[quote]JoeGood wrote:
Its also really interesting that the “normal fat” range goes all the way to 20%.[/quote]
You think 20% body fat is “abnormal” (i.e., not common) nowadays?
The American Council on Exercise states an “average” range of 18-24% for men (though this wasn’t a U.S.-based study).
Forgot the sauce
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Please, anyone refer to the book Advanced Nutrition Metabolism to see what extra fatness does to your body! Yes, being overweight can CAUSE hyperlipidemia. What the heck does anyone think all that damn fat is doing on a body?[/quote]
By Gropper and Smith?
Very good book. Is it in one of the Perspective sections or somewhere within a chapter?
Robbins & Cotran Pathologic Basis of Disease also has a nice overview of that stuff.
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[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.[/quote]
That’s the problem around here a lot of times. You get people arguing over something and they are using different guidelines. I thought the argument was using overweight as defined by a greater body fat % and it appeared everyone was good with that, then a couple pages ago someone mentioned BMI as the measuring stick to prove their point and it starts adding in confusion.
If overweight is reflected by BMI then there is going to be far more variance in risk factor results because you can have the same person be 185 lb unhealthy slob or 185lb fit and ripped. So there is no way to make a correlation with overweight by BMI and increased risked factors. Someone would have to be stupid to try. However the graphs and studies being discussed are using bodyfat % so just stick to that because it is the only one that makes any sense.
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
Its also really interesting that the “normal fat” range goes all the way to 20%.[/quote]
You think 20% body fat is “abnormal” (i.e., not common) nowadays?
The American Council on Exercise states an “average” range of 18-24% for men (though this wasn’t a U.S.-based study).
Forgot the sauce
Body fat percent by bioelectrical impedance analysis and risk of coronary artery disease among urban men with low rates of obesity: the Indian paradox - PubMed [/quote]
Can’t say I ever thought of 20% bf as normal. For me 20% is like the top range of what somebody traditionally bulking might stop at.
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
Its also really interesting that the “normal fat” range goes all the way to 20%.[/quote]
You think 20% body fat is “abnormal” (i.e., not common) nowadays?
The American Council on Exercise states an “average” range of 18-24% for men (though this wasn’t a U.S.-based study).
Forgot the sauce
Can’t say I ever thought of 20% bf as normal. For me 20% is like the top range of what somebody traditionally bulking might stop at. [/quote]
It shouldn’t really be normal, but when 2/3 of our country is either overweight or obese, that’s gonna skew things a little.
When going to Walmart, for example, the average is likely closer to 30%.
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
Its also really interesting that the “normal fat” range goes all the way to 20%.[/quote]
You think 20% body fat is “abnormal” (i.e., not common) nowadays?
The American Council on Exercise states an “average” range of 18-24% for men (though this wasn’t a U.S.-based study).
Forgot the sauce
Body fat percent by bioelectrical impedance analysis and risk of coronary artery disease among urban men with low rates of obesity: the Indian paradox - PubMed [/quote]
Can’t say I ever thought of 20% bf as normal. For me 20% is like the top range of what somebody traditionally bulking might stop at. [/quote]
Agreed that 20 shouldn’t be normal but that is just how things are now. No activity and lots of food. Or even lots of activity and even more food means high bf as the norm
Hold on a second now. 20% is too high to be considered normal? You people are delusional! (not that it’s a bad thing). Lean people on a bodybuilding website aren’t what’s “normal”. You people are the abnormal ones (which again, is good). Even if you aren’t what you’d consider super lean, if you’re like 12% or some shit, you need to understand, that’s not normal. If it were normal you wouldn’t have had to work so goddamn hard to achieve it.
And I’m not talking about normal relative to regular people in society today; I’m talking normal as in genetically/evolutionarily normal for a homo sapiens. Look at wild animals. They don’t have fucking striated muscles. They carry “normal” amounts of fat that animals (including humans) are designed to carry normally.
Of course this argument is academic and doesn’t really matter, but I just wanted to bring it up for you to think about. I think a lot of the leaninites on here have very warped views of what constitutes normal, fat, and lean.
[quote]csulli wrote:
Hold on a second now. 20% is too high to be considered normal? You people are delusional! (not that it’s a bad thing). Lean people on a bodybuilding website aren’t what’s “normal”. You people are the abnormal ones (which again, is good). Even if you aren’t what you’d consider super lean, if you’re like 12% or some shit, you need to understand, that’s not normal. If it were normal you wouldn’t have had to work so goddamn hard to achieve it.
And I’m not talking about normal relative to regular people in society today; I’m talking normal as in genetically/evolutionarily normal for a homo sapiens. Look at wild animals. They don’t have fucking striated muscles. They carry “normal” amounts of fat that animals (including humans) are designed to carry normally.
Of course this argument is academic and doesn’t really matter, but I just wanted to bring it up for you to think about. I think a lot of the leaninites on here have very warped views of what constitutes normal, fat, and lean.[/quote]
My pitbulls eat like horses, lay around all day, sleep and they are extremely fucking lean and muscular. Mad jelly on their asses.
[quote]csulli wrote:
Hold on a second now. 20% is too high to be considered normal? You people are delusional! (not that it’s a bad thing). Lean people on a bodybuilding website aren’t what’s “normal”. You people are the abnormal ones (which again, is good). Even if you aren’t what you’d consider super lean, if you’re like 12% or some shit, you need to understand, that’s not normal. If it were normal you wouldn’t have had to work so goddamn hard to achieve it.
And I’m not talking about normal relative to regular people in society today; I’m talking normal as in genetically/evolutionarily normal for a homo sapiens. Look at wild animals. They don’t have fucking striated muscles. They carry “normal” amounts of fat that animals (including humans) are designed to carry normally.
Of course this argument is academic and doesn’t really matter, but I just wanted to bring it up for you to think about. I think a lot of the leaninites on here have very warped views of what constitutes normal, fat, and lean.[/quote]
Yes let’s compare today’s humans with animals that do not know when and where their next meal will come from. Wtf is this site coming to And lol at needing to work hard to be 12. It’s not hard if you are moderately active and don’t eat like an idiot. The problem is now people sit on their ass 23hrs of the day whether that’s a desk couch or bed. Humans aren’t supposed to do that. So we are now carrying Bf that we shouldn’t.
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Yes let’s compare today’s humans with animals that do not know when and where their next meal will come from. Wtf is this site coming to And lol at needing to work hard to be 12. It’s not hard if you are moderately active and don’t eat like an idiot. The problem is now people sit on their ass 23hrs of the day whether that’s a desk couch or bed. Humans aren’t supposed to do that. So we are now carrying Bf that we shouldn’t. [/quote]
My mom, like 99% of the women of her generation, never exercised a day in her life and she remains quite lean and tiny to this day. Not only did she not exercise but she also either didn’t work or had jobs that didn’t require any physical activity. I don’t think that it’s just about being moderately active. I really think that it has to do with the way that our food has changed and that we’ve changed too.
Funny that Bauber mentions his pitts. My Great Dane remained very lean and muscular while sleeping 23 hours a day and eating me out of house and home (including anything that I didn’t have put away in cupboards). Our Saint carries more bodyfat genetically (the breed isn’t as lean in general) even though he has the exact same pattern. Not that you can compare dogs to people.
I guess my point is that I think we’re wrong about what’s causing obesity. But that has nothing at all to do with bulking…lol.
james
[quote]Bauber wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
Hold on a second now. 20% is too high to be considered normal? You people are delusional! (not that it’s a bad thing). Lean people on a bodybuilding website aren’t what’s “normal”. You people are the abnormal ones (which again, is good). Even if you aren’t what you’d consider super lean, if you’re like 12% or some shit, you need to understand, that’s not normal. If it were normal you wouldn’t have had to work so goddamn hard to achieve it.
And I’m not talking about normal relative to regular people in society today; I’m talking normal as in genetically/evolutionarily normal for a homo sapiens. Look at wild animals. They don’t have fucking striated muscles. They carry “normal” amounts of fat that animals (including humans) are designed to carry normally.
Of course this argument is academic and doesn’t really matter, but I just wanted to bring it up for you to think about. I think a lot of the leaninites on here have very warped views of what constitutes normal, fat, and lean.[/quote]
My pitbulls eat like horses, lay around all day, sleep and they are extremely fucking lean and muscular. Mad jelly on their asses.[/quote]
Selective breeding?..my Chihuahuas are the same.
[quote]csulli wrote:
Hold on a second now. 20% is too high to be considered normal? You people are delusional! (not that it’s a bad thing). Lean people on a bodybuilding website aren’t what’s “normal”. You people are the abnormal ones (which again, is good). Even if you aren’t what you’d consider super lean, if you’re like 12% or some shit, you need to understand, that’s not normal. If it were normal you wouldn’t have had to work so goddamn hard to achieve it.
And I’m not talking about normal relative to regular people in society today; I’m talking normal as in genetically/evolutionarily normal for a homo sapiens. Look at wild animals. They don’t have fucking striated muscles. They carry “normal” amounts of fat that animals (including humans) are designed to carry normally.
Of course this argument is academic and doesn’t really matter, but I just wanted to bring it up for you to think about. I think a lot of the leaninites on here have very warped views of what constitutes normal, fat, and lean.[/quote]
I’m not sure “warped” is the right term. What constitutes normal, fat, and lean is very relative at best.
I’ve been places where a man under 30% bf was considered lean (e.g., areas of rural midwest and southeast). I’ve also been places where a man over 20% was considered fat (e.g., east coast metropolitan centers). Neither has a warped view, they’re just relative to the local environment.
For that matter, if we’re talking 1st world countries, “normal” – in the statistical sense – is a very different thing than that of a 3rd world country.
Plus, I don’t think this is a very valid statement: “If it were normal you wouldn’t have had to work so goddamn hard to achieve it.”. “Normal” for a Thai farmer is a lot closer to 12% than for a midwestern American farmer. Personally, I don’t have to work very hard to be close to 12%. I’d have to work very hard to get anywhere near 30%.
Medically, we can talk in terms of numbers, which makes things at least a bit more specific.
Since few of us have access to even remotely decent measuring tools, there’s a lot of talk about degrees of ab visibility as an indicator of leanness. That at least gets you in the ballpark of an estimate.
Because of that, we can say things like “if you can’t see your abs at all, you’re at a higher risk for such-and-such than someone who can see some ab definition”. Correlations still hold merit here, even if we can’t exactly pinpoint where that “starts to see abs” position is on the chart.
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
The problem is now people sit on their ass 23hrs of the day whether that’s a desk couch or bed. Humans aren’t supposed to do that. So we are now carrying Bf that we shouldn’t. [/quote]
My mom, like 99% of the women of her generation, never exercised a day in her life and she remains quite lean and tiny to this day. Not only did she not exercise but she also either didn’t work or had jobs that didn’t require any physical activity. I don’t think that it’s just about being moderately active. I really think that it has to do with the way that our food has changed and that we’ve changed too.[/quote]
This is from 2004; I suspect the situation has gotten worse since then.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-10-27-taller-heavier_x.htm
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
The problem is now people sit on their ass 23hrs of the day whether that’s a desk couch or bed. Humans aren’t supposed to do that. So we are now carrying Bf that we shouldn’t. [/quote]
My mom, like 99% of the women of her generation, never exercised a day in her life and she remains quite lean and tiny to this day. Not only did she not exercise but she also either didn’t work or had jobs that didn’t require any physical activity. I don’t think that it’s just about being moderately active. I really think that it has to do with the way that our food has changed and that we’ve changed too.[/quote]
This is from 2004; I suspect the situation has gotten worse since then.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-10-27-taller-heavier_x.htm
[/quote]
Is the same thing happening elsewhere in the world, or just the US?
