Body Fat and Heart Disease

Bigger Stronger Leaner
61

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[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 :stuck_out_tongue:

[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]

I think that where that 30 pounds of muscle was gained could effect if it does any long term harm. I think that if it balances over the whole body then its fine. But I think if it was all upper (Curl monkeys) then they are asking for trouble in the joint department. I think there is also a point of diminishing returns where more muscle does start to mean you are compromising your health. But that is a point that the vast majority of us will never see, especially if you stay natural.

62

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]whatever2k wrote:
I dont know if looking at this from just bf% is a good idea. Jason huh was ripped to shreds in one of those MD videos, but sounded like he was about to drop dead from a heart attack at any moment. Carrying around excess weight is probably unhealthy no matter what. 5.8-5.9 guys were never meant to weigh 260-300 lbs. [/quote]
That has a lot to do with the myriad of drugs these guys are taking in a daily basis.

Check out this video of someone being honest about their drug regimen.
Probably not the smartest move to put all that on YouTube but they guy isn’t even a 300 pound top pro and listen to what all he takes.
Just more food for thought.
Thanks for your input![/quote]

Smashingweights, thanks for posting that video. Should be a sticky in the bodybuilding section. I cannot understand how someone would view high level competitive bodybuilding as the thing to do with their life after watching something like that and that is only the tip of the iceberg I am sure.

63

I think it would be hard to nail down a for sure N=1 in anything regarding health because eventually the causality is going to be spread so general. We would have to find a perfect human population in a vacuum and then add in these other risk factors.

Could CDV exist in lower bodyfat populations? Definitely.

Most studies done use results extracted from mental patients, hospitals, morgues, or other “ill/sick” populations.

Considering these links (with a simple google search):

http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20050329/how-does-body-fat-raise-heart-disease-riskhttp://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/WeightManagement/Obesity/Obesity-Information_UCM_307908_Article.jsp

Most are still seeing a correlation between high belly fat skin measurements and CDV. If we took in factors of why/what controls belly fat to be stored we would notice an underlying theme of “stress.” Whether this comes from drugs/weight/body fat/job/food intolerances/ shit sleep/ etc we are still seeing that stress would be the major and most definite cause of CDV.

Corresponding with that, if we look at medicinal practices outside the US, such as Chinese, Japanese, Veda, etc we would see that stresses definitely attack the heart and its workings. Blood tests would show that the body responds to these stresses against the heart by increasing the negative blood works that would cause CDV.

I believe it is China, but they have a new “death cause” in which you literally work yourself so hard and are so stressed your body gives out (if I remember correctly, your heart stops) and a lot of people are found dead at work or on the way to work.

I am sure you would see similar cause scenarios of CDV and stress in soldiers in or returning from war, as well.

We have seen though several cases of lower BF% “fit” people dying during events, usually endurance or cardio vascular events. I would be pretty confident that eventually, after sifting through all possible causes, stress of whatever kind would eventually be the determining factor. Bpick has a lot of correct, right approach thinking to this.

64

[quote]bpick86 wrote:
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]

Yeah, I do think you’re right.

It’s interesting how many gaps we do have in our knowledge though.

For instance, a decent amount of heart disease is caused by fatty deposits in and on arterial walls. There are some things we can state as fact, and as clear causation. I mean, you can state, as a fact, that the blood was blocked, what it was blocked by, and the components of the blockage. You can make correlations between bodyfat% and how blocked the arterial walls are.

But what’s unfortunate is you can’t make a whole lot of decisions about it. For instance, if someone has lived with 30% bodyfat for 20 years, and then diets down to 12% in order to fall into a lower-risk zone in the statistics… it just doesn’t work that way.

We can say that people who exercise more have a lower risk, but it’s a lot harder to say that increasing ones exercise levels actually reduce your risk. (I wouldn’t be surprised if there are studies showing this though.)

It gets very confusing very fast.

For years, Okinawans were considered some of the longest living people in the world; they generally lived a clean, simple life. A lot of people tried to replicated that lifestyle, trying to increase their own lifespans.

And then it turned out that people in busy, noisy, pollution-ridden Hong Kong live longer, eating MSG-laden food made from crops and animals raised in an environment that has nothing resembling the FDA and EPA regulation we have here.

