Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Over fat versus over weight
Options
peckchris3267
Posts: 368 Member
in Debate Club
Replies
-
Makes perfectly good sense. Can be confirmed by a trip to any beach in the developed world.2
-
The article is really interesting. I got a tape measure and found my wasit is 35 inches. That's more than half my height (I am 64 inches tall), so that puts me in the danger zone according to the article. I'm a 5'4" woman who weighs 136 pounds and have a normal BMI. I don't really want to lose too much more weight, but maybe I need to do that to lower my belly fat.
Excerpt below that interested me:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/31/health/overfat-obesity-study/index.html
"Why's belly fat so bad
Abdominal fat is one of the most dangerous kinds of fat you can have. The reason it's so bad is that unlike your love handles -- which are the pinchable fat right beneath your skin -- the fat that is in your stomach area grows deep inside your body and it wraps around your vital organs. Your liver borrows this fat and turns it into cholesterol that can sneak into your arteries and start collecting there. When it collects, your arteries start to harden, and when they get hard, this can lead you to having a heart attack or stroke.
This deep layer of belly fat is also what makes your body insulin-resistant, which can lead you to having type 2 diabetes. It can also cause inflammation, which scientists are finding at the root of many chronic diseases and even cancer and Alzheimer's. Excess belly fat can also raise your glucose levels and decrease your muscle mass. You need good muscle mass to help keep good heart health."3 -
The article is really interesting. I got a tape measure and found my wasit is 35 inches. That's more than half my height (I am 64 inches tall), so that puts me in the danger zone according to the article. I'm a 5'4" woman who weighs 136 pounds and have a normal BMI. I don't really want to lose too much more weight, but maybe I need to do that to lower my belly fat.
Excerpt below that interested me:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/31/health/overfat-obesity-study/index.html
"Why's belly fat so bad
Abdominal fat is one of the most dangerous kinds of fat you can have. The reason it's so bad is that unlike your love handles -- which are the pinchable fat right beneath your skin -- the fat that is in your stomach area grows deep inside your body and it wraps around your vital organs. Your liver borrows this fat and turns it into cholesterol that can sneak into your arteries and start collecting there. When it collects, your arteries start to harden, and when they get hard, this can lead you to having a heart attack or stroke.
This deep layer of belly fat is also what makes your body insulin-resistant, which can lead you to having type 2 diabetes. It can also cause inflammation, which scientists are finding at the root of many chronic diseases and even cancer and Alzheimer's. Excess belly fat can also raise your glucose levels and decrease your muscle mass. You need good muscle mass to help keep good heart health."
That's an approximation that will tell you if you're good, but won't necessarily tell you if you're not good...3 -
I saw a very poor couple at walmart. Both were thin, but with that "pot belly". My first thought was how sad that they cannot afford good food (they had hot dogs and a loaf of bread). I hope our future generation does not start picking on them too.
Often that "pot belly" on thinner people is seen in mal-nourished third world countries.0 -
TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »I saw a very poor couple at walmart. Both were thin, but with that "pot belly". My first thought was how sad that they cannot afford good food. I hope our future generation does not start picking on them too.
Often that "pot belly" on thin people is seen in mal-nourished third world countries.
IF they're at Walmart, it's just skinny Fat, not malnutrition. At least not malnutrition from lack of opportunity6 -
The article says measuring belly girth does a better job of telling how fast a stomach is than measuring height and weight. In other news, the sky is blue.
This statistic they're floating, 90% of us are over fat, what is the cutoff for that?2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »The article is really interesting. I got a tape measure and found my wasit is 35 inches. That's more than half my height (I am 64 inches tall), so that puts me in the danger zone according to the article. I'm a 5'4" woman who weighs 136 pounds and have a normal BMI. I don't really want to lose too much more weight, but maybe I need to do that to lower my belly fat.
Excerpt below that interested me:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/31/health/overfat-obesity-study/index.html
"Why's belly fat so bad
Abdominal fat is one of the most dangerous kinds of fat you can have. The reason it's so bad is that unlike your love handles -- which are the pinchable fat right beneath your skin -- the fat that is in your stomach area grows deep inside your body and it wraps around your vital organs. Your liver borrows this fat and turns it into cholesterol that can sneak into your arteries and start collecting there. When it collects, your arteries start to harden, and when they get hard, this can lead you to having a heart attack or stroke.
