Body Fat and Heart Disease

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:
In fact that coronary risk factor table you posted seems to confirm my thoughts. If you notice 6.3% of the 10% and under crowd are described as having a sedentary lifestyle, while a whopping 40% are sedentary in the very next stratification going up to 20%.

I dunno. Obviously being obese is bad for your health and definitely bad for your heart. If you’re like 20% though the data seems to indicate you will be fine if you actually do some cardio.[/quote]
of course being 20% bf alone doesnt mean you have a CVD death sentence but it just is an indicator that you are potentially at higher risk than if you were leaner.
Carrying around lots extra fat isn’t good for your body and puts extra stress on your body systems and your joints.
I dont think anyone would argue against that.
But im sure someone will.[/quote]

O someone will. And I am not saying that someone at 20% is a ticking time bomb. However all other things equal, someone at 20%bf has a greater risk than someone at 15%bf, who has a greater risk than someone at 10%. And obviously it is not the only factor in someone developing heart disease but it is ONE of the factors, and the statement “Having less fat means you have less of a chance of developing CVD” is a true one.

Now due to genetics, someone with very little bodyfat could still be at a high risk, but there risk would be higher if they had more body fat. The risk of CVD is very individual but the effect fat plays on increasing that individuals risk is universal.

Good points about the cardiovascular exercise component of this csulli!

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:
In fact that coronary risk factor table you posted seems to confirm my thoughts. If you notice 6.3% of the 10% and under crowd are described as having a sedentary lifestyle, while a whopping 40% are sedentary in the very next stratification going up to 20%.

I dunno. Obviously being obese is bad for your health and definitely bad for your heart. If you’re like 20% though the data seems to indicate you will be fine if you actually do some cardio.[/quote]
of course being 20% bf alone doesnt mean you have a CVD death sentence but it just is an indicator that you are potentially at higher risk than if you were leaner.
Carrying around lots extra fat isn’t good for your body and puts extra stress on your body systems and your joints.
I dont think anyone would argue against that.
But im sure someone will.[/quote]

O someone will. And I am not saying that someone at 20% is a ticking time bomb. However all other things equal, someone at 20%bf has a greater risk than someone at 15%bf, who has a greater risk than someone at 10%. And obviously it is not the only factor in someone developing heart disease but it is ONE of the factors, and the statement “Having less fat means you have less of a chance of developing CVD” is a true one.

Now due to genetics, someone with very little bodyfat could still be at a high risk, but there risk would be higher if they had more body fat. The risk of CVD is very individual but the effect fat plays on increasing that individuals risk is universal.[/quote]
Yahtzee!!!

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
of course being 20% bf alone doesnt mean you have a CVD death sentence but it just is an indicator that you are potentially at higher risk than if you were leaner.
Carrying around lots extra fat isn’t good for your body and puts extra stress on your body systems and your joints.
I dont think anyone would argue against that.
But im sure someone will.[/quote]
Right. There is a discussion to be had as to what that “extra fat” number is. Some people probably think anything over 10% is unhealthy extra fat. I think that’s pretty extreme and not especially accurate.

As far as the extra stress on your body and joints… well there’s no way around that really. Unfortunately though that has nothing to do with fat per se, but simply bodyweight. So the people in our community are a bit fucked either way in that department lol. Hopefully we’re all mostly building muscle, but regardless us meatheads are gonna be heavy.

And technically you are correct that being at 20% BF is an indicator that you are at a potentially heightened risk of heart disease. That’s simply a numerical fact! I just don’t find it to be particularly useful for our population. In stats that’s the kind of thing we’d use for a big generalization if you needed to make something apply to everyone. Paining in broad strokes making it nice and easy.

If you need to fine tune something or tweak a process though it’s important to understand when something is only useful as a generalization and has no causal bearing on the outcome you’re predicting. I just don’t really like saying things like being in a “normal” bodyfat range increases your risk of heart disease as opposed to being in the low teens of BF. Because really it’s your level of cardiovascular fitness that is the cause.

[quote]csulli wrote:
The more I look at this the more interesting I find it. If you look at what is described as “normal fat” ranges, high cholesterol only jumps by about 6% and high BP by only about 3 and a half percent. However once you get into the overly fat and obese ranges all the sudden you’re seeing 30+ percent jumps. This sort of does seem to indicate to me that obesity is the big risk factor, and that it is not linearly correlated to bodyfat levels.

Like I mentioned before, I honestly believe the difference between the under-fat and normal-fat levels are due entirely to cardiovascular training. Based on the data there 93.7% of the under-fats did cardio whilst a mere 60% of the normies did cardio. I’m actually surprised the blood pressure and cholesterol differences aren’t greater between these groups!