And that kind of stuff throws everyone for a loop.

65

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[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 :stuck_out_tongue:

[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]

I think that where that 30 pounds of muscle was gained could effect if it does any long term harm. I think that if it balances over the whole body then its fine. But I think if it was all upper (Curl monkeys) then they are asking for trouble in the joint department. I think there is also a point of diminishing returns where more muscle does start to mean you are compromising your health. But that is a point that the vast majority of us will never see, especially if you stay natural.[/quote]

That’s why I used the “set point” angle. At a certain point, the extra weight is hard and your joints, tendons, ligaments, heart, lungs, everything. Everyone’s set point will be different though, so it’d be trial and error to figure out where your best weight is. Just because you feel good at 250 doesn’t mean you wouldn’t feel GREAT at 220. And, obviously the opposite would hold true in certain cases as well.

66

[quote]hipsr4runnin wrote:
I think it would be hard to nail down a for sure N=1 in anything regarding health because eventually the causality is going to be spread so general. We would have to find a perfect human population in a vacuum and then add in these other risk factors.

Could CDV exist in lower bodyfat populations? Definitely.

Most studies done use results extracted from mental patients, hospitals, morgues, or other “ill/sick” populations.

Considering these links (with a simple google search):

http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20050329/how-does-body-fat-raise-heart-disease-riskhttp://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/WeightManagement/Obesity/Obesity-Information_UCM_307908_Article.jsp

Most are still seeing a correlation between high belly fat skin measurements and CDV. If we took in factors of why/what controls belly fat to be stored we would notice an underlying theme of “stress.” Whether this comes from drugs/weight/body fat/job/food intolerances/ shit sleep/ etc we are still seeing that stress would be the major and most definite cause of CDV.

Corresponding with that, if we look at medicinal practices outside the US, such as Chinese, Japanese, Veda, etc we would see that stresses definitely attack the heart and its workings. Blood tests would show that the body responds to these stresses against the heart by increasing the negative blood works that would cause CDV.

I believe it is China, but they have a new “death cause” in which you literally work yourself so hard and are so stressed your body gives out (if I remember correctly, your heart stops) and a lot of people are found dead at work or on the way to work.

I am sure you would see similar cause scenarios of CDV and stress in soldiers in or returning from war, as well.

We have seen though several cases of lower BF% “fit” people dying during events, usually endurance or cardio vascular events. I would be pretty confident that eventually, after sifting through all possible causes, stress of whatever kind would eventually be the determining factor. Bpick has a lot of correct, right approach thinking to this. [/quote]

Great post. This is why it is important to look at what population and culture was actually examined. If the people studied live in a culture where more women stay at home and don’t work, ignoring that stress could be killing off the working males and not “body fat” could be a mistake.

67

[quote]Myosin wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]whatever2k wrote:
I dont know if looking at this from just bf% is a good idea. Jason huh was ripped to shreds in one of those MD videos, but sounded like he was about to drop dead from a heart attack at any moment. Carrying around excess weight is probably unhealthy no matter what. 5.8-5.9 guys were never meant to weigh 260-300 lbs. [/quote]
That has a lot to do with the myriad of drugs these guys are taking in a daily basis.

Check out this video of someone being honest about their drug regimen.
Probably not the smartest move to put all that on YouTube but they guy isn’t even a 300 pound top pro and listen to what all he takes.
Just more food for thought.
Thanks for your input![/quote]

Smashingweights, thanks for posting that video. Should be a sticky in the bodybuilding section. I cannot understand how someone would view high level competitive bodybuilding as the thing to do with their life after watching something like that and that is only the tip of the iceberg I am sure.[/quote]
Pretty wild huh?
He looked great and obviously knows how to plan his dosing but holy hell, was he pushing a lot of stuff!
He could use a class or two in public speaking though :slight_smile:

68

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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]

You are correct that a two different people with two different people the correlation will not be necessarily be Leaner is at lower risk than fatter of developing CVD. Genetics deals some people short straws.

An example

Person A) 10% bf but do to genetics still has a 60% chance of developing CVD.

