2 would be at a higher risk for CVD, joint pain and higher cholesterol among other things.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
I find these to things kind of odd. In the first article they never really define “fit”. To me being 240 lbs as a women automatically removes her from the category of fit. By what standard are these fit obese people judged so that someone thinks that they are not actually out of shape?[/quote]
Because they can do aerobics?
Pretty soon they’ll be trying to redefine “hot”.[/quote]
I mean come on, if jazzercise or zumba sessions become the bench mark for being fit I am going to blow my brains out because there is not point in even living anymore with this idiocy.
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Just to throw this out there… this isn’t always the case.
Plenty of people (as in, some but certainly not all) participate in cardiovascular exercise and are overweight (above average bodyfat). The stereotypical pudgy marathon runner or chubby recreational tennis player/golfer, who think “getting some aerobic exercise” a few days a week is reason to slack off on diet.
The “obesity paradox” is also something interesting, if not confusing.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/01/us-obesity-paradox-idUSBRE9000BJ20130101
[/quote]
Bingo. It’s not fair to say that people in the sub-10 percent category are doing more cardio. I know a LOT of people who run (albeit slowly) who are carrying a lot of excess fat. And, as I mentioned in the other thread, why can the women of the 50s be lean but not do one lick of exercise? My mom is tiny and always has been. She’s also never exercised and has never had a physical job. My father is much the same. There’s more at play with obesity than just our exercise.
james[/quote]
Diet > Cardio
[quote]LoRez wrote:
Pretty soon they’ll be trying to redefine “hot”.[/quote]
See the “Fatkini” thread in GAL.
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Just to throw this out there… this isn’t always the case.
Plenty of people (as in, some but certainly not all) participate in cardiovascular exercise and are overweight (above average bodyfat). The stereotypical pudgy marathon runner or chubby recreational tennis player/golfer, who think “getting some aerobic exercise” a few days a week is reason to slack off on diet.
The “obesity paradox” is also something interesting, if not confusing.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/01/us-obesity-paradox-idUSBRE9000BJ20130101
[/quote]
Bingo. It’s not fair to say that people in the sub-10 percent category are doing more cardio. I know a LOT of people who run (albeit slowly) who are carrying a lot of excess fat. And, as I mentioned in the other thread, why can the women of the 50s be lean but not do one lick of exercise? My mom is tiny and always has been. She’s also never exercised and has never had a physical job. My father is much the same. There’s more at play with obesity than just our exercise.
james[/quote]
Diet > Cardio[/quote]
Genetics > Diet > Cardio
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
This. Obviously, not all weight was created equal, but excess is still excess. Drugs aside, you think Ronnie Coleman at his bodybuilding peak was healthy? Ever wonder why big dogs have shorter lives? Too much excess weight, in any form, is stressful to the body.[/quote]
The one sure-fire way to extend your life is to basically starve yourself :-/
But hey, I’d rather die 5 years earlier and live my life with big muscles than have to eek out a 90 year existence as a twink
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
I also found it interesting in the chat shown that listed the various groups and their bf %'s, that in the sub 10% group there were 4 people with bad cholesterol readings, and 4 who were sedentary. I wonder if they were the same four.[/quote]
omg nice catch lol[/quote]
I didn’t even see that!
Very cool observation and I don’t think it would be a stretch to assume it was the same 4.
I agree that carrying extra weight in general isn’t the best for your body systems and joints but carrying around 30 pounds of extra fat is worse for you than 30 pounds of extra muscle.
Would you guys agree?[/quote]
Thanks. I’ve read about starvation (or at the minimum, severely restricting dietary intake) for longevity, though that seems a little extreme going the other way. I think (and this applies to the “bulk vs lean gains” debate, too) that there should be a happy medium. We all lift and eat the way we do to look and feel better. Personally, I feel and perform best between 170-180 and 10-13-ish percent. That’s tiny to some here, and I’m ok with that, but my frame (5’9" and naturally thin) starts crumbling under much more than that. Obviously, we’re all built differently, so if you can successfully push and be comfortable, go for it. I just personally believe there’s a point of diminishing returns, though our points might be on complete opposite ends of the spectrum.
SW, I think it’s a safe assumption that 30 lbs of useless blubber will inflict more internal harm than 30lbs of muscle, but again, I think there’s that point of diminishing returns. How much of that 30 lbs of muscle will your buddy deem useless, or worse yet, harmful? I think it’s also fair to ask how much above your “set point” (I know, sorry) is that 30? I mean, let’s say your untrained weight is 185, and you build yourself up to a lean 225, is there any need or advantage (for lack of a better word) to hit 255? Obviously a blanket question, but all things considered, I’d say “no” more often than not.
[/quote]
I agree for the most part.
Using your 185 example:
Lets say your untrained weight is 185 and take two versions of yourself.
Version 1 added 30 pounds of pure muscle with no fat gain and was 215
Version 2 added 30 pounds of pure fat with no muscle gain and was 215
There is not a doubt in my mind that version 2 would be at a higher risk for CVD, joint pain and higher cholesterol among other things.[/quote]
100%, and I think anyone who’d argue otherwise is an idiot. Muscle, coupled with relatively low bodyfat does amazing things to and for the body. My point, though, is that after a certain point, it MAY do more long term harm than good.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Just to throw this out there… this isn’t always the case.
Plenty of people (as in, some but certainly not all) participate in cardiovascular exercise and are overweight (above average bodyfat). The stereotypical pudgy marathon runner or chubby recreational tennis player/golfer, who think “getting some aerobic exercise” a few days a week is reason to slack off on diet.
The “obesity paradox” is also something interesting, if not confusing.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/01/us-obesity-paradox-idUSBRE9000BJ20130101
[/quote]
Bingo. It’s not fair to say that people in the sub-10 percent category are doing more cardio. I know a LOT of people who run (albeit slowly) who are carrying a lot of excess fat. And, as I mentioned in the other thread, why can the women of the 50s be lean but not do one lick of exercise? My mom is tiny and always has been. She’s also never exercised and has never had a physical job. My father is much the same. There’s more at play with obesity than just our exercise.
james[/quote]
Diet > Cardio[/quote]
Genetics > Diet > Cardio[/quote]
I can agree with this. Genetics seem to be the over-riding factor in most things. They are also convenient excuses for a lot of people that are scared of work and need an excuse for their own failures.
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
In what fairy dream world are you living in where most of America is healthy?? Don’t be dumb just to try to be right, its unbecoming. If you have a good point make it but don’t try to prove your point with out right false stupidity.
[/quote]
Dear Lord. Semantic warriors UNITE! I should have given a stat.
15% body fat does not mean poor health. There are too many other factors involved.
20% does not mean poor health. There are too many other factors involved.
[quote]
No, what it is saying is that the leaner you are, the fewer diseases related to carrying extra fat you are diagnosed with.[/quote]
Uhm, no…that is called assuming information from limited data.
You can not form this conclusion from a study on Korean men. You would have to show over MANY populational and cultural studies that the “belief” holds before jumping to that conclusion.
That is the difference between “bro science” and real science.
[quote]
If you can show me where this does not hold true across racial lines then I will concede your point, but please don’t be offended if I don’t just take your word that lean people are no healthier than not lean people.[/quote]
The state of obesity involves more than just body fat. INACTIVITY would be the most significant factor.
[quote]
The fact that you disagree with it is a far more ridiculous statement. so you think that a graph will just make a 90 degree angle and shoot straight up at the point of obesity??[/quote]
No, I think there will be a gradual increase along with the addition of many more factors than just body fat.
[quote]
And don’t give me real science.[/quote]
Are you sure you don’t want that?
Uh, no…what I did was look at a study done on Korean men and women and…take the info for exactly what it is and nothing more…a study on Korean man and women with no other risk factors looked at but body fat meaning it is INCONCLUSIVE as far as body fat being the cause of health problems in itself.
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Just to throw this out there… this isn’t always the case.
Plenty of people (as in, some but certainly not all) participate in cardiovascular exercise and are overweight (above average bodyfat). The stereotypical pudgy marathon runner or chubby recreational tennis player/golfer, who think “getting some aerobic exercise” a few days a week is reason to slack off on diet.
The “obesity paradox” is also something interesting, if not confusing.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/01/us-obesity-paradox-idUSBRE9000BJ20130101
[/quote]
Bingo. It’s not fair to say that people in the sub-10 percent category are doing more cardio. I know a LOT of people who run (albeit slowly) who are carrying a lot of excess fat. And, as I mentioned in the other thread, why can the women of the 50s be lean but not do one lick of exercise? My mom is tiny and always has been. She’s also never exercised and has never had a physical job. My father is much the same. There’s more at play with obesity than just our exercise.
james[/quote]
Diet > Cardio[/quote]
Genetics > Diet > Cardio[/quote]
I can agree with this. Genetics seem to be the over-riding factor in most things. They are also convenient excuses for a lot of people that are scared of work and need an excuse for their own failures. [/quote]
“genetics loads the gun, environment pulls the trigger”