Anyway, I love to nerd out about data… Numbers seem to indicate to me a causal relationship between cardiovascular training and heart disease and also one between obesity and heart disease; wherever you want to define obesity (30% or something?). I think that the normal fat levels are only correlated to higher heart disease risk due to a dramatic difference in cardiovascular exercise on average. I don’t think the risk factors are linearly related to bodyfat levels; there appears to be more of a threshold. Of course like I said, it looks like honestly cardio largely trumps bodyfat levels.[/quote]

You may be write that the two things that you do to get rid of body fat (Diet and Exercise) do make you healthier. But in a single individual, they cannot lower body fat without changing one of those two variables. Because they change one of those variables, they lose the fat and become healthier. You are saying becoming healthier and losing fat are by-products of exercise and nutrition while I think that improved health is a by product of losing the fat which is a by product of improved exercise and nutrition. Is that at all making sense?

[quote]csulli wrote:
Anyway, I love to nerd out about data… Numbers seem to indicate to me a causal relationship between cardiovascular training and heart disease and also one between obesity and heart disease; wherever you want to define obesity (30% or something?). I think that the normal fat levels are only correlated to higher heart disease risk due to a dramatic difference in cardiovascular exercise on average. I don’t think the risk factors are linearly related to bodyfat levels; there appears to be more of a threshold. Of course like I said, it looks like honestly cardio largely trumps bodyfat levels.[/quote]

It would be interesting to see these same factors evaluated by VO2Max rather than Bodyfat%.

[quote]bpick86 wrote:
all other things equal, someone at 20%bf has a greater risk than someone at 15%bf, who has a greater risk than someone at 10%.[/quote]
Do we know that though? We kind of don’t. Imagine two people performing equal amounts of “sufficient” cardio one being 5% higher BF than the other. I haven’t seen anything that would actually indicate any significant difference in risk between the two. In all the data presented thus far (and likely in all the data you will find unfortunately) there has been a larger difference in levels of cardio training than in bodyfat levels or risk factors all together!

[quote]bpick86 wrote:
And obviously it is not the only factor in someone developing heart disease but it is ONE of the factors[/quote]
It is a bit of a complicated factor though. It looks like a threshold variable.

Another way of putting would be to say that you look at the extra body fat as an indicator of poor nutrition and exercise habits, while I think that extra body fat is a factor that increases the risk just like poor nutrition and bad exercise habits.

[quote]whatever2k wrote:
I dont know if looking at this from just bf% is a good idea. Jason huh was ripped to shreds in one of those MD videos, but sounded like he was about to drop dead from a heart attack at any moment. Carrying around excess weight is probably unhealthy no matter what. 5.8-5.9 guys were never meant to weigh 260-300 lbs. [/quote]

You mean BMI might actually be a useful indicator too?

I’m not even sure if I’m sarcastic.

I find it interesting that the insurance industry has generally decided on using BMI as a factor in actuarial tables (given how “inaccurate” it is) rather than body fat % measured by skinfold or some standardized electronic device (given how “inaccurate” it is).

[quote]whatever2k wrote:
I dont know if looking at this from just bf% is a good idea. Jason huh was ripped to shreds in one of those MD videos, but sounded like he was about to drop dead from a heart attack at any moment. Carrying around excess weight is probably unhealthy no matter what. 5.8-5.9 guys were never meant to weigh 260-300 lbs. [/quote]

This. Obviously, not all weight was created equal, but excess is still excess. Drugs aside, you think Ronnie Coleman at his bodybuilding peak was healthy? Ever wonder why big dogs have shorter lives? Too much excess weight, in any form, is stressful to the body.

I also found it interesting in the chat shown that listed the various groups and their bf %'s, that in the sub 10% group there were 4 people with bad cholesterol readings, and 4 who were sedentary. I wonder if they were the same four.

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]whatever2k wrote:
I dont know if looking at this from just bf% is a good idea. Jason huh was ripped to shreds in one of those MD videos, but sounded like he was about to drop dead from a heart attack at any moment. Carrying around excess weight is probably unhealthy no matter what. 5.8-5.9 guys were never meant to weigh 260-300 lbs. [/quote]

You mean BMI might actually be a useful indicator too?

I’m not even sure if I’m sarcastic.

