[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
First it’s a fact and now it’s common knowledge?
lol
Denying that being overweight puts someone at risk for heart disease is idiotic.
[/quote]
Acting like having moderate body fat and “being overweight” are the same thing could be called “idiotic”.
The issue is BODY FAT PERCENTAGE…which again does not always equal “overweight”.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
First it’s a fact and now it’s common knowledge?
lol
Denying that being overweight puts someone at risk for heart disease is idiotic.
[/quote]
Acting like having moderate body fat and “being overweight” are the same thing could be called “idiotic”.
The issue is BODY FAT PERCENTAGE…which again does not always equal “overweight”.[/quote]
Brick said being overweight was a risk factor.
You said it wasn’t and tried to change it to “moderate body fat.”
In classic X form “stop lying”, “stay on topic”, “stick to what is written”
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Brick said being overweight was a risk factor.[/quote]
Brick wrote,
…which makes you incorrect.
[quote]
You said it wasn’t and tried to change it to “moderate body fat.”
In classic X form “stop lying”, “stay on topic”, “stick to what is written” [/quote]
I’m sorry, but what?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Still waiting for proof that a moderate body fat percentage alone less than obesity causes “heart disease, hyperlipidemia, and in some cases, diminished psychological and social well being.” like Brick claimed.[/quote]
Professor X,
Your argument shifted post to post, so I’ll just address the majority of it here:
There is a designation that exists in the scientific literature known as “metabolically obese, normal-weight.” Colloquially, it is known as being “skinny fat” and this would probably be the term most here are familiar with. These individuals are classified as normal according to the BMI standards, yet by virtue of their body fat percentage they are seen to have all the usual suspects concomitant with the BMI-determined “obese” state.
Another phenomenon exists which is also the subject of much research. It is known as “visceral adiposity” (colloquially known as “thin-outside, fat-inside”) and has been observed to have greater statistical significance when evaluating disease risk when compared to various other metrics. This research strongly suggests that the LOCATION of body fat, rather than the aggregate amount, is of major importance when determining risk. As such, individuals may be at risk of numerous deleterious health effects despite a “moderate” (defined above, by you, as “less than obesity”) level of body fat.
We can see a hint of this significance from the study “Reversal of type 2 diabetes: normalisation of beta cell function in association with decreased pancreas and liver triacylglycerol” (Lim et al), in which obese diabetic subjects saw normalization of fasting plasma glucose and hepatic insulin sensitivity in a single week on a “crash” diet. Of surprise and significance is that these results were seen from a loss of “only” 5 pounds, or so, consisting largely of marked decreases in both pancreatic and hepatic TG content.
So, please, Google both and educate yourself, because, while your ignorance on the subject matter would otherwise be understandable and forgivable, when riding the coattails of your smugness, condescension and all that blustering about your extensive medical education, this is simply embarrassing to read.
kthxbai
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Still waiting for proof that a moderate body fat percentage alone less than obesity causes “heart disease, hyperlipidemia, and in some cases, diminished psychological and social well being.” like Brick claimed.[/quote]
Professor X,
Your argument shifted post to post, so I’ll just address the majority of it here:
There is a designation that exists in the scientific literature known as “metabolically obese, normal-weight.” Colloquially, it is known as being “skinny fat” and this would probably be the term most here are familiar with. These individuals are classified as normal according to the BMI standards, yet by virtue of their body fat percentage they are seen to have all the usual suspects concomitant with the BMI-determined “obese” state.
Another phenomenon exists which is also the subject of much research. It is known as “visceral adiposity” (colloquially known as “thin-outside, fat-inside”) and has been observed to have greater statistical significance when evaluating disease risk when compared to various other metrics. This research strongly suggests that the LOCATION of body fat, rather than the aggregate amount, is of major importance when determining risk. As such, individuals may be at risk of numerous deleterious health effects despite a “moderate” (defined above, by you, as “less than obesity”) level of body fat.
We can see a hint of this significance from the study “Reversal of type 2 diabetes: normalisation of beta cell function in association with decreased pancreas and liver triacylglycerol” (Lim et al), in which obese diabetic subjects saw normalization of fasting plasma glucose and hepatic insulin sensitivity in a single week on a “crash” diet. Of surprise and significance is that these results were seen from a loss of “only” 5 pounds, or so, consisting largely of marked decreases in both pancreatic and hepatic TG content.
So, please, Google both and educate yourself, because, while your ignorance on the subject matter would otherwise be understandable and forgivable, when riding the coattails of your smugness, condescension and all that blustering about your extensive medical education, this is simply embarrassing to read.
kthxbai[/quote]
What here shows that a moderate body fat percentage ALONE causes all of the issues listed by Brick?
You are speaking of studies on OBESE people…when Brick said body fat percentage alone LESS than obese.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
You are speaking of studies on OBESE people…when Brick said body fat percentage alone LESS than obese.[/quote]
I am not speaking exclusively of obese people.
Doesn’t really matter, though. You are just going to do the same dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge tactics the last time this was discussed, holding the evidence of causality for these associations to a higher standard than you do your various assertions.
Not worth my time.
[quote]anonym wrote:
Just for the record, you are looking for more data like this, correct?
Doesn’t really matter, though. You are just going to do the same dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge tactics the last time this was discussed, holding the evidence of causality for these associations to a higher standard than you do your various assertions.
Not worth my time.[/quote]
I’m interested in this kind of stuff so if you could link me some papers that would be great.
I made a huge post about how BMI and bodyfat percentage but deleted it because I didn’t think it would be worth it.