[quote]csulli wrote:
Hold on a second now. 20% is too high to be considered normal? You people are delusional! (not that it’s a bad thing). Lean people on a bodybuilding website aren’t what’s “normal”. You people are the abnormal ones (which again, is good). Even if you aren’t what you’d consider super lean, if you’re like 12% or some shit, you need to understand, that’s not normal. If it were normal you wouldn’t have had to work so goddamn hard to achieve it.
And I’m not talking about normal relative to regular people in society today; I’m talking normal as in genetically/evolutionarily normal for a homo sapiens. Look at wild animals. They don’t have fucking striated muscles. They carry “normal” amounts of fat that animals (including humans) are designed to carry normally.
Of course this argument is academic and doesn’t really matter, but I just wanted to bring it up for you to think about. I think a lot of the leaninites on here have very warped views of what constitutes normal, fat, and lean.[/quote]
Good post. 20% is by no means outside of normal range for most males of North America…or Europe…
[quote]LoRez wrote:
Because of that, we can say things like “if you can’t see your abs at all, you’re at a higher risk for such-and-such than someone who can see some ab definition”. Correlations still hold merit here, even if we can’t exactly pinpoint where that “starts to see abs” position is on the chart.[/quote]
I would actually hope no one on this green Earth is saying things like this.
What page was that brick quote on Professor?
Or did you just make that up?
edit
What are the odds that Professor ducks this question until the thread maxes out?
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
Hold on a second now. 20% is too high to be considered normal? You people are delusional! (not that it’s a bad thing). Lean people on a bodybuilding website aren’t what’s “normal”. You people are the abnormal ones (which again, is good). Even if you aren’t what you’d consider super lean, if you’re like 12% or some shit, you need to understand, that’s not normal. If it were normal you wouldn’t have had to work so goddamn hard to achieve it.
And I’m not talking about normal relative to regular people in society today; I’m talking normal as in genetically/evolutionarily normal for a homo sapiens. Look at wild animals. They don’t have fucking striated muscles. They carry “normal” amounts of fat that animals (including humans) are designed to carry normally.
Of course this argument is academic and doesn’t really matter, but I just wanted to bring it up for you to think about. I think a lot of the leaninites on here have very warped views of what constitutes normal, fat, and lean.[/quote]
Yes let’s compare today’s humans with animals that do not know when and where their next meal will come from. Wtf is this site coming to[/quote]
People ARE animals bro. Your genes didnt get the memo that you live in a modern society where your next meal is essentially assured. Your body is designed to carry a certain amount of fat as energy stores in case you have to go without, just like every other animal. You can override your body’s desire for you to not be peeled as absolute hell, and I encourage you to do so lol, but just keep that in mind when defining what is normal for a human.
[quote]anonym wrote:
You feel that there is “a” cause of dyslipidemia, hypertension, etc?
No? Then why would some people having those diseases as a result of issues other than fat invalidate the assertion that fat CAN be the cause of those in other individuals and at other levels?[/quote]
Anything CAN be the cause. Wait…you are actually leading the post with this?
Correlation does not show cause. While women do carry more body fat it does not explain why men in a HEALTHY fat range are experiencing those health problems IF FAT IS THE CAUSE. It implies an issue with culture…not fat.
If the men do all of the outside work and are getting diseased due to more stress…and you simply focus on body fat because of a correlation, that is not truth.
It isn’t about it matching up nicely. Korean men showing diabetes at 15% body fat does NOT point to FAT being the cause. It ma be a CONTRIBUTOR…but ignoring the HEATHY BODY FAT RANGE makes no sense.
We know about the repurcussions as it pertains to the state of OBESITY. I am looking for evidence that a NORMAL fat range causes these diseases because of FAT ALONE.
I am not sure what this sentence was even for. I responded to you. You keep up with the insults tho.
[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]
I am not sure why this is overlooked. Brick is wrong in his statement. Why would anyone support it?