Is Being Fat Necessarily Bad for Health?

[quote]relentless2120 wrote:

[quote]kakno wrote:
And being fat in itself is not dangerous. There are plenty of fatasses that don’t get heart attacks and who live happily.[/quote]

LOL wow. So because people who are fat don’t die of a heart attack, being fat isn’t dangerous? [/quote]

Exactly. The thread title contains the word “necessarily” and that’s exactly what I’m discussing. Not dying from CVD is not dangerous. Any questions?

No one is recommending that people eat everything they see and get the bodyfat percentage of butter. I’m just saying that being fat does not equal being afflicted with CVD.

[quote]Icarus wrote:
Is being of “normal weight” and dying of a heart attack make being that weight dangerous? No. kakno’s point was that just because someone is fat doesn’t automatically sign them up to die from something that people perceive as a “fat person’s death.” There is no absolute that you will die from a heart attack/diabetes/ice cream overdose just because you happen to be flabbier than normal.
There are a lot of dumbasses on this site that think all powerlifters are fat. Perception of fat has to be part of it too.
[/quote]

Very well said.

[quote]relentless2120 wrote:
just because it doesn’t automatically sign them up to death by ice cream doesn’t mean it isn’t dangerous to be fat. Russian roulette is still dangerous, even if you dont die from it.

If you’re greater than 20% bf, you’re fat. It doesn’t matter if you stuff your face with pizza for the sake of “powerlifting” or if you just do it because you have no self control, if its making you fatter, its not healthy. [/quote]

That’s actually exactly what it means. You can’t know if Achilles will die from CVD, develop diabetes or get hit by lightning just because he is fat. It increases the risk epidemiologically, but in any given case, we are unable to predict exactly what will happen.

And the russian roulette example can be used by me as well. You can’t really tell if Bechilles is going to die if he plays it. It increases the probability, but p<1, and that’s my point. Of course I don’t recommend it, but believing that Achilles will die from CVD and that Bechilles will die from a bullet in the head is a naive and simplified way of looking at the world. Medicine is more complicated than that. We can’t know for certain, that’s the point I’m trying to make.

[quote]NaturalBeasting wrote:

[quote]relentless2120 wrote:
hate to break it to you but if you’re fat, you’re fat. doesn’t matter how “healthy” of a road you took to getting there. [/quote]

I don’t think anyone will argue that fat people aren’t fat.

From a health/disease perspective, do you think there is a difference between:
a) Someone who lifts and eat well at 20% body fat
and
b) Someone who’s sedentary and eat like shit at 20% body fat[/quote]

This was answered already…by me above.

Of course there is a difference between being active vs being sedentary. Being a certain body fat percentage does not equal disease in and of itself. 20% on someone extremely muscular wouldn’t even look fat.

I mean, do some of you guys even know someone weighing damn near 300lbs at 20%? They sure as hell wouldn’t look out of shape unless you were comparing them directly to someone in contest shape.

To piggie back PX, how someone looks may not be the best indicator. The below article speaks to unhealthy aspects of the skinny fat phenomenon.

http://health.msn.com/weight-loss/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100254540&gt1=31036

If you look “skinny” yet are fat there are some health & lifestyle issues there that a muscular but softer individual probably does not need to be that concerned about.

[quote]NaturalBeasting wrote:

[quote]relentless2120 wrote:
hate to break it to you but if you’re fat, you’re fat. doesn’t matter how “healthy” of a road you took to getting there. [/quote]

I don’t think anyone will argue that fat people aren’t fat.

From a health/disease perspective, do you think there is a difference between:
a) Someone who lifts and eat well at 20% body fat
and
b) Someone who’s sedentary and eat like shit at 20% body fat[/quote]

Yeah there is definitely a difference. How big that difference is depends on the level of fitness, life style, and genetic predispositions of that person. However,to think that gaining fat isn’t unhealthy, is crazy.

[quote]kakno wrote:

[quote]relentless2120 wrote:

[quote]kakno wrote:
And being fat in itself is not dangerous. There are plenty of fatasses that don’t get heart attacks and who live happily.[/quote]

LOL wow. So because people who are fat don’t die of a heart attack, being fat isn’t dangerous? [/quote]

Exactly. The thread title contains the word “necessarily” and that’s exactly what I’m discussing. Not dying from CVD is not dangerous. Any questions?

No one is recommending that people eat everything they see and get the bodyfat percentage of butter. I’m just saying that being fat does not equal being afflicted with CVD.

