Visceral fat question

HealthyBodySickMind

Does anybody have any references that talk about visceral fat amounts or ranges with actual numbers given in lbs (or kg) or as a percentage of body weight?

Google's giving me a headache because all that comes up is the ratings that are given by the bioelectrical impedance scales.

timtam163

What exactly are you trying to figure out?

sgt1372

The only device that I know of that measures VAT (visceral adipose tissue) separate from BF generally is a DXA scan.

A DXA scan report will measure your VAT by weight and volume.

Don't think there is a specific number that is considered better than another. What's considers "healthy" would probably vary widely individually based on age, sex, wt, ht, etc. However, generally speaking, the lower the VAT wt and volume the better.

My VAT has dropped from 1.4# & 41.5 cu in fown to 0.3# & 8.7 cu in over a year corresponding to a drop in BW from 172# to 160# and a drop in overall BF% from 20.3% to 13.3% as measured by DXA.

So, if you want to measure and keep track of your VAT trend, contact a local DXA operator and get scanned regularly.

HealthyBodySickMind

I had a dexa in June. It's the only one I've ever had, so there is no trend just a baseline.

What I am trying to figure out is what is a normal amount, and is it based off of percent or a total amount. I've seen statements that seem to say any visceral fat is bad and statements that say you need a certain amount, but nothing that says how much, and no primary research that says why a certain amount.

DX2JX2

HealthyBodySickMind wrote: »

I had a dexa in June. It's the only one I've ever had, so there is no trend just a baseline.

What I am trying to figure out is what is a normal amount, and is it based off of percent or a total amount. I've seen statements that seem to say any visceral fat is bad and statements that say you need a certain amount, but nothing that says how much, and no primary research that says why a certain amount.

You can't really do much to specifically target visceral fat. It will change with overall fat levels when you lose/gain weight. If I'm not mistaken, the good news is that visceral fat tends to be the easiest to lose (relative to subcutaneous fat) and responds very well to certain diet modifications like cutting back on sugars/alcohols.

In terms of trending, I would take where you were/are now and monitor things like waist circumference and waist/hip ratio. If you see them steadily decline, then it's very likely that your visceral fat levels are coming down. You can also use the measurements to get a ballpark read of your current state (waist less than 35" for women and waist/hip ratio of less than 0.8 for women mean that you're VF level probably isn't in the alarming territory).

Old_Cat_Lady

If you give up since there is so little information, here are other health markers that may be more important:
fasting insulin level, cholesterol HDL, waist size, blood pressure, bmi.

Need2Exerc1se

HealthyBodySickMind wrote: »

I had a dexa in June. It's the only one I've ever had, so there is no trend just a baseline.

What I am trying to figure out is what is a normal amount, and is it based off of percent or a total amount. I've seen statements that seem to say any visceral fat is bad and statements that say you need a certain amount, but nothing that says how much, and no primary research that says why a certain amount.

Why not ask this question of your PCP?

HealthyBodySickMind

I guess I wasn't very clear. I'm not worried specifically about my visceral fat; it's low.

Most tests come with a "reference range" of what is considered normal. That doesn't seem to be the case for visceral fat despite the fact that it has been studied extensively, apparently no reference range has been established, outside of general recommendations that "lower is better." Further, there are conflicting messages about whether it's beneficial to have any at all, mostly from websites that don't list any kind of citation at all. The closest thing I've found to a reference range is the "visceral fat levels" given by bioimpedance scales.

I found this article that compares BIA visceral fat results with CT, MRI, waist circumference, and DXA visceral fat results: Browning L, M, Mugridge O, Dixon A, K, Aitken S, W, Prentice A, M, Jebb S, A, Measuring Abdominal Adipose Tissue: Comparison of Simpler Methods with MRI. Obes Facts 2011;4:9-15.

I also found this about visceral fat and disease: Pi-Sunyer, F. (2004). The epidemiology of central fat distribution in relation to disease. Nutrition Reviews, 62(7), S120-6.

I just thought I'd put it out to mfp to see what articles on the subject anyone else might have found.

sgt1372

OP: You've probably done more reasearch than anyone else on MFP about VAT - - certainly more than me - - and I think you know there are no additional answers. Only opinions. So, here are mine.

I seriously doubt that anyone can have a zero VAT or that having zero VAT is necessarily a "good" thing.

The body needs a certain amount of "essential" fat to function and I think that a minimal amount of VAT is probably also beneficial to protect your internal organs.

How much is enough? Who knows?

It is said than men need at least 5% and women 10% BF to maintain normal body function and endocrine levels. So, I would focus on your overall BF% rather than VAT as a general measure of health.

VAT, of course, will vary w/BF overall. And, while there are studies linking VAT w/cardio vascular and other diseases, there are studies that link obesity (and BF) generally w/such health concerns as well.

