Many Studies Show Ideal BMI For Older People Is Fat Fat Fat

[ecstatichamster]

BTW, I have being gaining weight recently, I stopped caring so much about not getting "fat", and as soon as I boosted calories my strength started going up significantly as well as my muscle size. Females say I look more attractive, have more butt, etc

Great. Interesting

 

[Homo Consumericus]

Why dont I see many fat 80+ year olds?

Toothless, poor digestion from nutrient deficiencies, suppressed appetite from drug cocktail, diseased, forgetful, depressed, neglected.

 

[Tarmander]

problem using BMI is it doesn't account for muscles versus fat.

There are really unhealthy people in the high 20s of BMI because they have very little muscle.

 

[tara]

Why dont I see many fat 80+ year olds?

There are some. But it's normal to gradually lose fat and weight in old age, so those who had larger fat at 60 are likely to have less at 80+. Some of them used that resource/reserve to get them through tough health challenges.

 

[Herbie]

problem using BMI is it doesn't account for muscles versus fat.

There are really unhealthy people in the high 20s of BMI because they have very little muscle.

Yes very unhealthy if you go by the muscle mass of the average doctor.

BMI in the high twenties of average blue collar worker maybe healthier.

 

[MetabolicTrash]

I don't quite understand the need for so much stored fat for health reasons though, old or not.

Couldn't someone thinner and ill just eat more (maybe easier said than done, but yeah) and get the extra energy when needed? Doesn't sound like the most optimal thing to expect everyone to carry around poundage of a certain amount of fat for more energy when more good foods eaten as needed (with possibly appetite enhancement as needed too) can make up for insufficient energy in the form of calories should more be needed in certain cases/times.

Having more fat on the body may be most effective for cold climates and such from one point of view, but that extra weight normally slows you down and has other negative implications and downsides increased (likelihood).

What is it about so much extra fat that would be so effective that couldn't be made up for in some other ways like eating more, or other inverventions? I know Peat himself even references those studies on age and health/fat/outcomes, but he himself isn't "overweight" really despite being 83 as of today and in okay health from what I know of.

So while I'm not saying the fat can't be protective, is there not another way to get the same "protection" without the extra fat? It must not be a hard requirement since there are healthy 80+ people who are thin or at least not overweight/chubby.

 

[InChristAlone]

I really believe this. When I lost almost 10% of my bodyweight within a yr and a half when I was already thin I began having so many signs of illness. Mostly from the overactive HPA axis from chronic stress. And as I've gained weight I got better and better. I am probably around a BMI of 24 now and feel like I can live a long life. The sense of doom I felt when I was so thin was likely because if I didn't recover my weight I had a high chance of mortality.

 

[Ron J]

@ScurveDream
I think by keeping/building muscle mass and bone density as you age. It's easier to pack on adipose tissue and get some muscle mass and bone density from the added weight, but that's unlikely to be better than being lean with extra muscle. There's also a thread about the skeleton's role in carbohydrate/energy metabolism.

 

[Runenight201]

I think an incorrect association can be drawn between a higher BMI being protective and a higher body fat percentage as being healthy.

BMI is not solely determined by fat mass, but also bone mass, muscle mass, tissue mass, water, etc.... I think the bigger carrier of good health in the linked study would be the fact the subjects had good muscle mass and bone density, and not that they had high amounts of fat.

Extra fat is retarding and unnecessary. Since we are at our roots primates, albeit the most complex ones in our known existence, we have a musculoskeletal system that is designed to move us intricately throughout space. The more efficient the system, the better the movement, and unnecessary fat slows us down.

Granted, I care about athleticism and movement (although never at the expense of health), while many here could care less and solely want to be healthy. Even in this regard, there is nothing positive about visceral fat. That type of fat surrounding your internal organs, causing the protruding belly, epidemiologically raising risk of cardiac events, metabolic syndrome, stroke, etc.... From mechanistic standpoint, it serves to release inflammatory molecules. Now subcutaneous fat? Sure, no real harm. That arm fat, leg fat, shoulder fat, it’s innocuous, but we shouldn’t delude ourselves if we have a big ole waist and tell ourselves it’s all harmless subcutaneous fat. I go by the height to waist measurement. If the waist is over half the height, there’s some slimming down that needs to be done in order to remove visceral fat. This removal of visceral fat should NOT be unhealthy, but rather promote the health of the individual, and can only be done in the context of a nourishing and calorically sufficient diet.

I’ve noticed that the less stomach and chest fat I have, the better I feel, mentally, emotionally, energetically, and athletically. The less bogged down my stomach is, the more capable I am as a human being.

 

[Markus]

Probably because people tend to overeat nowadays to make up for nutrient depleted food. There might also be other factors at play but since traditional cultures don't show this trend, I think it is mainly diet related.

 

[Adrenaline]

You guys have mental problem. Stop encouraging people to obesity and being fat.

You are contradicting with yourself and Ray Peat. More fat means more estrogen and PUFA storage.

Ray also never said being fat and/or obesity are good. I wonder when will these bs end?

 

[LLight]

I wonder when will these bs end?

When people will understand that epidemiology cannot be used to show what is implied in this thread. Maybe not today then.

 

[Adrenaline]

When people will understand that epidemiology cannot be used to show what is implied in this thread. Maybe not today then.

Why do the Ray Peat forums attract the nuttiest people? : raypeat

 

[boris]

You guys have mental problem. Stop encouraging people to obesity and being fat.

You are contradicting with yourself and Ray Peat. More fat means more estrogen and PUFA storage.

Ray also never said being fat and/or obesity are good. I wonder when will these bs end?

No one said that. The study talks about a BMI of 25-30 and ray says about 30% body fat is good. Morbid obesity is a in a totally different ballgame.

BMI is a flawed concept anyways and by official standards BMI 26 is already considered overweight.

I for one was 10kg away from being anorexic my whole life. And now having a little noticable fat around my "gut area" makes me feel so much better day to day.

 

[Adrenaline]

No one said that. The study talks about a BMI of 25-30 and ray says about 30% body fat is good. Morbid obesity is a in a totally different ballgame.

BMI is a flawed concept anyways and by official standards BMI 26 is already considered overweight.

There were lot of in the past. Saying that being fat/obesity are good. Lower mortality. This contributes too.

 

[boris]

Yeah, the title of the thread can be confusing.... I think it's all up to the individual to not take it out of context and carefully consider the information for themselves. Many don't do that and jump right into anything they hear. I am guilty of that too.

 

[ecstatichamster]

There is nothing ambiguous about this and many other studies. It's healthier being a bit fat. Nobody wants to acknowledge it because it goes against our norms. But it's true.

 

[Homo Consumericus]

Gabor Erdosi believes
- Subcutaneous fat is generally safe or neutral with respect to insulin resistance; visceral fat is correlated with metabolic disease; ectopic fat is definitely harmful.
- This means fat storage on thighs and stomach is preferable to storage in heart, liver, and pancreas.
- Still, even subcutaneous depositions beyond a certain threshold (unknown) has drawbacks such as compromised joints and reduced cardiac output.
- Hyperplasia (adding new fat cells) is the body's way of preventing insulin resistance and can be considered metabolically benign obesity (if you are a unique bastard with no maximum capacity and can add cells potentially indefinitely, i.e. Jabba the Hutt), whereas hypertrophy (size increase of existing fat cells) guarantees insulin resistance once a certain size is exceeded.
- Once insulin resistant, a series of reactions occur, culminating in negative health outcomes.



TLDR
Typically, deeper storage = worse. Fat hierarchy: thighs (protective) > belly (neutral) > visceral (harmful) > ectopic (rest in peace).

 

[Blossom]

Gabor Erdosi believes
- Subcutaneous fat is generally safe or neutral with respect to insulin resistance; visceral fat is correlated with metabolic disease; ectopic fat is definitely harmful.
- This means fat storage on thighs and stomach is preferable to storage in heart, liver, and pancreas.
- Still, even subcutaneous depositions beyond a certain threshold (unknown) has drawbacks such as compromised joints and reduced cardiac output.
- Hyperplasia (adding new fat cells) is the body's way of preventing insulin resistance and can be considered metabolically benign obesity (if you are a unique bastard with no maximum capacity and can add cells potentially indefinitely, i.e. Jabba the Hutt), whereas hypertrophy (size increase of existing fat cells) guarantees insulin resistance once a certain size is exceeded.
- Once insulin resistant, a series of reactions occur, culminating in negative health outcomes.



TLDR
Typically, deeper storage = worse. Fat hierarchy: thighs (protective) > belly (neutral) > visceral (harmful) > ectopic (rest in peace).

Thank you, I really enjoyed the video.

 

[InChristAlone]

Yeah most of the fat I accumulated seems superficial, ya know the kind you can grab, like the love handles. Whereas my husband's blood work has gotten worse over the years and he seems to have accumulated visceral fat. He is lifting heavy in the gym, I am wondering if growing more muscle mass will help with visceral fat? He hasn't lost even pound despite making huge gains, nor inches lost around the belly.