[quote]trivium wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
Fat people never have joint pain.
Fact.[/quote]
Could you show support of this…because you seem to be the only person making this statement.[/quote]
Osteoarthritis brah.[/quote]
I would guess that post was sarcasm becuse fat cushions joints implying that fat ppl should not have joint pain when in fact the are almost always in pain
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]trivium wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
Fat people never have joint pain.
Fact.[/quote]
Could you show support of this…because you seem to be the only person making this statement.[/quote]
Osteoarthritis brah.[/quote]
I would guess that post was sarcasm becuse fat cushions joints implying that fat ppl should not have joint pain when in fact the are almost always in pain [/quote]
DING DING DING.
Winner
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]trivium wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I can…and nothing there shows that a fat level less than obesity causes health problems.
[/quote]
Overweight (not obesity) puts one at risk for heart disease, hyperlipidemia, and in some cases, diminished psychological and social well being. [/quote]
This is false info.
Your DIET AND LIFE STYLE AND GENETICS have way more to do with this.
Please show info supporting the idea that simply having a moderate body fat percentage causes any of this.[/quote]
Yeah, Im with X on this one. Science has pretty much got this one answered, unless there is some sort of case study I am not familiar with.[/quote]
lol
Denying that being overweight puts someone at risk for heart disease is idiotic.
I don’t have time to look up “studies” but here are a few website links:
5th risk factor listed
9th risk factor listed
http://www.health.com/health/m/condition-article/0,,20188499,00.html
7th risk factor listed
http://www.world-heart-federation.org/press/fact-sheets/cardiovascular-disease-risk-factors/
8th major risk factor listed
5th risk factor listed (this one is for the ladies)
http://womenshealth.gov/heart-health-stroke/heart-disease-risk-factors/heart-disease-risk-factors-you-can-control.cfm
5th risk factor listed that can be controlled
5th risk factor listed
1st controllable risk factor (another one for women)
10th risk factor listed
http://www.healtheast.org/heart-care/heart-disease-risk-factors.html
5th risk factor listed
http://www.kdheks.gov/cardio/risk.htm
9th paragraph about risk factors
http://www.uihealthcare.org/2column.aspx?id=237281
Being overweight IS a risk factor for heart disease[/quote]
Overweight is defined by BMI which is not accurate for a lot of people. In fact it is one of the most controversial assessments that you make as a clinician. I would not consider someone who is 5’ 10" who weighs 180 to be over weight if their diet and lifestyle are healthy. As with all testing, interpretation of tests without clinical judgment is not always the correct way to practice medicine.
[quote]trivium wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]trivium wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I can…and nothing there shows that a fat level less than obesity causes health problems.
[/quote]
Overweight (not obesity) puts one at risk for heart disease, hyperlipidemia, and in some cases, diminished psychological and social well being. [/quote]
This is false info.
Your DIET AND LIFE STYLE AND GENETICS have way more to do with this.
Please show info supporting the idea that simply having a moderate body fat percentage causes any of this.[/quote]
Yeah, Im with X on this one. Science has pretty much got this one answered, unless there is some sort of case study I am not familiar with.[/quote]
lol
Denying that being overweight puts someone at risk for heart disease is idiotic.
I don’t have time to look up “studies” but here are a few website links:
5th risk factor listed
9th risk factor listed
http://www.health.com/health/m/condition-article/0,,20188499,00.html
7th risk factor listed
http://www.world-heart-federation.org/press/fact-sheets/cardiovascular-disease-risk-factors/
8th major risk factor listed
5th risk factor listed (this one is for the ladies)
http://womenshealth.gov/heart-health-stroke/heart-disease-risk-factors/heart-disease-risk-factors-you-can-control.cfm
5th risk factor listed that can be controlled
5th risk factor listed
1st controllable risk factor (another one for women)
10th risk factor listed
http://www.healtheast.org/heart-care/heart-disease-risk-factors.html
5th risk factor listed
http://www.kdheks.gov/cardio/risk.htm
9th paragraph about risk factors
http://www.uihealthcare.org/2column.aspx?id=237281
Being overweight IS a risk factor for heart disease[/quote]
Overweight is defined by BMI which is not accurate for a lot of people. In fact it is one of the most controversial assessments that you make as a clinician. I would not consider someone who is 5’ 10" who weighs 180 to be over weight if their diet and lifestyle are healthy. As with all testing, interpretation of tests without clinical judgment is not always the correct way to practice medicine.[/quote]
All of a sudden we are practicing medicine here. What worm hole did we go through.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]trivium wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
Fat people never have joint pain.