[quote]Icarus wrote:
Is being of “normal weight” and dying of a heart attack make being that weight dangerous? No. kakno’s point was that just because someone is fat doesn’t automatically sign them up to die from something that people perceive as a “fat person’s death.” There is no absolute that you will die from a heart attack/diabetes/ice cream overdose just because you happen to be flabbier than normal.
There are a lot of dumbasses on this site that think all powerlifters are fat. Perception of fat has to be part of it too.
[/quote]

Very well said.

[quote]relentless2120 wrote:
just because it doesn’t automatically sign them up to death by ice cream doesn’t mean it isn’t dangerous to be fat. Russian roulette is still dangerous, even if you dont die from it.

If you’re greater than 20% bf, you’re fat. It doesn’t matter if you stuff your face with pizza for the sake of “powerlifting” or if you just do it because you have no self control, if its making you fatter, its not healthy. [/quote]

That’s actually exactly what it means. You can’t know if Achilles will die from CVD, develop diabetes or get hit by lightning just because he is fat. It increases the risk epidemiologically, but in any given case, we are unable to predict exactly what will happen.

And the russian roulette example can be used by me as well. You can’t really tell if Bechilles is going to die if he plays it. It increases the probability, but p<1, and that’s my point. Of course I don’t recommend it, but believing that Achilles will die from CVD and that Bechilles will die from a bullet in the head is a naive and simplified way of looking at the world. Medicine is more complicated than that. We can’t know for certain, that’s the point I’m trying to make.[/quote]

I never said that increasing your body fat would certainly cause death. But how is increasing the probability as you said not inherently dangerous?

[quote]relentless2120 wrote:
I never said that increasing your body fat would certainly cause death. But how is increasing the probability as you said not inherently dangerous?[/quote]

Since epidemiological data is largely irrelevant when discussing a single individual. If 10 million Americans each gain 20 pounds of fat, more of them will die from CVD than if they hadn’t gained fat. If Bob gains 20 pounds of fat, you can’t really tell what’s going to happen.

[quote]kakno wrote:

[quote]relentless2120 wrote:
I never said that increasing your body fat would certainly cause death. But how is increasing the probability as you said not inherently dangerous?[/quote]

Since epidemiological data is largely irrelevant when discussing a single individual. If 10 million Americans each gain 20 pounds of fat, more of them will die from CVD than if they hadn’t gained fat. If Bob gains 20 pounds of fat, you can’t really tell what’s going to happen.[/quote]

You’re argument is pointless. No one is saying that you can predict what is going to happen to one specific individual. Epidemiological studies can never prove causation, Epidemiological evidence can only show that the risk factor is correlated with a higher incidence of disease in the population exposed to that risk factor. Higer incidence, of disease = Hiher risk of disease. Higher risk of disease = more dangerous.

[quote]relentless2120 wrote:

[quote]kakno wrote:

[quote]relentless2120 wrote:
I never said that increasing your body fat would certainly cause death. But how is increasing the probability as you said not inherently dangerous?[/quote]

Since epidemiological data is largely irrelevant when discussing a single individual. If 10 million Americans each gain 20 pounds of fat, more of them will die from CVD than if they hadn’t gained fat. If Bob gains 20 pounds of fat, you can’t really tell what’s going to happen.[/quote]

You’re argument is pointless. No one is saying that you can predict what is going to happen to one specific individual. Epidemiological studies can never prove causation, Epidemiological evidence can only show that the risk factor is correlated with a higher incidence of disease in the population exposed to that risk factor. Higer incidence, of disease = Hiher risk of disease. Higher risk of disease = more dangerous. [/quote]

Again, in the population. Which means nothing to the individual. The discussion is not about epidemiology, it is about whether it is necessarily dangerous to be fat, whatever that means. I interpret this as being about individuals, not the population. The population has no business on a bodybuilding forum, it is about what we, as the individuals we are, do with our bodies.

You’ll find a much better correlation between fatness and CVD if you look at 6 billion people than if you look at one man. So much better, in fact, that you’ll probably not see much of a correlation at all when looking at that one man.

Dangerous for America? Yup
Dangerous for Bob? No one really knows.

The population has no place on a bodybuilding forum? This forum IS a population, not an individual

One page ago you wrote: “LOL wow. So because people who are fat don’t die of a heart attack, being fat isn’t dangerous?”

I will agree that it is dangerous for 6 billion people to get fatter.
I will not agree that we can know that it is necessarily dangerous for one person to get fatter.

And I do not want to argue about what we are arguing about. That’s just pointless.

