Are some people really trying to argue that person A at 10% bf will be less healthy than 20%? If you are you need to read more. If you aren’t then you agree that carrying more body fat is worse for your health so…argument over
I am gonna try and dig my post I made in the bulking thread on just some of the things that fat cells affect. It will take a bit Becuase I have to get home.
Also I have started to see a couple studies that low cal does not extend life like it used to be thought
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Are some people really trying to argue that person A at 10% bf will be less healthy than 20%? If you are you need to read more. If you aren’t then you agree that carrying more body fat is worse for your health so…argument over
[/quote]
I think pretty much everyone agreed with that.
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Reposting because apparently it was missed the 3-4 other times I asked
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Brick said being overweight was a risk factor.[/quote]
Brick wrote,
…which makes you incorrect.
From 6-8-2013 @ 1:30
Page 39 of the Bulking thread.[/quote]
I am still hoping to get a reply to this post Professor?
You were sure quick to try and talk down to me with that post but have inexplicably missed my response question all 6 times it was posted.
Here’s to hoping you don’t miss it again.[/quote]
Yet another page with no response.
Re post for new page.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
Why would body fat be increasing though? [/quote]
That’s the point, in all people it wouldn’t be which is why everyone is noting it is simply a PART of the equation and does not dictate itself the health of an individual.[/quote]
But it does to a point. It will put the heart under unnecessary stress because of the extra demands.
I have never said that body fat alone was the cause of CVD and whether or not you believe that the fat itself plays any roll in increasing the risk, you can bet that if someone is gaining fat, they are becoming more unhealthy because that gain in fat is a solid indication of the presence of at least one risk factor for CVD.
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
I think obviously that higher levels of body fat, in general, lead to a host of ills including CVD. I do think though that there are some individuals that carry, for this group, higher levels of body fat and won’t face those risk based on their particular genetics.
I used to be morbidly obese: 5"10" nearly 3 bills of non-training fat boy and my labs were golden. Now I’m significantly less fat and my labs are still good. Of course exceptions do not disprove the rule and there is no doubt that all things being equal the lower you can keep your bf and still reach your goals the better.
Where I think all of the arguements spring from, aside from a few unreasonable individuals who want to argue, is the tipping point.
[/quote]
Good labs <> not gonna get heart disease[/quote]
Well no, that said nothing equals that either. [/quote]
Many labs doctors run have little to no correlation to heart disease.
I haven’t read the whole thread, but I know someone posted about how studies are now using bodyfat percentage to calculate risk. The problem is that when you look at a patient’s vitals, you get the BMI, not the bodyfat percentage. BMI is a very broken system for anyone who has a sport or stressful physical activity as one of their main priorities. I would bet that if we did a study here on T-Nation, most of the guys over the 190 to 200 mark would not be accurately represented. My BMI is right around 30. I’ve never been told by any doctor/NP/PA/etc. that I was at risk.
Another interesting fact is that lifting has been suggested (in my college career) to elevate levels of HDL (“good cholesterol”), which may be considered a negative risk factor for heart disease.
[quote]trivium wrote:
I haven’t read the whole thread, but I know someone posted about how studies are now using bodyfat percentage to calculate risk. The problem is that when you look at a patient’s vitals, you get the BMI, not the bodyfat percentage. BMI is a very broken system for anyone who has a sport or stressful physical activity as one of their main priorities. I would bet that if we did a study here on T-Nation, most of the guys over the 190 to 200 mark would not be accurately represented. My BMI is right around 30. I’ve never been told by any doctor/NP/PA/etc. that I was at risk.
Another interesting fact is that lifting has been suggested (in my college career) to elevate levels of HDL (“good cholesterol”), which may be considered a negative risk factor for heart disease. [/quote]
I read something the other day about lifting being better for cardio for people trying to control diabetes.
I’ll try to find it.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Come on Professor.
There is no way you have missed my post 10 times already.
Am I to take your lack of a response to mean that you made up that quote and blatantly lied in order to further your argument?[/quote]
Pretty sure that full ignore mode is on, until you give up re-posting.
Ignorant endurance FTW!![/quote]
Shit like this sure supports the troll argument… And it’s been going on for over a decade.
[quote]LoRez 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]
You mean BMI might actually be a useful indicator too?
I’m not even sure if I’m sarcastic.
I find it interesting that the insurance industry has generally decided on using BMI as a factor in actuarial tables (given how “inaccurate” it is) rather than body fat % measured by skinfold or some standardized electronic device (given how “inaccurate” it is).[/quote]
You are forgetting that anabolic steroids pose a major cardiovascular risk as their major side effect, not to mention problems with dyslipidemia. A guy who is 5’8" and 250 ish while being relatively lean is probably taking PED’s. This person is an outlier.
BMI is used because it is quickly assessed, and easy to read off a chart. Again, laypeople get so fixated on the numbers. The numbers mean nothing when you are not using clinical judgment.
In fact, one of the tenets of evidence based medicine is that it is not a replacement for the clinical judgment/experience of the provider. That is why you can go to multiple hospitals and get different ways of practice. It isn’t necessarily wrong, it is just different. I can’t tell you how many times I have seen varying criteria for things like renal function testing and electrolytes. Interpretation of serial tests, and clinical picture are much more important than one test alone. For instance an elevated BUN can mean several things (dehydration, heart failure, kidney troubles). The number means nothing without the rest of the picture.
If a cancer patient was in the high range of normal for WBC counts, but over the last week they have been trending in a less favorable direction despite still being in the range determined to be normal, you would be sorely mistaken to not at least consider the fact that they may develop a potentially fatal problem in the near future.
The numbers are meant to be interpreted, not read.
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
[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]
Lol 
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
[quote]trivium wrote:
I haven’t read the whole thread, but I know someone posted about how studies are now using bodyfat percentage to calculate risk. The problem is that when you look at a patient’s vitals, you get the BMI, not the bodyfat percentage. BMI is a very broken system for anyone who has a sport or stressful physical activity as one of their main priorities. I would bet that if we did a study here on T-Nation, most of the guys over the 190 to 200 mark would not be accurately represented. My BMI is right around 30. I’ve never been told by any doctor/NP/PA/etc. that I was at risk.
Another interesting fact is that lifting has been suggested (in my college career) to elevate levels of HDL (“good cholesterol”), which may be considered a negative risk factor for heart disease. [/quote]
I read something the other day about lifting being better for cardio for people trying to control diabetes.
I’ll try to find it.[/quote]
I don’t know about you, but I think average people give lifting no credit because it is labeled anaerobic activity. After a 10RM deadlift, my heart is racing haha. Think about if you 10x10 with squats with 1 minute rest like a GVT protocol. Tell me that your heart rate wont go up haha.
Now I’m not saying that endurance athletes should stop running and exclusively lift (I did competitive cycling for 3 years and I know that would be dumb as doing hard cardio is always going to win), but I am saying that I do believe that lifting can benefit a person when it comes to health, and it is way better than doing nothing. I also believe that intense lifting with lots of good volume is better than the half assed cardio that I see most people doing.
[quote]trivium wrote:
[quote]LoRez 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]
You mean BMI might actually be a useful indicator too?
I’m not even sure if I’m sarcastic.
I find it interesting that the insurance industry has generally decided on using BMI as a factor in actuarial tables (given how “inaccurate” it is) rather than body fat % measured by skinfold or some standardized electronic device (given how “inaccurate” it is).[/quote]
You are forgetting that anabolic steroids pose a major cardiovascular risk as their major side effect, not to mention problems with dyslipidemia. A guy who is 5’8" and 250 ish while being relatively lean is probably taking PED’s. This person is an outlier.
BMI is used because it is quickly assessed, and easy to read off a chart. Again, laypeople get so fixated on the numbers. The numbers mean nothing when you are not using clinical judgment.
In fact, one of the tenets of evidence based medicine is that it is not a replacement for the clinical judgment/experience of the provider. That is why you can go to multiple hospitals and get different ways of practice. It isn’t necessarily wrong, it is just different. I can’t tell you how many times I have seen varying criteria for things like renal function testing and electrolytes. Interpretation of serial tests, and clinical picture are much more important than one test alone. For instance an elevated BUN can mean several things (dehydration, heart failure, kidney troubles). The number means nothing without the rest of the picture.
If a cancer patient was in the high range of normal for WBC counts, but over the last week they have been trending in a less favorable direction despite still being in the range determined to be normal, you would be sorely mistaken to not at least consider the fact that they may develop a potentially fatal problem in the near future.
The numbers are meant to be interpreted, not read.[/quote]
Completely agree.
I do, however, get an annual insurance discount for keeping my BMI below a certain threshold. It’s something like an additional $500/year savings.
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
Why would body fat be increasing though? [/quote]
That’s the point, in all people it wouldn’t be which is why everyone is noting it is simply a PART of the equation and does not dictate itself the health of an individual.[/quote]
But it does to a point. It will put the heart under unnecessary stress because of the extra demands.
[/quote]
A gain of 5% body fat has that much of an effect on the heart?
No, it doesn’t. You can not make the claim that small increases in body fat put the heart under strain. Further, fat does not always mean increased weight.
[quote]
I have never said that body fat alone was the cause of CVD and whether or not you believe that the fat itself plays any roll in increasing the risk, you can bet that if someone is gaining fat, they are becoming more unhealthy because that gain in fat is a solid indication of the presence of at least one risk factor for CVD.[/quote]
This just isn’t true. This would depend on how much fat was gained…not the simple act of gaining some bod fat.
If a person trains 6 days a week, are you really claiming they are more at risk of a CVD just because they go up 5% in body fat?
That seems to be what you are saying…and that isn’t true.
If someone’s training 6 days a week and they go up 5% bodyfat, they’re not cut out for this.
Yes, a 5% increase in bodyfat will result in a higher risk for CVD.
A 210 pound person in the normal BF rage with a 5% increase is 12-13 pounds of pure fat.
How can that not put you at a higher risk, even if the risk increase is very small.
No way adding 12-13 pounds of fat will make that person healthier.
Your only options are:
A. Adding 5% body fat will reduce your risk for CVD (lol)
B. Adding 5% body fat will keep your risk level EXACTLY the same
C. Adding 5% body fat will increase your risk for CVD
How do you think packing on a dozen pounds of pure fat will effect ones health?
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
If someone’s training 6 days a week and they go up 5% bodyfat, they’re not cut out for this.[/quote]
So if a bodybuilder goes from contest weight to 11% they are not cut out for this?
Are you even cut out for this? last I heard, you were pushing a massive 175-180lbs at near 6 feet tall.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
If someone’s training 6 days a week and they go up 5% bodyfat, they’re not cut out for this.[/quote]
if someone’s training 6 days a week and goes up 5% bodyfat, then they probably eat like shit so they will be at higher risk of CVD
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
If someone’s training 6 days a week and they go up 5% bodyfat, they’re not cut out for this.[/quote]
So if a bodybuilder goes from contest weight to 11% they are not cut out for this?
Are you even cut out for this? last I heard, you were pushing a massive 175-180lbs at near 6 feet tall.[/quote]
lol, I guess that would be the exception…
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
If someone’s training 6 days a week and they go up 5% bodyfat, they’re not cut out for this.[/quote]
if someone’s training 6 days a week and goes up 5% bodyfat, then they probably eat like shit so they will be at higher risk of CVD[/quote]
Last I checked, someone going from 10-15% does not mean they eat like shit. That is pretty normal if there is enough muscle being gained.
Jumping the gun much?
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
If someone’s training 6 days a week and they go up 5% bodyfat, they’re not cut out for this.[/quote]
if someone’s training 6 days a week and goes up 5% bodyfat, then they probably eat like shit so they will be at higher risk of CVD[/quote]
If someone’s training 6 days a week and goes up 5% bodyfat, then they probably have a food addiction.