So, it is probably unnecessary to focus on VAT separately from BF generally as a health metric.

Just my 2 cents on the topic.

Maxxitt

"Inquiring minds want to know." I like it, OP

mmapags

Visceral fat at 12% of body weight and below is considered low risk for future health problems and the lower the better. 0 is pretty much impossible. 13% and higher is considered at risk for future health problems and the higher the %, the higher the risk.

I found this out by researching "ideal visceral fat percentage" on google. I recently had body composition testing via multi point Bio-impedance. I came in at 16% so needless to say, I am even more committed to losing body fat and improving health.

Alcohol intake can significantly impact visceral fat if frequent and above very low dose, eg, 2 drinks per day for men, 1 for women. I come from a Mediterranean background and have had 4 to 6 glasses of wine around dinner every night for years. That has stopped! Also, excessive saturated fat can have an impact as well as highly processed foods and transfats.

Losing weight and lower body fat helps reduce visceral fat. High intensity exercise, both weight training and cardio help speed the reduction of visceral fat in addition to overall weight/ body fat reduction.

sgt1372, do you know what you VF % was at the start of your recomp?

sgt1372

mmapags wrote: »

Visceral fat at 12% of body weight and below is considered low risk for future health problems and the lower the better. 0 is pretty much impossible. 13% and higher is considered at risk for future health problems and the higher the %, the higher the risk.

Don't know where this info comes from but these VAT levels seem extraordinarily high to me. Seems to me that these %'s make more sense in terns of BF% than VAT.

For example, are you saying someone weighing 160# would be considered "healthy" w/VAT of 19.2# (12%) or less?

That' s crazy!!!

With THAT much VAT, you'd have a HUGE beer belly and your overall BF would easily be 4-5x's more than that.

On the other hand, a total BF of 19.2# (or 12%) or less certainly would be healthy.

mmapags wrote: »

sgt1372, do you know what you VF % was at the start of your recomp?

I started my weight loss effort in May 2016 @ 196#.

My 1st DXA was done in Sep 2016 and roughly every 3 months thereafter.

My recomp began in Dec 2016 but did not stabilize at or below my target weight of 160 until Feb 2017.

Between Feb 2017 and Aug 2017 my VAT dropped from 0.38# to.0.30# and 11.1 cu in to 8.7 cu in corresponding to a minor variation in weight bet 159.5# and 160.4# and a BF% of 14 to 13.3%.

There was a direct correlation bet the drop in VAT and BF% overall but a minor inverse relationship w/BW during this time period.

sgt1372

Dup post deleted.

mmapags

sgt1372 wrote: »

mmapags wrote: »

Visceral fat at 12% of body weight and below is considered low risk for future health problems and the lower the better. 0 is pretty much impossible. 13% and higher is considered at risk for future health problems and the higher the %, the higher the risk.

Don't know where this info comes from but these VAT levels seem extraordinarily high to me. Seems to me that these %'s make more sense in terns of BF% than VAT.

For example, are you saying someone weighing 160# would be considered "healthy" w/VAT of 19.2# (12%) or less?

That' s crazy!!!

With THAT much VAT, you'd have a HUGE beer belly and your overall BF would easily be 4-5x's more than that.

On the other hand, a total BF of 19.2# (or 12%) or less certainly would be healthy.

mmapags wrote: »

sgt1372, do you know what you VF % was at the start of your recomp?

I started my weight loss effort in May 2016 @ 196#.

My 1st DXA was done in Sep 2016 and roughly every 3 months thereafter.

My recomp began at 160# in Dec 2016.

Don't have DXA scans for beginning on that date but bet

My specific numbers are 28.2% BF or 55.54 lbs. Visceral Fat 16% or 31.53 lbs. Your overall body fat doesn't have to be a large multiplier of VF. It's not in my case. Interestingly, I visually look like my BF is round 20 or 21% because I don't have a lot of subcutaneous fat, relatively speaking. My doctor has observed that I seem to carry weight very well. Well yeah, because it's mostly within the perimeter of my body core, inside the ribcage and around the organs and not hanging off my belly and love handles.

As far as your example of someone that is 160 lbs being healthy at 12% or 19.2# or less, that would depend on a lot of factors including overall BF. It doesn't follow, as my case demonstrates, that overall BF would always be a high multiple of VF. But, yes, they would be at a lower overall risk of future health problems.

ETA: Total weight on the day of the scan was 197, so very close to your starting weight.

sgt1372

@mmapags: if you've ever had a DXA scan done, you'd know that you carry BF all over your body. DXA gives separate BF measurements for the arms, legs, truck, android and gynoid to arrive at a total BF measurenent and VAT is a very small perecentage of BF overall.

So, I seriously doubt that you can carry as much as 12% of your BF as VAT w/o also carrying a substantial amount of fat elsewhere in your body.