This deep layer of belly fat is also what makes your body insulin-resistant, which can lead you to having type 2 diabetes. It can also cause inflammation, which scientists are finding at the root of many chronic diseases and even cancer and Alzheimer's. Excess belly fat can also raise your glucose levels and decrease your muscle mass. You need good muscle mass to help keep good heart health."
That's an approximation that will tell you if you're good, but won't necessarily tell you if you're not good...
So you're saying if your waist is less than half your height, you're good. If your waist is more than half your height, you might still be good but you might be in trouble, right?
They mentioned in the article that your doctor can measure your body fat by x-ray, is that a thing? Is that the same as DEXA?0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »The article is really interesting. I got a tape measure and found my wasit is 35 inches. That's more than half my height (I am 64 inches tall), so that puts me in the danger zone according to the article. I'm a 5'4" woman who weighs 136 pounds and have a normal BMI. I don't really want to lose too much more weight, but maybe I need to do that to lower my belly fat.
Excerpt below that interested me:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/31/health/overfat-obesity-study/index.html
"Why's belly fat so bad
Abdominal fat is one of the most dangerous kinds of fat you can have. The reason it's so bad is that unlike your love handles -- which are the pinchable fat right beneath your skin -- the fat that is in your stomach area grows deep inside your body and it wraps around your vital organs. Your liver borrows this fat and turns it into cholesterol that can sneak into your arteries and start collecting there. When it collects, your arteries start to harden, and when they get hard, this can lead you to having a heart attack or stroke.
This deep layer of belly fat is also what makes your body insulin-resistant, which can lead you to having type 2 diabetes. It can also cause inflammation, which scientists are finding at the root of many chronic diseases and even cancer and Alzheimer's. Excess belly fat can also raise your glucose levels and decrease your muscle mass. You need good muscle mass to help keep good heart health."
That's an approximation that will tell you if you're good, but won't necessarily tell you if you're not good...
So you're saying if your waist is less than half your height, you're good. If your waist is more than half your height, you might still be good but you might be in trouble, right?
They mentioned in the article that your doctor can measure your body fat by x-ray, is that a thing? Is that the same as DEXA?
DEXA is notoriously inaccurate, despite being considered the "gold standard" around here. An MRI will do a much better job, but of course, everything comes with a price.1 -
This sounds like the exact same thing they've been saying about 'apple' shapes for 20 years (at least). I may be missing it, but what's the 'debate' point of this post? Are you saying that you agree or do not agree with the article?1
-
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »The article is really interesting. I got a tape measure and found my wasit is 35 inches. That's more than half my height (I am 64 inches tall), so that puts me in the danger zone according to the article. I'm a 5'4" woman who weighs 136 pounds and have a normal BMI. I don't really want to lose too much more weight, but maybe I need to do that to lower my belly fat.
Excerpt below that interested me:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/31/health/overfat-obesity-study/index.html
"Why's belly fat so bad
Abdominal fat is one of the most dangerous kinds of fat you can have. The reason it's so bad is that unlike your love handles -- which are the pinchable fat right beneath your skin -- the fat that is in your stomach area grows deep inside your body and it wraps around your vital organs. Your liver borrows this fat and turns it into cholesterol that can sneak into your arteries and start collecting there. When it collects, your arteries start to harden, and when they get hard, this can lead you to having a heart attack or stroke.
This deep layer of belly fat is also what makes your body insulin-resistant, which can lead you to having type 2 diabetes. It can also cause inflammation, which scientists are finding at the root of many chronic diseases and even cancer and Alzheimer's. Excess belly fat can also raise your glucose levels and decrease your muscle mass. You need good muscle mass to help keep good heart health."
That's an approximation that will tell you if you're good, but won't necessarily tell you if you're not good...
So you're saying if your waist is less than half your height, you're good. If your waist is more than half your height, you might still be good but you might be in trouble, right?
