Visceral fat and size vs weight

jelleigh
jelleigh Posts: 743 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I have a purely curiosity type question.

Would visceral fat account for the difference in weight although at the same size?

For example: years ago I was a size 14/16 at 153 lbs. I lost weight (down to size 4/6 127#). Then over time I gained.
I'm now like 185-200 lbs and am still a size 14/16. This isn't just a sizing changing over time thing either.

Now I know people will say oh muscle is denser etc etc , but I can guarantee I've not just packed on a bunch of muscle :D

So since visceral fat builds up around interior organs with obesity, and can often not even be visible from the outside, could that account for being a much higher weight but same size?

Replies

  • age_is_just_a_number
    age_is_just_a_number Posts: 631 Member
    I don’t have an answer to your question, but does it really matter? I find clothing sizes are not consistent.
    What really matters is how you feel. So, How do you feel?
    There are so many different measures of what healthy is. Some of the measures I use are:
    1) how rested do I feel and how well am I sleeping.
    2) how much anxiety do I have
    3) weights and measures — I weigh myself pretty near every morning and on a monthly basis track body measurements, weight and calculate body fat percentage.
    4) how far / long can I walk or hike
    5) how many times do I have to pause my workout video
    6) are my dumbbell weights increasing week to week.
    7) how clear is my skin
    Etc
    Etc

    I encourage you to think about what matters to you.
  • penguinmama87
    penguinmama87 Posts: 1,155 Member
    jelleigh wrote: »
    I have a purely curiosity type question.

    Would visceral fat account for the difference in weight although at the same size?

    For example: years ago I was a size 14/16 at 153 lbs. I lost weight (down to size 4/6 127#). Then over time I gained.
    I'm now like 185-200 lbs and am still a size 14/16. This isn't just a sizing changing over time thing either.

    Now I know people will say oh muscle is denser etc etc , but I can guarantee I've not just packed on a bunch of muscle :D

    So since visceral fat builds up around interior organs with obesity, and can often not even be visible from the outside, could that account for being a much higher weight but same size?

    I think this can be one of the things that accounts for difference in weight, but I also think other things like bone density or framing, lean muscle mass, and clothing changes would matter more. You say it's not the same thing as sizes changing over time, but I wonder: if these are the same clothes, they could shrink or have stretched or some of both, you might not remember how they fit you when you first got them, if you're wearing the same brand styles or their guidelines may have changed or they might use new factories, just to name a few things.

    If you're just comparing yourself, I would suggest it's probably a variety of things but visceral fat could be part of it. Do you measure yourself? That would be an interesting experiment that is less prone to errors of perception.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,177 Member
    In addition to the above thoughts, is it all types of clothing?

    If you're talking just one garment type, one you've had from all those years back, then maybe you regained weight with a different distribution of fat than when you were last at the same weight, or something like that.

    Over enough years, if not the same garment, vanity sizing *will* make a difference. Last time I was this weight (125ish), I got down to a size 10 in pants. Now, I'm down to a size 4 in a similar style of pants. (I don't think that was even a common thing, for size 4 to be available then in the US misses sizes range: 8 was about the smallest commonly seen.) However, if I try on my wedding skirt, which I actually wore then, very same garment, it's a little snugger on my body than it was on my wedding day . . . not much, but a little.
  • jelleigh
    jelleigh Posts: 743 Member
    Thanks for the responses.

    So in answer, no it doesn't really matter at all - I'm not concerned or worried and the answer doesn't affect how I proceed with my health. Its truly just that I was mulling over this difference and was curious about how visceral fat works.

    Totally get that vanity sizing is a thing and that sizes vary greatly between stores. I've also noticed that I carry my weight differently over the years. So again; is not a concerning issue. I was more just wondering if visceral fat could be a contributing factor in sizing issues. Like how some people will say they can't understand why they have lost weight and not inches. Most often that's water weight I know, but what if people are losing fat around their internal organs and just can't really see that yet? That's the kind of info I would want to have if I was in that scenario. Also, since visceral fat is considered to be a major contributor to disease factors, and that many people are interested in losing weight specifically for their health, I thought it might be interesting to know if it's more common to lose visceral fat first/last, or if it comes off evenly along with the rest of body fat. I suppose if someone was getting regular dexa type scans they could see over time ?
    Anyhow; like I said- just a curiosity question and was hoping someone knew a bit on how it all worked. ;)
  • sgt1372
    sgt1372 Posts: 3,997 Member
    edited April 2021
    Fat distribution w/in the body varies widely perSon to person but my guess is that the more fat that you carry overall the greater your VAT will be (and vice versa).

    At least this was my experience.

    I use to have my BF% measured w/DEXA frequently and, as my BF% varied, so did my VAT. My weight & body measurements also varied little during this time period.

    I have been maintaining by wt between 150-160# over the past 5 yrs, which includes the period of DEXA testing mentioned above, and the size of my clothing has not varied at all.

Categories