Fact.[/quote]
Could you show support of this…because you seem to be the only person making this statement.[/quote]
Osteoarthritis brah.[/quote]
I would guess that post was sarcasm becuse fat cushions joints implying that fat ppl should not have joint pain when in fact the are almost always in pain [/quote]
DING DING DING.
Winner
[/quote]
I was hoping I wasn’t off base there.
[quote]trivium wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]trivium wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I can…and nothing there shows that a fat level less than obesity causes health problems.
[/quote]
Overweight (not obesity) puts one at risk for heart disease, hyperlipidemia, and in some cases, diminished psychological and social well being. [/quote]
This is false info.
Your DIET AND LIFE STYLE AND GENETICS have way more to do with this.
Please show info supporting the idea that simply having a moderate body fat percentage causes any of this.[/quote]
Yeah, Im with X on this one. Science has pretty much got this one answered, unless there is some sort of case study I am not familiar with.[/quote]
lol
Denying that being overweight puts someone at risk for heart disease is idiotic.
I don’t have time to look up “studies” but here are a few website links:
5th risk factor listed
9th risk factor listed
http://www.health.com/health/m/condition-article/0,,20188499,00.html
7th risk factor listed
http://www.world-heart-federation.org/press/fact-sheets/cardiovascular-disease-risk-factors/
8th major risk factor listed
5th risk factor listed (this one is for the ladies)
http://womenshealth.gov/heart-health-stroke/heart-disease-risk-factors/heart-disease-risk-factors-you-can-control.cfm
5th risk factor listed that can be controlled
5th risk factor listed
1st controllable risk factor (another one for women)
10th risk factor listed
http://www.healtheast.org/heart-care/heart-disease-risk-factors.html
5th risk factor listed
http://www.kdheks.gov/cardio/risk.htm
9th paragraph about risk factors
http://www.uihealthcare.org/2column.aspx?id=237281
Being overweight IS a risk factor for heart disease[/quote]
Overweight is defined by BMI which is not accurate for a lot of people. In fact it is one of the most controversial assessments that you make as a clinician. I would not consider someone who is 5’ 10" who weighs 180 to be over weight if their diet and lifestyle are healthy. As with all testing, interpretation of tests without clinical judgment is not always the correct way to practice medicine.[/quote]
Stop being purposefully dense.
You, X, Me and everyone else knows that brick is talking about someone who is overweight/fat.
I guess we’re going to pretend anonym didn’t drop actual science all over this thread that shows strong correlation, which is pretty much as good as we’re going to get when it comes to issues with many factors such as heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, etc.
Also playing the ‘genetics’ card comes off as so weak in most instances, because you can’t exactly go to a doctors office and ask them to test your genetics to give an accurate risk assessment for such conditions. If someone says they want to live a healthy lifestyle and get into training, telling them that ‘your genetics will determine if getting fat increases your risk of heart disease or not’ is stupid, because aside from family history they have no way of knowing until they actually get heart disease(god forbid their family is full of previously healthy people who just lived lifestyles conducive to not displaying their higher genetic risk for it as well, which means they actually are a ticking bomb if they increase that risk by getting overweight).
Pretty much, you’re going to go with statistics(what anonym showed), which say that staying under 15% is pretty much the best idea, because the 15-20% jump(in men) is where the risk starts to jump significantly.
Causation, correlation, “causes”, “risk”.
This are just meaningless words, no? Because they all mean the same thing, amirite?
Ahhh, remember when eggs and cholesterol were bad for us?
OK, serious question:
Is all high cholestorol bad?