They mentioned in the article that your doctor can measure your body fat by x-ray, is that a thing? Is that the same as DEXA?
DEXA is notoriously inaccurate, despite being considered the "gold standard" around here. An MRI will do a much better job, but of course, everything comes with a price.
What makes you say DEXA is notoriously inaccurate? I know it has a margin of error but I've always read that it has the smallest margin of error of commonly used measurements.1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »The article is really interesting. I got a tape measure and found my wasit is 35 inches. That's more than half my height (I am 64 inches tall), so that puts me in the danger zone according to the article. I'm a 5'4" woman who weighs 136 pounds and have a normal BMI. I don't really want to lose too much more weight, but maybe I need to do that to lower my belly fat.
Excerpt below that interested me:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/31/health/overfat-obesity-study/index.html
"Why's belly fat so bad
Abdominal fat is one of the most dangerous kinds of fat you can have. The reason it's so bad is that unlike your love handles -- which are the pinchable fat right beneath your skin -- the fat that is in your stomach area grows deep inside your body and it wraps around your vital organs. Your liver borrows this fat and turns it into cholesterol that can sneak into your arteries and start collecting there. When it collects, your arteries start to harden, and when they get hard, this can lead you to having a heart attack or stroke.
This deep layer of belly fat is also what makes your body insulin-resistant, which can lead you to having type 2 diabetes. It can also cause inflammation, which scientists are finding at the root of many chronic diseases and even cancer and Alzheimer's. Excess belly fat can also raise your glucose levels and decrease your muscle mass. You need good muscle mass to help keep good heart health."
That's an approximation that will tell you if you're good, but won't necessarily tell you if you're not good...
So you're saying if your waist is less than half your height, you're good. If your waist is more than half your height, you might still be good but you might be in trouble, right?
They mentioned in the article that your doctor can measure your body fat by x-ray, is that a thing? Is that the same as DEXA?
DEXA is notoriously inaccurate, despite being considered the "gold standard" around here. An MRI will do a much better job, but of course, everything comes with a price.
What makes you say DEXA is notoriously inaccurate? I know it has a margin of error but I've always read that it has the smallest margin of error of commonly used measurements.
Anecdotally, watch some videos of bodybuilders using them. There are guys who's skin looks translucent coming in at 7-10%, and guys who look every bit of 10-12% coming in at 5-6.
A bit more scientifically, look up Jorn Trommelein's opinion on them. As an example, when they ran a study using DEXA to test protein synthesis from overnight casein feeding, they turned up a null result. When they did the exact same thing using MRI and muscle biopsy, they found that it actually does have a pretty big impact.
DEXA is certainly more cost effective than MRI and/or CT, but it's accuracy is definitely questionable. Is it "good enough"? Sure. But then, so are a $10 set of calipers in the right hands.4 -
I am screwed, then. I have lost a lot of weight, but still have a ton of fat under my loose skin.1
-
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
DEXA is certainly more cost effective than MRI and/or CT, but it's accuracy is definitely questionable. Is it "good enough"? Sure. But then, so are a $10 set of calipers in the right hands.
There's voodoo math involved in the DEXA algorithms. All quantitative x-ray techniques have voodoo math. I say this as someone who really really REALLY loves and appreciates crystallographers. But it IS witchcraft. And nobody is hiring PhDs in chemistry or physics to run their DEXA and therefore get it adjusted to each sample.I mean person.3 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
DEXA is certainly more cost effective than MRI and/or CT, but it's accuracy is definitely questionable. Is it "good enough"? Sure. But then, so are a $10 set of calipers in the right hands.
There's voodoo math involved in the DEXA algorithms. All quantitative x-ray techniques have voodoo math. I say this as someone who really really REALLY loves and appreciates crystallographers. But it IS witchcraft. And nobody is hiring PhDs in chemistry or physics to run their DEXA and therefore get it adjusted to each sample.I mean person.
Thank you for adding this.