[quote]relentless2120 wrote:

[quote]kakno wrote:

[quote]relentless2120 wrote:
I never said that increasing your body fat would certainly cause death. But how is increasing the probability as you said not inherently dangerous?[/quote]

Since epidemiological data is largely irrelevant when discussing a single individual. If 10 million Americans each gain 20 pounds of fat, more of them will die from CVD than if they hadn’t gained fat. If Bob gains 20 pounds of fat, you can’t really tell what’s going to happen.[/quote]

You’re argument is pointless. No one is saying that you can predict what is going to happen to one specific individual. Epidemiological studies can never prove causation, Epidemiological evidence can only show that the risk factor is correlated with a higher incidence of disease in the population exposed to that risk factor. Higer incidence, of disease = Hiher risk of disease. Higher risk of disease = more dangerous. [/quote]

Simply being 20% body fat DOES NOT mean you are at greater risk of disease. Your body is not that damn simple. Why are you even arguing about this?

[quote]Mikael LS wrote:

  1. it is very hard to get “fat” on healthy foods while remaining physically active.

  2. the adipose tissue is hormonally active, and produces several cytokines and other hormones, including ones that are highly inflammatory and some that directly causes insulin resistance. This is not a problem for anyone lean or average or whatever we shall call it, but when adipocytes reach a certain size/number, they will run amok and overproduced the nasty stuff. At what body fat level this happens is probably highly individual and also very dependent on the placement of the fat eg. visceral fat is way worse than subcutaneous fat. A high intake of antiinflammatory nutrients will probably attenuate much of this, but then again, it is then unlikely that you would be fat in the first place.

This is by the way a one of the main reasons why obesity is correlated with diabetes, cancer and heart disease.[/quote]

IMO this is the best answer so far. Being overfat is bad for your health because hormones behave differently in fat people. Most important, as you get fatter, your body processes carbs less effectively and you develop insulin sensitivity problems. More and more people are beginning to realize that insulin sensitivity may be one of the most important causes of metabolic syndrome, diabetes, heart disease, etc.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]relentless2120 wrote:

[quote]kakno wrote:

[quote]relentless2120 wrote:
I never said that increasing your body fat would certainly cause death. But how is increasing the probability as you said not inherently dangerous?[/quote]

Since epidemiological data is largely irrelevant when discussing a single individual. If 10 million Americans each gain 20 pounds of fat, more of them will die from CVD than if they hadn’t gained fat. If Bob gains 20 pounds of fat, you can’t really tell what’s going to happen.[/quote]

You’re argument is pointless. No one is saying that you can predict what is going to happen to one specific individual. Epidemiological studies can never prove causation, Epidemiological evidence can only show that the risk factor is correlated with a higher incidence of disease in the population exposed to that risk factor. Higer incidence, of disease = Hiher risk of disease. Higher risk of disease = more dangerous. [/quote]

Simply being 20% body fat DOES NOT mean you are at greater risk of disease. Your body is not that damn simple. Why are you even arguing about this?[/quote]

when did i say anything abot being 20% body fat being a greater risk? I mentioned people being at a greater risk when they get OVER 20% body fat but not that 20% is necessarily an exact spot where your risk increases.

[quote]bluedog23 wrote:

[quote]Mikael LS wrote:

  1. it is very hard to get “fat” on healthy foods while remaining physically active.

  2. the adipose tissue is hormonally active, and produces several cytokines and other hormones, including ones that are highly inflammatory and some that directly causes insulin resistance. This is not a problem for anyone lean or average or whatever we shall call it, but when adipocytes reach a certain size/number, they will run amok and overproduced the nasty stuff. At what body fat level this happens is probably highly individual and also very dependent on the placement of the fat eg. visceral fat is way worse than subcutaneous fat. A high intake of antiinflammatory nutrients will probably attenuate much of this, but then again, it is then unlikely that you would be fat in the first place.

This is by the way a one of the main reasons why obesity is correlated with diabetes, cancer and heart disease.[/quote]

IMO this is the best answer so far. Being overfat is bad for your health because hormones behave differently in fat people. Most important, as you get fatter, your body processes carbs less effectively and you develop insulin sensitivity problems. More and more people are beginning to realize that insulin sensitivity may be one of the most important causes of metabolic syndrome, diabetes, heart disease, etc. [/quote]
I agree that Mikael’s post was good. BUT all those things that behave differently in fat people are risks or trends, not certainties. My mother, for example, is both obese and sedentary. She recently had a full CV workup, and every marker of health they tested for came back in the optimal range. Her insulin and glucose were fine.

She celebrated the good news by eating a ton of food.