Is a guy at 20% bodyfat who lifts weights any better off than a guy at 20% bodyfat who doesn’t lift weights?
Who would believe me if I told them my blood profile is magnitudes better now than when I was 6 years younger and about 100 lbs lighter (probably lower BF% then, too)?
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Causation, correlation, “causes”, “risk”.
This are just meaningless words, no? Because they all mean the same thing, amirite?
Ahhh, remember when eggs and cholesterol were bad for us?
OK, serious question:
Is all high cholestorol bad?
Is a guy at 20% bodyfat who lifts weights any better off than a guy at 20% bodyfat who doesn’t lift weights?
Who would believe me if I told them my blood profile is magnitudes better now than when I was 6 years younger and about 100 lbs lighter (probably lower BF% then, too)?[/quote]
Nobody here has said anything to the contrary.
Edit: Except that those are meaningless words. They clearly have some meaning, I guess just more to some of us than others.
[quote]red04 wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Causation, correlation, “causes”, “risk”.
This are just meaningless words, no? Because they all mean the same thing, amirite?
Ahhh, remember when eggs and cholesterol were bad for us?
OK, serious question:
Is all high cholestorol bad?
Is a guy at 20% bodyfat who lifts weights any better off than a guy at 20% bodyfat who doesn’t lift weights?
Who would believe me if I told them my blood profile is magnitudes better now than when I was 6 years younger and about 100 lbs lighter (probably lower BF% then, too)?[/quote]
Nobody here has said anything to the contrary.
Edit: Except that those are meaningless words. They clearly have some meaning, I guess just more to some of us than others.[/quote]
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]red04 wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Causation, correlation, “causes”, “risk”.
This are just meaningless words, no? Because they all mean the same thing, amirite?
Ahhh, remember when eggs and cholesterol were bad for us?
OK, serious question:
Is all high cholestorol bad?
Is a guy at 20% bodyfat who lifts weights any better off than a guy at 20% bodyfat who doesn’t lift weights?
Who would believe me if I told them my blood profile is magnitudes better now than when I was 6 years younger and about 100 lbs lighter (probably lower BF% then, too)?[/quote]
Nobody here has said anything to the contrary.
Edit: Except that those are meaningless words. They clearly have some meaning, I guess just more to some of us than others.[/quote]
[/quote]Awww, too slow.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]red04 wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Causation, correlation, “causes”, “risk”.
This are just meaningless words, no? Because they all mean the same thing, amirite?
Ahhh, remember when eggs and cholesterol were bad for us?
OK, serious question:
Is all high cholestorol bad?
Is a guy at 20% bodyfat who lifts weights any better off than a guy at 20% bodyfat who doesn’t lift weights?
Who would believe me if I told them my blood profile is magnitudes better now than when I was 6 years younger and about 100 lbs lighter (probably lower BF% then, too)?[/quote]
Nobody here has said anything to the contrary.
Edit: Except that those are meaningless words. They clearly have some meaning, I guess just more to some of us than others.[/quote]
[/quote]Awww, too slow.
[/quote]
I had a longer post typed out but decided against it, this is(if you can believe it) the short version:
I didn’t mean that edit disparagingly. It’s not like ‘haha we use science and these words are gospel, filthy idiots, begone!’ I meant it pretty literally, there are some serious arguments over the usages of correlation/causation, ‘at risk’ vs ‘causes’ etc, so they can lead to some serious semantic discussion or heated debate on whether they statistics/research they are representing are meaningful/meaningless. I was interjecting myself into the debate over Brick’s words moreso than trying to say ‘anyone who gets above 15% will die of heart disease after years of struggling with the diabeetus and hypertension.’
You acknowledged that ‘bulking’(ugh, we all hate the terminology) may not be the healthiest, but we know there is more to it than just bf% and weight, and you already made mention to one of the best tools available to monitoring your individual situation: blood work. Great job on having an improved profile in comparison to your youth, it shows that you probably put far more effort into this than “see food eat food lift weight me big,” and I truthfully believe most people on this forum, even those who argue with/against you at times, see that.
[quote]red04 wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]red04 wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Causation, correlation, “causes”, “risk”.
