Body Fat and Heart Disease

Training
161

[quote]rds63799 wrote:
Wow.

I wasn’t bitching, I was genuinely curious as to your opinion on a subject I thought you might have interesting insights on. I thought I had made it pretty clear in my post that I knew that Bauber’s muscle mass made a difference, and wanted to know what you thought about that, compared to someone sedentary. I also deliberately used examples where people had gained more than “a little bodyfat alone” because I didn’t want the discussion to focus on small increases, because I actually agree with the points you have made about that previously.

Instead I get sworn at and accused of bitching.[/quote]

That was basically my experience with the “How to ‘bulk’ for naturals” thread. I genuinely thought X had the medical training he claimed, and was looking for some deeper insight without all the arguing.

And then I pieced it together.

“general blood work”… elaborated as testing for cholesterol and diabetes
“genetic factors”… elaborated as getting family history

That’s about what I’d expect for someone who’s gone to the doctor a few times, and maybe done some reading on the internet.

It would be a completely different thing if he’d mentioned that he’d order a CBC and a metabolic panel, but forgot to mention testing for T4 and TSH. That would almost be excusable.

But, um… wow.

162

[quote]setto222 wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Gonna do a little list of the things fat cells are known to help regulate. Glucose and lipid metabolism, appetite regulation and body weight homeostasis, immunity, coagulation and fibrinolysis, angiogenesis and vascular tone control, and even reproduction. secrete hormones, but also growth factors, cytokines, complement factors and matrix proteins.

insulin resistance, inflammation, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes

Ectopic fat from insulin resistance which fat release restin when they grow, coating arteries and creating metabolic mayhem from fat not being stored.

aromatase (the enzyme converts testosterone and other androgens to estrogens) is located in subcutaneous fat and activated by the glucocorticoid a stress hormone. Bulking adding weight even muscle and fat both raise stress hormones

So bulking up and adding fat is good and healthy?[/quote]

You are way more advanced than me in this realm so I wanted to ask you: would it be possible to add additional fat and still be metabolically healthy? I remember reading a few years ago that many people with low level body fat are metabolically obese and visa-versa. But with that extensive list you just wrote out, it seems that it would be highly unlikely for an overweight person to be healthy in an endocrinological, cardiovascular or even emotional sense. [/quote]

The research is so new and still needs a lot of work so most of what I say after this is just guess based on current knowledge.

The more fat you add the farther from optimal metabolic health you go. And general health. That’s why IMO it’s smarter to keep fat at a minimum.

Going to very low bf ie competition is also not exactly the best thing. It’s a stress on the body and if done incorrectly it can crush the metabolism

Yes I would imagine that being overweight it would be very unlikely to find someone even close to optimal in the categories you listed.

163

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]rds63799 wrote:

I see what you’re saying, but could the increase in fat, and lets be honest his bodyfat was pretty high, not be indicative of an “unhealthy” lifestyle which is increasing the negative health markers? [/quote]

NO…BECAUSE I CAN SEE THOSE BIG FUCKING MUSCLES THAT INDICATE HE HAS A LIFE SPENT IN THE GYM AND ISN’T SEDENTARY.

[/quote]

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. You are aware that diet is a huge factor in CVD risk correct? [/quote]

You are aware that a human being and their propensity for disease is based on more than just “diet”…and that nothing shows his diet was wrong other than some fat gain?

What makes his diet “wrong” if he gained all of the muscle he was after?

164

388×606 48.7 KB

[quote]bpick86 wrote:
First off you do not have any real world experience diagnosing CVD either. [/quote]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
This is incorrect. I am often one of the first to notice symptoms as patients come in for other treatment. They then get referred to their general phys. if those symptoms persist and can interfere with treatment. The final diagnosis could be left to a cardiologist. That would happen often even if they went to their gen phys first.[/quote]

You may be right, I have a feeling you are embellishing here but not really the argument.

[quote]
I also never said that body fat alone was a to blame however an increase in body fat is an indicator of the presence of other risk factors as well as being one itself. This is a basic “no med degree required” accepted principal. [/quote]

Tracking of health and risk indicators of cardiovascular diseases from teenager to adult: Amsterdam Growth and Health Study - PubMed little reading but I will quote the important part.

“It can be concluded that measurement of percentage body fat in the early teenage period seems to be the most important cardiovascular disease indicator in predicting risk levels in the young adult.”

[quote]
And yes, Bauber’s diet is incorrect if he was trying to minimize his risk of heart disease.[/quote]

[quote]If that were his main focus, hitting 300lbs would not be the priority.