Edit: also shows that these risks are on a sliding scale with increases of body fat and just don’t happen all of a sudden when someone reaches “Obesity”.
[quote]anonym wrote:
Just for the record, you are looking for more data like this, correct?
Doesn’t really matter, though. You are just going to do the same dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge tactics the last time this was discussed, holding the evidence of causality for these associations to a higher standard than you do your various assertions.
Not worth my time.[/quote]
There is nothing to dodge. That graph shows a significant increase at the point of obesity…and does not support what was written about body fat percentage alone less than OBESE showing what Brick wrote.
Correlation does not show cause.
Please post the study if you want to discuss it further…but that chart does not show that body fat alone causes these risk factors…especially with the HUGE discrepancy between Korean men and women…which points to other factors at work.
[quote]anonym wrote:
Just for the record, you are looking for more data like this, correct?
Doesn’t really matter, though. You are just going to do the same dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge tactics the last time this was discussed, holding the evidence of causality for these associations to a higher standard than you do your various assertions.
Not worth my time.[/quote]
I find this graph a little surprising as I would have actually expected the 10-15% to be the healthiest in men. I figured the rigors of maintaining sub 10% might take a toll over time.
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
[quote]anonym wrote:
Just for the record, you are looking for more data like this, correct?
Doesn’t really matter, though. You are just going to do the same dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge tactics the last time this was discussed, holding the evidence of causality for these associations to a higher standard than you do your various assertions.
Not worth my time.[/quote]
I find this graph a little surprising as I would have actually expected the 10-15% to be the healthiest in men. I figured the rigors of maintaining sub 10% might take a toll over time.[/quote]
Notice the huge difference between the men and women. This is a study on Koreans also so there may be other issues at work causing the results seen.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Fat as a lubricant to joints is COMMON KNOWLEDGE in the medical community.[/quote]
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Then it should not be hard to find a study where bodyfat levels correlate with joint lubrication. Right?[/quote]
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Showing that synovial fluid:
The clear, viscous fluid secreted by the SYNOVIAL MEMBRANE. It contains mucin, albumin, fat, and mineral salts and serves to lubricate joints.
Fat is the main ingredient.[/quote]
So that study showed a correlation between bodyfat levels and amount or texture of joint lubricating fluid?
Oh wait it didn’t?
Huh.
FAT PEOPLE HAVE NO JOINT PAIN.
/and better leverages[/quote]
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
[quote]anonym wrote:
Just for the record, you are looking for more data like this, correct?
Doesn’t really matter, though. You are just going to do the same dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge tactics the last time this was discussed, holding the evidence of causality for these associations to a higher standard than you do your various assertions.
Not worth my time.[/quote]
I find this graph a little surprising as I would have actually expected the 10-15% to be the healthiest in men. I figured the rigors of maintaining sub 10% might take a toll over time.[/quote]
Notice the huge difference between the men and women. This is a study on Koreans also so there may be other issues at work causing the results seen.[/quote]
Yeah I expected the mens to look like the womens only with the <10% starting point. I did notice the Korean thing and looking at them I guess it is quite possible that they could operate optimally at a lower bf % than whites or blacks.
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
[quote]anonym wrote:
Just for the record, you are looking for more data like this, correct?
Doesn’t really matter, though. You are just going to do the same dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge tactics the last time this was discussed, holding the evidence of causality for these associations to a higher standard than you do your various assertions.
Not worth my time.[/quote]
I find this graph a little surprising as I would have actually expected the 10-15% to be the healthiest in men. I figured the rigors of maintaining sub 10% might take a toll over time.[/quote]
Notice the huge difference between the men and women. This is a study on Koreans also so there may be other issues at work causing the results seen.[/quote]
Yeah I expected the mens to look like the womens only with the <10% starting point. I did notice the Korean thing and looking at them I guess it is quite possible that they could operate optimally at a lower bf % than whites or blacks.[/quote]
Even that is taking it a step too far.
With that much difference between Korean men and women, no one can make the claim that body fat alone causes these factors.
“HUGE discrepancy” Are you talking about the small dip in risk for women around 15-20% bodyfat?
Maybe that’s because women are designed to carry more body fat than men for the tasks of pregnancy, breast feeding etc… thus it would be detrimental for a woman’s health to get too lean i.e. quite below 15% body fat while for a man at 8% would be just fine.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
“HUGE discrepancy” Are you talking about the small dip in risk for women around 15-20% bodyfat?
.[/quote]
No. I am talking about the increase in risk factors of LEANER KOREAN MEN while it is not seen in women until closer to the point of obesity.
It implies environmental or sex factors. You don’t ignore these issues just because a study implies what you want it to…especially when this much difference is seen between men and women of one culture.
I mean there is bound to be a significant difference in the actual percentages for men and women because women naturally carry more fat (T&A) than men. Also really low levels of body fat seem to be drastically more difficult on the female body compared to the male so those differences between genders do not seem to me like they would be unreasonable to expect across the races.
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
I mean there is bound to be a significant difference in the actual percentages for men and women because women naturally carry more fat (T&A) than men. Also really low levels of body fat seem to be drastically more difficult on the female body compared to the male so those differences between genders do not seem to me like they would be unreasonable to expect across the races.[/quote]
Men showing health issues at 15% or less points to FAT not being the cause…when the women show none of this.
But that because a 15%bf women is roughly equivalent to a 10% bf man when comparing genders. You have to adjust for each genders optimum fat %.
It also makes sense that Men’s rate of heart disease and similar complications would go up much quicker than women’s because men are naturally more prone to heart disease and the related complications than women.