This are just meaningless words, no? Because they all mean the same thing, amirite?
Ahhh, remember when eggs and cholesterol were bad for us?
OK, serious question:
Is all high cholestorol bad?
Is a guy at 20% bodyfat who lifts weights any better off than a guy at 20% bodyfat who doesn’t lift weights?
Who would believe me if I told them my blood profile is magnitudes better now than when I was 6 years younger and about 100 lbs lighter (probably lower BF% then, too)?[/quote]
Nobody here has said anything to the contrary.
Edit: Except that those are meaningless words. They clearly have some meaning, I guess just more to some of us than others.[/quote]
[/quote]Awww, too slow.
[/quote]
I had a longer post typed out but decided against it, this is(if you can believe it) the short version:
I didn’t mean that edit disparagingly. It’s not like ‘haha we use science and these words are gospel, filthy idiots, begone!’ I meant it pretty literally, there are some serious arguments over the usages of correlation/causation, ‘at risk’ vs ‘causes’ etc, so they can lead to some serious semantic discussion or heated debate on whether they statistics/research they are representing are meaningful/meaningless. I was interjecting myself into the debate over Brick’s words moreso than trying to say ‘anyone who gets above 15% will die of heart disease after years of struggling with the diabeetus and hypertension.’
You acknowledged that ‘bulking’(ugh, we all hate the terminology) may not be the healthiest, but we know there is more to it than just bf% and weight, and you already made mention to one of the best tools available to monitoring your individual situation: blood work. Great job on having an improved profile in comparison to your youth, it shows that you probably put far more effort into this than “see food eat food lift weight me big,” and I truthfully believe most people on this forum, even those who argue with/against you at times, see that.
[/quote]
Naw, seriously, man — !
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Naw, seriously, man — !
[/quote]
(He was too slow)
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Naw, seriously, man — !
[/quote]
(He was too slow)[/quote]
I blame the internet, terrible communication medium!
High fives all around!
[quote]red04 wrote:
Also playing the ‘genetics’ card comes off as so weak in most instances,[/quote]
Not just weak, it’s a fucking stupid cop-out.
EVERYONE knows that genetics are a major wild card when it comes to assessing disease risk, but it’s not like that has ever stopped physicians and researchers from drawing conclusions and making large-scale recommendations based on statistically significant observations which are seen to result in clinically significant outcomes.
I mean, really. Someone here PLEASE walk into your doctor’s office and respond to any recommendation you are given with “Um, sorry, but you don’t know my GENETICS.”
What’s interesting is that, despite the fact that only 14% more of the “over-fat” group was sedentary compared to the “normal-fat” crowd, that group tripled the normies in instances of hypercholesterolemia and QUADRUPLED them in the hypertension category.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Causation, correlation, “causes”, “risk”.
This are just meaningless words, no? Because they all mean the same thing, amirite?
Ahhh, remember when eggs and cholesterol were bad for us?
OK, serious question:
Is all high cholestorol bad?
Is a guy at 20% bodyfat who lifts weights any better off than a guy at 20% bodyfat who doesn’t lift weights?
Who would believe me if I told them my blood profile is magnitudes better now than when I was 6 years younger and about 100 lbs lighter (probably lower BF% then, too)?[/quote]
SD doesn’t like me so I will refrain from actually responding
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]trivium wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
Fat people never have joint pain.
Fact.[/quote]
Could you show support of this…because you seem to be the only person making this statement.[/quote]
Osteoarthritis brah.[/quote]
I would guess that post was sarcasm becuse fat cushions joints implying that fat ppl should not have joint pain when in fact the are almost always in pain [/quote]
DING DING DING.
Winner
[/quote]
I’m fat, my joints are fine.
[quote]anonym wrote:
Yeah, yeah, correlation, causation.
What’s interesting is that, despite the fact that only 14% more of the “over-fat” group was sedentary compared to the “normal-fat” crowd, that group tripled the normies in instances of hypercholesterolemia and QUADRUPLED them in the hypertension category.[/quote]
Its also really interesting that the “normal fat” range goes all the way to 20%.