Heads up…that isn’t the focus of even one Mr. Olympia contestant either…no matter how lean they are.

His body fat level alone was not a risk for heart disease as he was not obese.[/quote]

I am fully aware that this is not his goal. Considering you used him as an example you don’t appear to be. And just because he was not obese does not mean his risk for CVD could not be lessened by cleaning up his diet and losing some fat. That’s pretty basic stuff there but I am sure you will say it is incorrect.

This is incorrect. The LBM is an indication of muscle building process. The extra fat has nothing to do with it. Fat =/= Muscle.

This is incorrect. Yes they are. Albeit very slightly. But they are.

This is true, however that person would still be at a increasing risk for CVD because they are not exercising and eating like crap.

[quote] Do you understand that the term “healthier” in this discussion has strictly referred to lower risk of CVD?

I really wouldn’t criticize my knowledge on the subject, when there is research to back me up, albeit research that you refute. But when it comes to your BRO SCIENCE ideology that you have clung to during this discussion, there is nothing to support your theory that gaining fat can be good for your chances of not contracting heart disease.[/quote]

First, I never said significant. Just that it did. You are trying to put words in my mouth as I have actually said numerous times that the increase would be insignificant or slight but a slight increase is still an increase.
Check the graph. Although I know you question its validity, it is research that backs me up. I will present some more when you can present some that you find that refutes me.

165

For others visiting the thread diet can certainly end up raising risk for health problems even while being “fit”. Eating high processed food, high omega 6, HFCS ect have all been shown to create problems on their own. Ie inflammation which with higher fats and cholesterol and BS you have a recipe to start destroying your arteries, hypertension ect.

So diet will certainly have an affect on health. Physique maybe maybe not. As you can get lean on ice cream and pro if you desire. Your health markers will most likely be shitty even though you are lean. Or maybe they are in range because of genetics but would they be better if you ate better yes which lowers health risks.

166

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
For others visiting the thread diet can certainly end up raising risk for health problems even while being “fit”. Eating high processed food, high omega 6, HFCS ect have all been shown to create problems on their own. Ie inflammation which with higher fats and cholesterol and BS you have a recipe to start destroying your arteries, hypertension ect.

So diet will certainly have an affect on health. Physique maybe maybe not. As you can get lean on ice cream and pro if you desire. Your health markers will most likely be shitty even though you are lean. Or maybe they are in range because of genetics but would they be better if you ate better yes which lowers health risks. [/quote]
It’s sad that things like this or that increasing bodyfat causes an increased risk for health problems even needs to be stated.
That is just common knowledge.

167

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]rds63799 wrote:

I see what you’re saying, but could the increase in fat, and lets be honest his bodyfat was pretty high, not be indicative of an “unhealthy” lifestyle which is increasing the negative health markers? [/quote]

NO…BECAUSE I CAN SEE THOSE BIG FUCKING MUSCLES THAT INDICATE HE HAS A LIFE SPENT IN THE GYM AND ISN’T SEDENTARY.

[/quote]

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. You are aware that diet is a huge factor in CVD risk correct? [/quote]

You are aware that a human being and their propensity for disease is based on more than just “diet”…and that nothing shows his diet was wrong other than some fat gain?

What makes his diet “wrong” if he gained all of the muscle he was after?[/quote]

You are aware that you are trying to argue a different point. His diet is wrong from the standpoint of preventing heart disease as was stated numerous times in this thread but you obviously chose to ignore that because that would be actually arguing the topic. And that fat gain is a sign of a poor diet for someone trying to minimize their risk of CVD. I would appreciate it if we didn’t have to take off-topic detours again.

Also I am aware that there are more factors than diet however a diet that allows you to gain fat while working that hard is a poor diet for CVD risk lowering. Are you aware of that or did you skip that day in undergrad nutrition because that’s a basic principal.

168

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
For others visiting the thread diet can certainly end up raising risk for health problems even while being “fit”. Eating high processed food, high omega 6, HFCS ect have all been shown to create problems on their own. Ie inflammation which with higher fats and cholesterol and BS you have a recipe to start destroying your arteries, hypertension ect.[/quote]

By “highly processed food”, what does that mean?

As I’ve learned more and done more in the kitchen, it seems like the processes used to make most foods on an industrial scale is quite literally the same thing you’d do at home… just scaled up. So I haven’t quite made sense of what exactly is bad about processed food.

There are certainly some processes used in tobacco production that are questionable (some of the ammonia-based processes), and in the way cheaper soy sauces are made though.