I find it interesting that the insurance industry has generally decided on using BMI as a factor in actuarial tables (given how “inaccurate” it is) rather than body fat % measured by skinfold or some standardized electronic device (given how “inaccurate” it is).[/quote]

The BMI is a decent indicator in untrained populations, which is most of the people walking around, and the numbers, when wrong are skewed to make trained people look unhealthier than they are so its an excellent tool for insurance companies. It works on the lazies and it slants a few of the healthies in their favor and makes them pay more.

[quote]bpick86 wrote:
You may be write that the two things that you do to get rid of body fat (Diet and Exercise) do make you healthier. But in a single individual, they cannot lower body fat without changing one of those two variables. Because they change one of those variables, they lose the fat and become healthier. You are saying becoming healthier and losing fat are by-products of exercise and nutrition while I think that improved health is a by product of losing the fat which is a by product of improved exercise and nutrition. Is that at all making sense?[/quote]
Well I guess I was negligent by not mentioning diet. In a way my argument hinges upon diet and genetics. I do say that being healthier is a byproduct of exercise, but I also believe that as long as you aren’t really fat (define “really fat” as you will lol) you can achieve a level of cardiovascular health equal to someone at a lower bodyfat percentage. Now how do you stay at a slightly higher bf% while having equally good cardio? I guess that’s where the diet and genetics come in. Keeping yourself out of a caloric deficit etc.

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:
Anyway, I love to nerd out about data… Numbers seem to indicate to me a causal relationship between cardiovascular training and heart disease and also one between obesity and heart disease; wherever you want to define obesity (30% or something?). I think that the normal fat levels are only correlated to higher heart disease risk due to a dramatic difference in cardiovascular exercise on average. I don’t think the risk factors are linearly related to bodyfat levels; there appears to be more of a threshold. Of course like I said, it looks like honestly cardio largely trumps bodyfat levels.[/quote]

It would be interesting to see these same factors evaluated by VO2Max rather than Bodyfat%.[/quote]

Agree. Im willing to bet that a guy with a vo2 max of 50 but who is 14% bf because he likes to grab afew slices of pizza and some beers from time to time is way less at risk for heart disease than someone like Jason Huh, who judging by that MD video probably has a vo2 max of 18 on a good day lol.

Seriously, he was gassing hard from standing upright! Im just surprised he got through the quarter rep curls without being rushed to the ER.

[quote]bpick86 wrote:
The BMI is a decent indicator in untrained populations, which is most of the people walking around, and the numbers, when wrong are skewed to make trained people look unhealthier than they are so its an excellent tool for insurance companies. It works on the lazies and it slants a few of the healthies in their favor and makes them pay more.[/quote]
Exactly this. I mentioned something kinda like that earlier although I wasn’t talking about BMI. If you are dealing with a large enough, generalized population BMI actually works quite well. It’s a tool not meant to be applied to individual people or smaller, more specific populations though really lol.

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]bpick86 wrote:
all other things equal, someone at 20%bf has a greater risk than someone at 15%bf, who has a greater risk than someone at 10%.[/quote]
Do we know that though? We kind of don’t. Imagine two people performing equal amounts of “sufficient” cardio one being 5% higher BF than the other. I haven’t seen anything that would actually indicate any significant difference in risk between the two. In all the data presented thus far (and likely in all the data you will find unfortunately) there has been a larger difference in levels of cardio training than in bodyfat levels or risk factors all together!

[quote]bpick86 wrote:
And obviously it is not the only factor in someone developing heart disease but it is ONE of the factors[/quote]
It is a bit of a complicated factor though. It looks like a threshold variable.[/quote]

You are correct. And as I typed earlier, you could make the case that it is not a factor at all, just an indicator of the presence of other risk factors(I don’t personally prescribe to this). Just as in your example, I could say that if he is performing the same amount of cardio yet remaining 5% higher than his diet is probably not as good as it should be which puts him at a higher risk.

Also I am not saying that 5% makes a significant difference, however, there is an increase. I think the graph would not stay flat with any population of people and that it would gradually increase as body fat increased. As you said, maybe not significantly but it increased so the statement being at “10% is better for someone than being at 15% body fat” I believe would be universal from a standpoint of heart health.

EDIT: I read your example as identical people or the same person so that might help to keep things clearer. If they are different people then genetics would play a huge role in there absolute level of risk.