Person B) 15% bf good genetics and only has a 20% chance of developing CVD.

Now if person A were @ 15% his chance would be higher 70%

If Person B loses fat down to 10% then his chances would probably lower 15% or so.

Genetics picks our risk starting point, bad diet, lack of exercise, and high body fat levels increases it and the opposite is also true. But as body fat increases, risk of CVD increases in an individual.

69

[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]
Since you’ve been so kind as to stop by my thread did you happen to notice the question I posted directly too you?
It was posted at least 4 times in the other thread but apparently you missed them.
I can re post it again if you are having trouble locating it?
Thanks

70

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

You are correct that a two different people with two different people the correlation will not be necessarily be Leaner is at lower risk than fatter of developing CVD. Genetics deals some people short straws.

An example

Person A) 10% bf but do to genetics still has a 60% chance of developing CVD.

Person B) 15% bf good genetics and only has a 20% chance of developing CVD.

Now if person A were @ 15% his chance would be higher 70% [/quote]

You have already taken it too far with this one statement. No, you do NOT have enough information to make this statement. You are literally making the claim that you can determine an actual n=1 correlation between body fat percentages and CVD. This is incorrect and unfounded.

[quote]

If Person B loses fat down to 10% then his chances would probably lower 15% or so. [/quote]

Once again, we have no information giving us this conclusion.

[quote]

Genetics picks our risk starting point, bad diet, lack of exercise, and high body fat levels increases it and the opposite is also true. But as body fat increases, risk of CVD increases in an individual. [/quote]

No, as all of these factors and many more variables increase, the risk of CVD increases. You do not have enough data to make an n=1 claim on body fat alone.

71

Can we please stick to the topic.
I wrote it out in the original post.
No one said leaner people won’t get CVD.
No one said excess bodyfat alone causes CVD.

The question was/is: does being overweight put someone at risk for heart disease? (Among other things)
Is it a risk factor?
Not is it THE CAUSE of CVD.

We are looking for a correlation which would indicate that it is a risk factor.

72

[quote]bpick86 wrote:
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]
Option B, definitely. Increased bodyfat is the result of something. Inappropriate diet, lack of exercise, inappropriate exercise, hormonal/glandular disturbance, disease, medication side effect… something causes the body to gain (or hold onto, in the case of “frustrated dieters”) excessive bodyfat.

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]bpick86 wrote:
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?[/quote]
Aerobic fitness a.k.a. aerobic endurance is the “classic” method of determining fitness, possibly basic flexibility as well. A basic blood panel (cholesterol, triglycerides, blood sugar, blood pressure, etc.) is probably also considered. Using these standards, I could see how a 240-woman could be considered “fit”, unexpected as it may be.

Is it the most efficient or all-encompassing definition? No, I wouldn’t say so. But “what is ‘fit’?” is a whole 'nother topic that would tie into functional training, health vs. fitness (not the same thing; Dan john has talked about it), and personal goals per individual, and other topics that would deserve their own attention.

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
Pretty soon they’ll be trying to redefine “hot”.[/quote]
See the “Fatkini” thread in GAL.[/quote]
Or on the flip side…

73

Prof X,
I have presented the points from the other side that you could make the argument that it is not as much the extra body fat levels that are bad for you but that body fat levels are an indicator of at risk behavior. I don’t personally believe this and when I look at the evidence I think there have been enough studies to that have shown direct correlation between increased body fat and increased risk for CVD that it is not a leap at all to assume that fat increases, our chances of developing CVD increase.

74

[quote]bpick86 wrote:
Prof X,
I have presented the points from the other side that you could make the argument that it is not as much the extra body fat levels that are bad for you but that body fat levels are an indicator of at risk behavior. I don’t personally believe this and when I look at the evidence I think there have been enough studies to that have shown direct correlation between increased body fat and increased risk for CVD that it is not a leap at all to assume that fat increases, our chances of developing CVD increase. [/quote]

I have seen none that show a DIRECT CORRELATION. Increased body fat is usually the sign of inactivity and dietary problems…along with whatever genetic risk factors are present.

That is what puts you at risk of CVD…not body fat alone. That is why you can NOT make the statement that person A is at more risk simply because they are “5% fatter”. That is unsupported.