DEXA scan is quite different from simply standing on a scale and receiving an output. DEXA is highly dependent upon the skill and expertise of the operator, which is why I tend to be suspicious of scans conducted by the mini-mall scan shops. This also depends on the latest calibration of the device itself and ensuring all the software/firmware is up to date, compliant, and validated.1 -
The article is really interesting. I got a tape measure and found my wasit is 35 inches. That's more than half my height (I am 64 inches tall), so that puts me in the danger zone according to the article. I'm a 5'4" woman who weighs 136 pounds and have a normal BMI. I don't really want to lose too much more weight, but maybe I need to do that to lower my belly fat.
I found the "measure at your belly button" thing interesting. Maybe I'm built different, but my belly button is no where near my actual waist and measuring at my belly button is actually a hip measurement, not a waist measurement. My waist is more than fine, but at my belly button, nope, I'm overfat, too. I'm 5'3 and 117 (today, I go between 115and 120).
3 -
The article is really interesting. I got a tape measure and found my wasit is 35 inches. That's more than half my height (I am 64 inches tall), so that puts me in the danger zone according to the article. I'm a 5'4" woman who weighs 136 pounds and have a normal BMI. I don't really want to lose too much more weight, but maybe I need to do that to lower my belly fat.
I found the "measure at your belly button" thing interesting. Maybe I'm built different, but my belly button is no where near my actual waist and measuring at my belly button is actually a hip measurement, not a waist measurement. My waist is more than fine, but at my belly button, nope, I'm overfat, too. I'm 5'3 and 117 (today, I go between 115and 120).
Yeah, same with me. There was a long discussion on this at one point.1 -
"I don't really want to lose too much more weight, but maybe I need to do that to lower my belly fat."
If you are normal BMI Is not the best thing to do first to get your metabolic markers measured - blood pressure, hdl/ldl cholestrol, blood sugar levels etc and if these are not good/very good/perfect depending on your and your doctor's view then take action to improve them which may or may not mean losing weight or getting more physically active???
Also just to confuse things more for all of us actually many studies show a U shaped curve for all cause mortality with the best point often being slightly into the overweight category!!!!0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »The article is really interesting. I got a tape measure and found my wasit is 35 inches. That's more than half my height (I am 64 inches tall), so that puts me in the danger zone according to the article. I'm a 5'4" woman who weighs 136 pounds and have a normal BMI. I don't really want to lose too much more weight, but maybe I need to do that to lower my belly fat.
I found the "measure at your belly button" thing interesting. Maybe I'm built different, but my belly button is no where near my actual waist and measuring at my belly button is actually a hip measurement, not a waist measurement. My waist is more than fine, but at my belly button, nope, I'm overfat, too. I'm 5'3 and 117 (today, I go between 115and 120).
Yeah, same with me. There was a long discussion on this at one point.
Indeed there was. You should measure at the midpoint or narrowest point(pick one) between the bottom of your rib cage and the crest of your hip bone.2 -
The article is really interesting. I got a tape measure and found my wasit is 35 inches. That's more than half my height (I am 64 inches tall), so that puts me in the danger zone according to the article. I'm a 5'4" woman who weighs 136 pounds and have a normal BMI. I don't really want to lose too much more weight, but maybe I need to do that to lower my belly fat.
I found the "measure at your belly button" thing interesting. Maybe I'm built different, but my belly button is no where near my actual waist and measuring at my belly button is actually a hip measurement, not a waist measurement. My waist is more than fine, but at my belly button, nope, I'm overfat, too. I'm 5'3 and 117 (today, I go between 115and 120).
This! Define "waist." There's a 5-6 inch difference between my navel and what I thought was my waist (narrowest part of torso).1 -
I don't think you can assume that since someone has belly fat it's in their abdomen. For instance, I definitely carry belly fat and it's very obviously right around my belly button under the skin like a little doughnut of annoyance. It's totally there, you can pinch it and feel it right there. However, my husband has one of those hard muscular bellies - and definitely too much body fat stored under his abs in his organs.
So, even assuming the world moves to a standard of measuring bellies instead of weight, it's still not going to be an accurate predictor of health since not everyone who carries belly fat is actually carrying intra-abdominal belly fat.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions