A RISK FACTOR not THE cause
A RISK FACTOR not THE cause
A RISK FACTOR not THE cause
A RISK FACTOR not THE cause
A RISK FACTOR not THE cause
A RISK FACTOR not THE cause
A RISK FACTOR not THE cause
A RISK FACTOR not THE cause
A RISK FACTOR not THE cause
A RISK FACTOR not THE cause
Is that sinking in yet? Stick to what was written.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[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.[/quote]
… why not?
Reporting in case you 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
[quote]Professor X wrote:
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. [/quote]
Maybe it does maybe the “healthy” body fat ranges that you speak of are lower than 15%. The thing you are ignoring is the fact that this graph seems to suggest that optimal bodyfat ranges in men are lower than 15%, lower than 10% even (although I still find that hard to believe). You seem to suggest that because the graph does not agree that the bodyfat %'s that you say are healthy, are actually as healthy as you think that the graph must be wrong.
This graph shows a pretty direct correlation that NORMAL body fat ranges are at a higher risk of CVD than those that have exceptional bodyfat. I am unsure what is so difficult to understand about that. The less body fat you have the better off you are. If I have 10% and you have 15% then I am at a lower risk of CVD than you. That does not seem to be that far of a reach in logic. LEAN > NORMAL > OBESE.
It would be strange to think that no increase in complications would be shown with each percentage increase in fat gain until obesity then it spikes. You are aware that is what you are suggesting the graph would look like right?
[quote]trivium wrote:
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]
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[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.[/quote]
… why not?[/quote]
Because your health is NOT directly related to your ab definition. That is just the wrong use of information.
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
Maybe it does maybe the “healthy” body fat ranges that you speak of are lower than 15%. The thing you are ignoring is the fact that this graph seems to suggest that optimal bodyfat ranges in men are lower than 15%, lower than 10% even (although I still find that hard to believe). You seem to suggest that because the graph does not agree that the bodyfat %'s that you say are healthy, are actually as healthy as you think that the graph must be wrong.
[/quote]
That assertion holds no water considering most of humanity in North America has never seen the southern side of 15% and are also healthy.
Actually, it just shows that Korean Men seem to be diagnosed with diseases while in a leaner state than most of the rest of the world…which implies other factors at work and NT body fat.
This statement is the most ridiculous statement I have seen on this site.
And this is also why “bro-science” is fucking up real science.
I am not and no other human on the planet is at a greater risk of a CVD JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE 5% BF MORE THAN YOU. That has no support anywhere.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]trivium wrote:
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]
[/quote]
As I said earlier, during the bulk of this discussion overweight was being expressed by bodyfat %. That is what should be used in this discussion. By trying to use BMI you are essentially adding another argument to distract from the evidence that anonym provided you that NORMAL body fat percentages as you refer to them are not ideal and not as healthy as Lean or Very Lean body fat levels.
I was not really aware that the idea that lean people are healthier than normal or obese (lean, normal, obese being defined by their body fat levels) was thought to be controversial or incorrect by anyone.