169

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
For others visiting the thread diet can certainly end up raising risk for health problems even while being “fit”. Eating high processed food, high omega 6, HFCS ect have all been shown to create problems on their own. Ie inflammation which with higher fats and cholesterol and BS you have a recipe to start destroying your arteries, hypertension ect.

So diet will certainly have an affect on health. Physique maybe maybe not. As you can get lean on ice cream and pro if you desire. Your health markers will most likely be shitty even though you are lean. Or maybe they are in range because of genetics but would they be better if you ate better yes which lowers health risks. [/quote]
It’s sad that things like this or that increasing bodyfat causes an increased risk for health problems even needs to be stated.
That is just common knowledge.[/quote]

It really is exhausting arguing something that should be common knowledge.

170

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Stuff
[/quote]

You are aware that you are trying to argue a different point. His diet is wrong from the standpoint of preventing heart disease as was stated numerous times in this thread but you obviously chose to ignore that because that would be actually arguing the topic. And that fat gain is a sign of a poor diet for someone trying to minimize their risk of CVD. I would appreciate it if we didn’t have to take off-topic detours again. [/quote]

It’s not worth it; you’re not going to get a legitimate discussion here.

Changing the topic when it gets too specific is just one of many tactics X has been employing. If you notice closer, nearly every single one of posts has some sort of weasely statement used to provoke a response. Notice what he said to Spidey at the end of the “how to ‘bulk’ for naturals” thread, and what he said to RDS here.

You’re trying to have a discussion with someone who is deliberately attempting to prevent that discussion from happening. I have no idea of the motives behind that, but that’s what’s going on.

But if you want to keep trying, that’s cool. More opportunity for me to reverse engineer his tactics.

Just giving you a heads up.

171

[quote]LoRez wrote:
By “highly processed food”, what does that mean?
[/quote]
I am not Ryan and cannot speak for him but to me processed foods are things like:
Breads
Pastas with refined flour
Canned/frozen foods
Meats like hot dogs and chicken nuggets
Cookies
Cakes
Milk (pasteurized)
Chips
Etc.

Refined foods and GMO’s should be avoided IMO

172

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
For others visiting the thread diet can certainly end up raising risk for health problems even while being “fit”. Eating high processed food, high omega 6, HFCS ect have all been shown to create problems on their own. Ie inflammation which with higher fats and cholesterol and BS you have a recipe to start destroying your arteries, hypertension ect.

So diet will certainly have an affect on health. Physique maybe maybe not. As you can get lean on ice cream and pro if you desire. Your health markers will most likely be shitty even though you are lean. Or maybe they are in range because of genetics but would they be better if you ate better yes which lowers health risks. [/quote]
It’s sad that things like this or that increasing bodyfat causes an increased risk for health problems even needs to be stated.
That is just common knowledge.[/quote]

It really is exhausting arguing something that should be common knowledge.[/quote]
Yep

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Stuff
[/quote]

You are aware that you are trying to argue a different point. His diet is wrong from the standpoint of preventing heart disease as was stated numerous times in this thread but you obviously chose to ignore that because that would be actually arguing the topic. And that fat gain is a sign of a poor diet for someone trying to minimize their risk of CVD. I would appreciate it if we didn’t have to take off-topic detours again. [/quote]

It’s not worth it; you’re not going to get a legitimate discussion here.

Changing the topic when it gets too specific is just one of many tactics X has been employing. If you notice closer, nearly every single one of posts has some sort of weasely statement used to provoke a response. Notice what he said to Spidey at the end of the “how to ‘bulk’ for naturals” thread, and what he said to RDS here.

You’re trying to have a discussion with someone who is deliberately attempting to prevent that discussion from happening. I have no idea of the motives behind that, but that’s what’s going on.

But if you want to keep trying, that’s cool. More opportunity for me to reverse engineer his tactics.

Just giving you a heads up.[/quote]
Bingo.
It’s best to just ignore his posts.
He is arguing for argument sake.
If we all ignore his posts then maybe this thread can be saved and continue with good discussion.
There is a ton of good information in here and maybe, just maybe, someone will read it and it will help.
Thanks for the good info and I sights guys :slight_smile:

173

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Stuff
[/quote]

You are aware that you are trying to argue a different point. His diet is wrong from the standpoint of preventing heart disease as was stated numerous times in this thread but you obviously chose to ignore that because that would be actually arguing the topic. And that fat gain is a sign of a poor diet for someone trying to minimize their risk of CVD. I would appreciate it if we didn’t have to take off-topic detours again. [/quote]

It’s not worth it; you’re not going to get a legitimate discussion here.