In my case, the ratio bet my total BF and VAT varied between a high of 71.3 (at 160#, 13.4%/21.4# BF & 0.30# VAT) and a low of 24.74 (at 172#, 20.3%/34.9# BF and 1.4# VAT).

So, rather than a ratio of just 4-5x's, in my experience, one couldd see a ratio as high as 25 to 70x's or more between BF and VAT, which means that VAT represents a very small % of BF overall.

mmapags

sgt1372 wrote: »

@mmapags: if you've ever had a DXA scan done, you'd know that you carry BF all over your body. DXA gives separate BF measurements for the arms, legs, truck, android and gynoid to arrive at a total BF measurenent and VAT is a very small perecentage of BF overall.

So, I seriously doubt that you can carry as much as 12% of your BF as VAT w/o also carrying a substantial amount of fat elsewhere in your body.

In my case, the ratio bet my total BF and VAT varied between a high of 71.3 (at 160#, 13.4%/21.4# BF & 0.30# VAT) and a low of 24.74 (at 172#, 20.3%/34.9# BF and 1.4# VAT).

So, rather than a ratio of just 4-5x's, in my experience, one couldd see a ratio as high as 25 to 70x's or more between BF and VAT, which means that VAT represents a very small % of BF overall.

Yes, I get that you can carry fat all over. My legs are lean, my arms are lean, my upper trunk is lean and my lower trunk carries a little subcutaneous fat. If you were to look at my, you would never guess my BF at 28.2%. I do look thick through the middle though and that is one of the indicators of higher VF, a hip to waist ratio of 1:1 or higher. I am at 1:1.

I get that you doubt it but in my case, 56.8% of my total BF is VF. I have had a bodpod but not a dexa. The bodpod results were similar.
ETA: The scan also gave me a breakdown of fat and muscle in my arms, legs and trunk as well as body water and bone mass. The BI technology has come a long way over the last few years. There is still a margin of error and I don't take the number from any scan method as absolute for an individual but only a "ballpark".

HealthyBodySickMind

Mmapags, I think that's the unitless scale that bioelectrical scales give, not a percentage, at least if that number came off of a scale. On my Omron, I'm a 3, and I think you're good below 10. But that doesn't correlate to actual numbers. The dexa scan put me at 0.21 lbs of visceral fat, which is something like 0.2% of my body weight, or 0.7% of my body fat.

mmapags

HealthyBodySickMind wrote: »

Mmapags, I think that's the unitless scale that bioelectrical scales give, not a percentage, at least if that number came off of a scale. On my Omron, I'm a 3, and I think you're good below 10. But that doesn't correlate to actual numbers. The dexa scan put me at 0.21 lbs of visceral fat, which is something like 0.2% of my body weight, or 0.7% of my body fat.

If wasn't off a scale but a BI body comp analyzer. I will verify the numbers tomorrow to make sure the 16% is of total body weight as I believe and not of total BF.

HealthyBodySickMind

Ok, thanks for your reply. Let me know what they say tomorrow.

mmapags

HealthyBodySickMind wrote: »

Ok, thanks for your reply. Let me know what they say tomorrow.

Will do. If I've misunderstood, it wouldn't be the first time.
With the questions you and sgt1372 have raised, now I'm not sure.

mmapags

So, as a couple of you suspected, I had my info wrong. The numbers of 12 as the mid point is not a percent but just a rating on a scale. Above that predicts health risk that is higher, below that lower. The technology that was used that is made by Tanita does not identify a precise amount in terms of weight or cu. inches. And it is technically a scale. My apologies for the misinformation and confusion. Thanks for challenging it and causing me to question it and get it right!

HealthyBodySickMind

mmapags, glad you figured that out. That's kinda what I thought it was, but then I was just inferring from your description.

HealthyBodySickMind

After lots of looking I kind of found an answer to my original question. I thought I'd post what I found just in case anyone else was curious.

Bodyscan did a composite of their data, updated last about a year ago: http://www.bodyscanuk.com/bodyscan-data.html




So while I can't be sure of their n, the red line is "average" visceral fat area of the women they've scanned, 39.0 cm2. and the blue line is 100 cm2, above which health risks increase. That was backed up by this article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.20961/pdf

From my DXA scan, I came in at 0.21 lbs of visceral fat, which is 20.1 cm2 for an area, or below average and below risk level. Like I said above, I wasn't specifically worried about the amount of visceral fat I was carrying, I just wanted a reference range, so the above graph from Bodyscan is about as close as I could find. There is also data for men if you follow the link above.

HealthyBodySickMind

Oh, and also from from this article, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.20961/pdf, n = 324, average visceral fat in lbs for 324 women was 1.32 lbs with a standard deviation of the same so the range (figuring 1 standard deviation) would be 0 - 2.64 lbs.