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
This. Obviously, not all weight was created equal, but excess is still excess. Drugs aside, you think Ronnie Coleman at his bodybuilding peak was healthy? Ever wonder why big dogs have shorter lives? Too much excess weight, in any form, is stressful to the body.[/quote]
The one sure-fire way to extend your life is to basically starve yourself :-/
But hey, I’d rather die 5 years earlier and live my life with big muscles than have to eek out a 90 year existence as a twink :stuck_out_tongue:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
I also found it interesting in the chat shown that listed the various groups and their bf %'s, that in the sub 10% group there were 4 people with bad cholesterol readings, and 4 who were sedentary. I wonder if they were the same four.[/quote]
omg nice catch lol

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]whatever2k wrote:
I dont know if looking at this from just bf% is a good idea. Jason huh was ripped to shreds in one of those MD videos, but sounded like he was about to drop dead from a heart attack at any moment. Carrying around excess weight is probably unhealthy no matter what. 5.8-5.9 guys were never meant to weigh 260-300 lbs. [/quote]

You mean BMI might actually be a useful indicator too?

I’m not even sure if I’m sarcastic.

I find it interesting that the insurance industry has generally decided on using BMI as a factor in actuarial tables (given how “inaccurate” it is) rather than body fat % measured by skinfold or some standardized electronic device (given how “inaccurate” it is).[/quote]

The BMI is a decent indicator in untrained populations, which is most of the people walking around, and the numbers, when wrong are skewed to make trained people look unhealthier than they are so its an excellent tool for insurance companies. It works on the lazies and it slants a few of the healthies in their favor and makes them pay more.[/quote]

I understand that, however it’s by no means the only factor used in rate calculations.

Looking at two factors here, only:

Low BMI, Low BP - Rate 1
Low BMI, High BP - Rate 2
Normal BMI, Low BP - Rate 3
Normal BMI, High BP - Rate 4
High BMI, Low BP - Rate 5
High BMI, High BP - Rate 6

It’s quite feasible that, all things considered, Rate 5 ends up lower than Rate 2… based on calculations of actual risk factors (which increase the probability of higher costs) associated with the different combinations.

Of course since insurance rates are usually diluted across all members of the policy group, it would be hard to reverse engineer how the pricing is actually done.

/mostly offtopic tangent

EDIT: my guess is that the reason they chose BMI (versus any form of bodyfat reading) is mostly because of a very low implementation cost… with an understanding that the correlations aren’t quite as tight as other means.

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
This. Obviously, not all weight was created equal, but excess is still excess. Drugs aside, you think Ronnie Coleman at his bodybuilding peak was healthy? Ever wonder why big dogs have shorter lives? Too much excess weight, in any form, is stressful to the body.[/quote]
The one sure-fire way to extend your life is to basically starve yourself :-/
But hey, I’d rather die 5 years earlier and live my life with big muscles than have to eek out a 90 year existence as a twink :stuck_out_tongue:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
I also found it interesting in the chat shown that listed the various groups and their bf %'s, that in the sub 10% group there were 4 people with bad cholesterol readings, and 4 who were sedentary. I wonder if they were the same four.[/quote]
omg nice catch lol[/quote]
I didn’t even see that!
Very cool observation and I don’t think it would be a stretch to assume it was the same 4.

I agree that carrying extra weight in general isn’t the best for your body systems and joints but carrying around 30 pounds of extra fat is worse for you than 30 pounds of extra muscle.
Would you guys agree?

[quote]bpick86 wrote:
Another way of putting would be to say that you look at the extra body fat as an indicator of poor nutrition and exercise habits, while I think that extra body fat is a factor that increases the risk just like poor nutrition and bad exercise habits.[/quote]
Just to throw this out there… this isn’t always the case.

Plenty of people (as in, some but certainly not all) participate in cardiovascular exercise and are overweight (above average bodyfat). The stereotypical pudgy marathon runner or chubby recreational tennis player/golfer, who think “getting some aerobic exercise” a few days a week is reason to slack off on diet.

The “obesity paradox” is also something interesting, if not confusing.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/01/us-obesity-paradox-idUSBRE9000BJ20130101

If I’m understanding it right, in the long-term, being “overweight” to “slightly obese” is somehow connected to a lower risk of death compared to being “normal” weight. The studies do state that being “obese” to “severely obese” does increase risk of death. And they acknowledge that it’s based on BMI, which they clearly state doesn’t account for muscle mass.

With all that said, I have to kind of dumb down the whole discussion and say that debating whether or not increased bodyfat is related to increased health problems is along the lines of debating if lifting weights builds strength and muscle. It does. We know it does. Because it just does.

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
With all that said, I have to kind of dumb down the whole discussion and say that debating whether or not increased bodyfat is related to increased health problems is along the lines of debating if lifting weights builds strength and muscle. It does. We know it does. Because it just does.[/quote]

This whole discussion arose because, well, “someone” argued that it doesn’t.