Changing the topic when it gets too specific is just one of many tactics X has been employing. If you notice closer, nearly every single one of posts has some sort of weasely statement used to provoke a response. Notice what he said to Spidey at the end of the “how to ‘bulk’ for naturals” thread, and what he said to RDS here.

You’re trying to have a discussion with someone who is deliberately attempting to prevent that discussion from happening. I have no idea of the motives behind that, but that’s what’s going on.

But if you want to keep trying, that’s cool. More opportunity for me to reverse engineer his tactics.

Just giving you a heads up.[/quote]

O I know. I had to take a couple of weeks break from these type threads because I was tired of all the bickering back and forth and snarky little comments. Then I started doing it so I took a step back because I always try to remain civil even when others aren’t (however I am not always successful)

174

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
By “highly processed food”, what does that mean?
[/quote]
I am not Ryan and cannot speak for him but to me processed foods are things like:
Breads
Pastas with refined flour
Canned/frozen foods
Meats like hot dogs and chicken nuggets
Cookies
Cakes
Milk (pasteurized)
Chips
Etc.

Refined foods and GMO’s should be avoided IMO[/quote]

By frozen I am assuming you mean the typical microwavable fare and not frozen veggies and the like?

175

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]Myosin wrote:
This might have some relevance:

Prevalence of metabolic syndrome risk factors in high school and NCAA Division I football players

Abstract:
Metabolic syndrome (MetSyn) is a clustering of metabolic and cardiovascular disease risk factors. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of MetSyn risk factors in high school (HS) and college (College) football players, and to examine if the prevalence varied according to body fat percent (%Fat). 123 males (height 179.0+/-6.7 cm; weight 89.4+/-19.6 kg) from seven different high schools and 82 males (height 186.2+/-6.8 cm; weight 99.6+/-16.8 kg) from one university participated. All testing occurred in the early morning following an overnight fast. %Fat, waist circumference, resting systolic and diastolic blood pressure, fasting triglyceride, HDL cholesterol, and blood glucose were determined using standard testing procedures. MetSyn risk factor levels were determined using American Heart Association (AHA) criteria. Subjects were grouped by position and playing level (HS, College). Independent t-tests, Chi-square analysis, two-way ANOVA, and path analytic models were used in the statistical analysis. Significance was set at p<0.05. 6.8% (n = 14) of the sample met the AHA criteria for MetSyn. Offensive and defensive linemen accounted for 92.3% of the players meeting MetSyn criteria with each playing level (HS, College) having 7 subjects. MetSyn criteria differed significantly across %Fat. Obese players were more likely to meet the criteria for MetSyn. %Fat was a statistically significant predictor of mean arterial blood pressure, HDL-cholesterol, and waist circumference. MetSyn exists in both HS and College level football players with almost all cases occurring in the athletes with the highest levels of %Fat (offensive/defensive lineman). Strength and conditioning coaches should be aware of the prevalence of MetSyn risk factors in offensive and defensive linemen and take appropriate actions to ensure athlete safety.

(C) 2013 National Strength and Conditioning Association

[/quote]
Wow!
Thanks for sharing.
Very informative.
This will likely be one of very few studies done on trained individuals.[/quote]

Yeah, I think a study like this most appropiate for our target audience here. Figure these players are doing the traditional lifting and conditioning drills and the college level players have multiple years of training experience under their belt. Most here probably lift with similar frequency (probably more) and condition in a similar manner (sleds, prowlers, sprints etc). They even have youth on their side, so I believe it’s pretty valid.

“%Fat was a statistically significant predictor of mean arterial blood pressure, HDL-cholesterol, and waist circumference. MetSyn exists in both HS and College level football players with almost all cases occurring in the athletes with the highest levels of %Fat (offensive/defensive lineman).”

Seems to be pretty straight forward…having the size/build of a lineman may not be the healthiest state to be in.

176

[quote]rds63799 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]rds63799 wrote:

I see what you’re saying, but could the increase in fat, and lets be honest his bodyfat was pretty high, not be indicative of an “unhealthy” lifestyle which is increasing the negative health markers? [/quote]

NO…BECAUSE I CAN SEE THOSE BIG FUCKING MUSCLES THAT INDICATE HE HAS A LIFE SPENT IN THE GYM AND ISN’T SEDENTARY.

Look, I don’t have the time today to fuss with 10 different people all focusing on something different to bitch about.

I have answered you. No doctor would look at a patient and indicate health risk JUST BECAUSE THEY GAINED A LITTLE BODY FAT ALONE excluding the activity and lifestyle and genetic history of the patient. That makes no sense.[/quote]

Wow.

I wasn’t bitching, I was genuinely curious as to your opinion on a subject I thought you might have interesting insights on. I thought I had made it pretty clear in my post that I knew that Bauber’s muscle mass made a difference, and wanted to know what you thought about that, compared to someone sedentary. I also deliberately used examples where people had gained more than “a little bodyfat alone” because I didn’t want the discussion to focus on small increases, because I actually agree with the points you have made about that previously.

Instead I get sworn at and accused of bitching.

I can see why everyone hates you.

I HAVE NOW OFFICIALLY JOINED THE POSSE! HAI GUYS![/quote]

Yeah and I like how he completely disregarded the example about Dave Tate, who you can SEE HAS BIG FUCKING MUSCLES SHOWING HE ISN’T SEDENTARY AND SPENT HIS LIFE IN THE GYM.

177

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
By “highly processed food”, what does that mean?
[/quote]
I am not Ryan and cannot speak for him but to me processed foods are things like:
Breads
Pastas with refined flour
Canned/frozen foods
Meats like hot dogs and chicken nuggets
Cookies
Cakes
Milk (pasteurized)
Chips
Etc.

Refined foods and GMO’s should be avoided IMO[/quote]

By frozen I am assuming you mean the typical microwavable fare and not frozen veggies and the like?[/quote]
Personally I try to stay away from both.
I like to get my food as fresh as possible.
I’m not a paleo guy but the stuff that happens to food is horrible.
Do you know what they do to strawberries?
Ever wonder why you drive by a strawberry field and all the bushes(are they bushes?) are covered with those tarps?
It’s not to keep the sun off or bugs out lol.
The food industry is scary stuff.

178

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
By “highly processed food”, what does that mean?
[/quote]
I am not Ryan and cannot speak for him but to me processed foods are things like:
Breads
Pastas with refined flour
Canned/frozen foods
Meats like hot dogs and chicken nuggets
Cookies
Cakes
Milk (pasteurized)
Chips
Etc.

Refined foods and GMO’s should be avoided IMO[/quote]

That’s pretty much what I figured. That’s sort of what I’m asking though… what about those makes them “bad”?

I used to think there was something magical about the factories that made them, that somehow made them worse than if you made them homemade.

But chips are made the same way in a factory as they are at home. Potatoes get sliced, fried in temperature-regulated oil, removed, cooled, seasoned, and then packaged.

The ingredients in cakes and cookies are the same things you’ll find in the cakes and cookies at a neighborhood bake sale. There will often be additional preservatives with packaged products designed to sit on the shelf for months, but the stuff you buy from the baking area of a grocery store? Nothing really that special compared to homemade.

With hot dogs and chicken nuggets, the process isn’t any different than what anyone can do at home with a meat grinder.

I think the problem isn’t really that it’s “processed”.

I think there might be an issue with certain preservatives used. Possibly. Maybe.

I think there’s an issue that a lot of nutritional value is removed from the ingredients used. For instance, freshly milled whole wheat bread will rot faster than white bread will. But you can always supplement with other foods (and pills) to get your vitamin and mineral levels.

I think there’s certain microbial cultures that are killed off or removed via some of these processes, like, say pasteurization.

I also think there are certain ingredients that are generally problematic to use whether you use them at home or whether they’re in the food you eat. HFCS being one of them.

But as a whole, I don’t think processed food, by virtue of being “processed” is any worse than the food you make at home.

For what it’s worth, I personally avoid those foods too, and I generally eat foods that are made fresh, and then supplement with a decent multivitamin/mineral.

179

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Do you know what they do to strawberries?
Ever wonder why you drive by a strawberry field and all the bushes(are they bushes?) are covered with those tarps?
It’s not to keep the sun off or bugs out lol.
[/quote]

No, I don’t. What do they do?

180

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

Tracking of health and risk indicators of cardiovascular diseases from teenager to adult: Amsterdam Growth and Health Study - PubMed little reading but I will quote the important part.

“It can be concluded that measurement of percentage body fat in the early teenage period seems to be the most important cardiovascular disease indicator in predicting risk levels in the young adult.”
[/quote]

You missed
"The amount of physical activity measured at young adult age is the only behavioral parameter to show a significant interrelation with other cardiovascular disease "

How do you know how “clean” his diet is from a body fat percentage?

So when you read 80lbs gain with only a 5% increase in body fat…what did you think the rest of the weight was?

[quote]
This is incorrect. Yes they are. Albeit very slightly. But they are. [/quote]

No, someone at 9% is NOT more at risk for a CVD just because they are later 14%. That is not truth. It has no basis in science.

I don’t have time to go through the rest but this much is enough to show what you really understand.