I agree, trump says stuff off the wall--but I usually agree with his actions.
Can you imagine Biden just talking off the cuff for even 10 minutes?
Pelosi vows to swiftly challenge trumps decision to freeze funding for WHO....damn, I am shocked-NOT!!!
the U.S contributes 400-500 million per year...china contributes about 40 million.
You know, honestly, I just wish she would stop focusing on how to go against trump and start coming up with SOMETHING (anything) that may actually be a benefit to this country and our citizens.
when you say (correctly) that bmi doesn’t differentiate between muscle and fat do you subsequently mean that statistically you have an increased risk factor of disease because of the link between bmi and disease?
as far as I know the correlation is due to the very small percentage of people who have a bmi above 30 due to lean mass. The vast majority it’s due to fat. I don’t believe it’s the bmi that’s the indicator of risk per se, more so that the higher fat levels is causing the problem. However, you can’t state that a fat percentage of xxx is a risk factor to the general population as they can’t calculate it. Bmi they can.
its the same (in reverse) as the true statements about vegans living longer, having better health etc, it’s not the vegan diet that is inherently healthier than a clean, non processed non vegan diet, it’s that vegans are generally more health conscious overall.
with bmi, it’s the case that those with a bmi over 30 are normally just fat rather than heavy because of lean mass. They likely don’t exercise or eat well and therefore have more risk of disease.....
never seen anything to suggest any risk factor from having a higher proportion of lean mass?
So, we are pretty much in agreement - and I have to form an educated opinion because I have not seen evidence to support some of the hypotheses you are making (and I have pondered). I am not saying they are factually wrong - they could be true - just that I am unaware of supporting evidence.
What I do know is that we have piles and piles of data showing that a BMI over 25 increases your risk for disease. Over 30, it goes up more. And as it goes up, disease generally tends to escalate. We have large populations that this data has been pulled from and it is generally accepted to hold true. Because of the size of the populations involved - I have to believe that muscle does not make an awful lot of difference for a few reasons.
The biggest reasons is that (IMO) we have enough data that we don't really need to differentiate between muscle and fat. Presumably, given the numbers, if these healthy people over a BMI of 30 are out there - they're already factored into the numbers because we have a large population. Sure there will be outliers. There will be people over 50% bodyfat for the majority of their lives that still have reasonable blood pressure and have no apparent health issues. So, many people think, "Well, I'm metabolically healthy - I'm fat, but I'm healthy". There will also be people who hit 27 and their blood pressure goes through the roof.
Now you can say, but muscle is healthier than fat - sure. Fat has some health benefits too. It used to be that we thought fat was just energy storage, but now we know it's much more complicated and has endocrine functions, plays a role in immunity, etc. I still believe muscle is better than fat - sure - not going to argue that; but everything has its limits.
To your point about the population of people over a BMI of 30 and still lean - this population is exceedingly small. And it is even smaller if you eliminate people who used drugs to get there. There are VERY few people who will naturally be 5'8'' and more than 180# at under 15%. Why do I think this? Because before the 1960's or so - people with those stats were competing in bodybuilding competitions and generally regarded as having extraordinary physiques. John Grimmek is billed at 5'8'' and 160 lb. Even in the beginning when steroids took off, people like Larry Scott were at this 5'7'' and 208 and he wasn't using stuff like we use today.
So, I'm putting a lot on stats here - but we don't need to differentiate between muscle and fat. There is an immensely small number of people in our population that these numbers don't apply to. And maybe muscle is a lot better than fat, but if you're carrying that much muscle - you're either a freak member of that small population or you've used drugs which - while healthier than most people think - still probably have some consequences that increase your risk as well.
Now if you can find a study with a couple thousand people who have BMI's over 30 and bodyfat below 20% or 15% and compares that to a control - that would obviously prove me wrong or at least create some doubt. But I believe (and could be wrong) this doesn't exist and this remains theory while the stats are pretty well established saying that ANYONE over 25 is overweight and anyone over 30 is obese and the risk factors are defined.
Of course, I acknowledge this is one factor and there are many ingredients in a cake. But it is a big factor. I'm not trying to draw a line in the sand so much as trying to shine a light on what the numbers actually come from.
Yeah, I’m between 17-18% right now. Had bodpod test done when I was 21% at 221 and if my math is right, puts me around there. And actually weighed 215 today after last night’s massive cheat meal
Same here. People look at me like I’m crazy when I talk about vitamin C megadosing.
The BMI and muscle to fat ratio not mattering in risk factors is kind of discouraging. I also don’t want to cut too hard right now because that’s not optimal for health either (meaning the process, not the end result). So, when this virus peaks in my area, I’ll still be at a pretty high BMI
I'm not trying to draw a line in the sand here - it is a factor. I think BMI matters more than people think when it comes to "Oh, I have a lot of muscle". Maybe the stats are wrong - I would just be careful and aware of it, and not walk around like you're "A healthy young person who is immune to the disease." - which you are not it sounds like. So I think it's fine. Plus, what I am saying is probably going to be pretty controversial on a site like this
No one is going to see eye to eye with me here I'm sure.
And I'm not saying that BMI matters more than bodyfat. It's just that VERY few people will fall outside the established rules. If you're at 17% at 215 - that's a healthy level of fat and you're probably in pretty darned good shape. Better than 99% of the population I'd say. If you're a lifetime natural - you're an outlier. That is an impressive physique period.
As far as the Vitamin C, I think I've literally heard people's eyes roll when I've been talking to them on the phone. haha.
I'm not doubting that having a substantial amount of mass beyond "normal" may have some negative impacts on health, regardless of if it's muscle or fat, but I have my doubts that there is no distinction in the magnitude of negative impacts of having, say, 20 extra pounds of fat relative to 20 extra pounds of muscle. But maybe you're not claiming that there's no difference in the MAGNITUDE of negative effects, only that any excessive mass carries SOME LEVEL of negative health consequences? I'd have to look it up more, but it seems logical enough that there can be different levels of "bad."
As for Shiva, I only bring it up because the video clearly tried to play him up as an authority by saying "Doctor" AND "PhD." But did they mention that none of his degrees are related to infectious diseases, and he's not a medical doctor? That doesn't mean he's not a very smart dude, of course, but I'm just sick of the media and/or companies acting as if having a PhD in ANY subject makes one an expert/authority on EVERY subject. Have a nootropic formulated by a podiatrist? "PhD formulated!" A PhD in economics talking about the spread of a disease? Man, they're only arguably an expert on the economic impact of said disease, not the actual spread of the disease. That sort of thing. Plus, when you add in his history of controversial/incorrect things, and his lawsuits and legal battles, well, he's hardly the "authority" I'd want to listen to first and foremost. Now, that doesn't mean dismiss everything he says, as valid points are valid REGARDLESS of who says them, not because of it, but they clearly tried to prop him up as an expert/authority, but didn't give the full picture of who he is and what he's done in the past.
Just my $0.02.
Yeah - not saying there is no magnitude differences. Just that people have a skewed sense of it all. The health consequences of someone carrying an extra 20 pounds of fat aren't going to be horrendous for most people either - and 20 pounds of muscle probably less so but probably also to a small degree. They are statistically there - but some people will be really effected, some not at all and most will fall in between.
Carrying 40-50 pounds of fat really starts to change things. I would wager that carrying 40-50 pounds of muscle beyond the point at which your BMI is 25 probably also has some consequences. Probably not the exact same as if it was all fat, but it's probably not as free as everyone would like to believe. Not that many people could do that naturally anyway.