75

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[b]Can we please stick to the topic.
I wrote it out in the original post.
No one said leaner people won’t get CVD.
No one said excess bodyfat alone causes CVD.

The question was/is: does being overweight put someone at risk for heart disease? (Among other things)
Is it a risk factor?
Not is it THE CAUSE of CVD.

We are looking for a correlation which would indicate that it is a risk factor [/b]
[/quote]
Re posting because it seems some here missed it

76

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]bpick86 wrote:
Prof X,
I have presented the points from the other side that you could make the argument that it is not as much the extra body fat levels that are bad for you but that body fat levels are an indicator of at risk behavior. I don’t personally believe this and when I look at the evidence I think there have been enough studies to that have shown direct correlation between increased body fat and increased risk for CVD that it is not a leap at all to assume that fat increases, our chances of developing CVD increase. [/quote]

I have seen none that show a DIRECT CORRELATION. Increased body fat is usually the sign of inactivity and dietary problems…along with whatever genetic risk factors are present.

That is what puts you at risk of CVD…not body fat alone. That is why you can NOT make the statement that person A is at more risk simply because they are “5% fatter”. That is unsupported.[/quote]

While I have stated numerous times that body fat alone is not the only cause of CVD, the Korean study from earlier does show a direct correlation between body fat and increased CVD risk. So there is one study just from this thread. And I do think that I can say that for someone that already was at a high risk of CVD like Person A, a 5% or 10lbs of fat if he weighs 200 increase in fat is going to increase his chances of CVD. Doesn’t mean he will get it but he is improving his odds.

Now like I said, you could say that he had to get fatter from something, slipped on his diet or quit exercising, and I believe that those things will also increase his risk, but the increased body fat alone will increase it as well.

77

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[b]Can we please stick to the topic.
I wrote it out in the original post.
No one said leaner people won’t get CVD.
No one said excess bodyfat alone causes CVD.

The question was/is: does being overweight put someone at risk for heart disease? (Among other things)
Is it a risk factor?
Not is it THE CAUSE of CVD.

We are looking for a correlation which would indicate that it is a risk factor [/b]
[/quote]
Re posting because it seems some here missed it[/quote]
Semantics I choose you!

:slight_smile:

Technically speaking a factor is an explanatory variable. A controlled independent variable which is set and manipulated by the experimenter. So no :stuck_out_tongue:

But I know that’s probably not exactly what you were talking about.

78

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[b]Can we please stick to the topic.
I wrote it out in the original post.
No one said leaner people won’t get CVD.
No one said excess bodyfat alone causes CVD.

The question was/is: does being overweight put someone at risk for heart disease? (Among other things)
Is it a risk factor?
Not is it THE CAUSE of CVD.

We are looking for a correlation which would indicate that it is a risk factor [/b]
[/quote]
Re posting because it seems some here missed it[/quote]

I am apparently not understanding exactly what it is you are looking for. I thought we were discussing whether or not we think excess body fat puts someone at risk of CVD and why we think what we think through most of the thread.

79

[quote]bpick86 wrote:
the Korean study from earlier does show a direct correlation between body fat and increased CVD risk.[/quote]

This is incorrect. The study only looked at body fat and risk factors. It did not show direct correlation at all.

80

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[b]Can we please stick to the topic.
I wrote it out in the original post.
No one said leaner people won’t get CVD.
No one said excess bodyfat alone causes CVD.

The question was/is: does being overweight put someone at risk for heart disease? (Among other things)
Is it a risk factor?
Not is it THE CAUSE of CVD.

We are looking for a correlation which would indicate that it is a risk factor [/b]
[/quote]
Re posting because it seems some here missed it[/quote]
Semantics I choose you!

:slight_smile:

Technically speaking a factor is an explanatory variable. A controlled independent variable which is set and manipulated by the experimenter. So no :stuck_out_tongue:

But I know that’s probably not exactly what you were talking about.[/quote]
Don’t you think excess bodyfat aka being overweight, is a variable that can be controlled by diet and exercise?
It could be manipulated by the experimenter aka overweight person, in order to lessen their likelihood of CVD?
:slight_smile: