 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Cardiology / September 2004Are muscular men more at risk than scrawny men?
It is said, by some, that using BMI (Body Mass Index) as a risk factor for heart disease is invalid with respect to muscular men because BMI only takes into account total body weight and height, not the percent bodyfat. So, for example, a gymnast might have a high BMI because he is heavily muscled, and be classified as obese, even though he is not really at risk. And then I see Dr. Chung talking about "ideal" weight, without making any distinctions about body type. My question is whether there is any research that shows whether being heavily muscled, but with low bodyfat, still puts a man more at risk than someone who is scrawny, assuming both get lots of exercise. Is there any indication that being muscular is indeed as risky as being fat, and that BMI is therefore valid for all body types? I ask this because I have a number of risk factors (age, sex, family history, smoking when younger, and hypertension), but at 5'10" and 172, didn't really consider myself to be overweight because, well, I have a flat belly (33" waist, 42" chest), no love handles, and only one chin. And when last measured, my bodyfat was 12%. But I'm sure I'm well above Dr. Chung's ideal wieght for my height, and I'm just beginning to wonder about it all. What I'm really asking is whether there have been any studies that specifically address this issue. I've been unable to find any. > It is said, by some, that using BMI (Body Mass Index) as a risk > factor for heart disease is invalid with respect to muscular men [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > What I'm really asking is whether there have been any studies that > specifically address this issue. I've been unable to find any. Let me know when you want the answers. Meanwhile, you will be in my prayers, dear neighbor whom I love. Please consider the following to save yourself: http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129 Servant to the humblest person in the universe, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ ** Who is the humblest person in the universe? http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048 What is all this about? http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48 Is this spam? http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867 > Let me know when you want the answers. Wow! You certainly know how to torque people off. I'm not one quick to take offense - am usually quite tolerant and give folks the benefit of several doubts... Your posts are frequently off-putting and certainly does not fit the characteristics of those with whom I enjoy to spend my time. If you don't have an answer but just have to post something, just say, "I don't know, but I'll see what I can find out for you." I love you Andrew. > > Let me know when you want the answers. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > does not fit the characteristics of those with whom I enjoy to spend my > time. Sorry you do not enjoy reading what I write. > If you don't have an answer but just have to post something, just say, > "I don't know, but I'll see what I can find out for you." I will do that when I do not have an answer. > I love you Andrew. As I you, dear Owen. You remain in my prayers. Servant to the humblest person in the universe, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ ** Who is the humblest person in the universe? http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048 What is all this about? http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48 Is this spam? http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867 > Wow! You certainly know how to torque people off. I'm not one quick to > take offense - am usually quite tolerant and give folks the benefit of > several doubts... Your posts are frequently off-putting and certainly > does not fit the characteristics of those with whom I enjoy to spend my > time. Yes, you enjoy windbagged responses form CARDIOLOGY TROLLS like Bob the onewhatever so your preferences are documented. > If you don't have an answer but just have to post something, just say, > "I don't know, but I'll see what I can find out for you." I don't respond at all. > I love you Andrew. You certainly know how to torque people off. I'm not one quick to take offense - am usually quite tolerant and give folks the benefit of several doubts... This ending remark is frequently and purposefully (hypocritically) off-putting and certainly does not fit the characteristics of those with whom I enjoy to spend my time. Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD says... > Let me know when you want the answers. > Meanwhile, you will be in my prayers, dear neighbor whom > I love. I don't know what I said to warrant that response. But I'll just let you explain it to God in your prayers, if you can. Perhaps someone else will have something more constructive to say. > Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD says... > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Perhaps someone else will have something more constructive > to say. Chung is a fundamentalist wacko who believes he has a direct line to God and that anything he says is true because it's him saying it. He believes that he can say and do anything to anyone because his sins are already forgiven in advance and he has a "get out of hell free" card. He often posts cryptic and deliberately provocative nonsense merely to irritate people. He's a proven liar, fraud, quack, charlatan and otherwise fixated, compulsive, obsessed, and disturbed person. Hyperreligious because, he says, he had a near-death experience and the oxygen-deprivation-induced hallucinations were a summons to him to become an arrogant, self-absorbed, proselytizing fool. I looked for study or paper information about your original question and couldn't find anything. Bob >Subject: Re: Are muscular men more at risk than scrawny men? >From: "Bob (this one)" Bob@nospam.com >Date: 9/16/2004 4:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <10kk7k49t27au71@corp.supernews.com> >Chung is a fundamentalist wacko who believes he has a direct line to >God and that anything he says is true because it's him saying it. He >believes that he can say and do anything to anyone because his sins >are already forgiven in advance and he >has a "get out of hell free" card. > >He often posts cryptic and deliberately provocative nonsense merely to >irritate people. He's a proven liar, fraud, quack, charlatan and >otherwise fixated, compulsive, obsessed, and disturbed person. >Hyperreligious because, he says, he >had a near-death experience and >the oxygen-deprivation-induced hallucinations were a summons to him to >become an arrogant, self-absorbed, proselytizing fool. also interesting that he has NO admitting privileges in any hospital in his city.. personally I avoid docs that fit that profile... one has to ask "why" doesn't he have admitting privileges? and what does he do with a patient with unstable angina..who needs medical management in a hospital setting? oh yeah...he prays hawki..... >> Subject: Re: Are muscular men more at risk than scrawny men? >> From: "Bob (this one)" Bob@nospam.com Date: 9/16/2004 4:15 PM [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > oh yeah...he prays He said he did have admitting privileges in three hospitals on the AMA web site. When someone (I forgot who) called the hospital and asked if it were so, they said no and that person posted it here. Shortly thereafter, the AMA site no longer had him claiming to have privileges. Several people said they were going to complain, IIRC. Tempest in a teapot, on the one hand, but very instructive about a guy who spends so many posts talking about his truth. When asked directly, he was evasive and said his normal cryptic manure like when he doesn't want to tell the truth. Bob > >Subject: Re: Are muscular men more at risk than scrawny men? > >From: "Bob (this one)" Bob@nospam.com [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > hawki..... It's also interesting that he has so much free time on his hands that he can post his incessant nonsense all day long. His "practice" must be pretty slow.... GG > It's also interesting that he has so much free time on his hands that he can > post his incessant nonsense all day long. His "practice" must be pretty > slow.... As usual, you are incorrect. Chung's practice, which is for all practical purposes 7/24/365 INCLUDES posting advice freely to SMC. If anything, the money he has lost by not being able to take on an additional patient load due to his activities here is testament in and of itself. But then, you don't want to hear that part now do you, Gary? > > It's also interesting that he has so much free time on his hands that he can > > post his incessant nonsense all day long. His "practice" must be pretty [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > money he has lost by not being able to take on an additional patient load > due to his activities here is testament in and of itself. You appear to be ignorant of the definition of "practice", which in this context is: "The business of a practicing physician or group of physicians, including facilities and customary patients." Although the Chungmeister does spend a lot of time posting and cross-posting, this activity would more accurately be defined as an "avocation" or an "obsession" than a "practice", because his postings do not involve a doctor-patient relationship in any sense, and they do not take place in a medical office setting. The fact that Chung can post so many messages during normal working hours indicates that his "practice" must be very slow indeed. Most medical professionals of my acquaintance are far too busy to even think about going online during the business day, much less post the staggering volume of inanities that Chungie seems to crank out. GG >> As usual, you are incorrect. Chung's practice, which is for all practical >> purposes 7/24/365 INCLUDES posting advice freely to SMC. If anything, the >> money he has lost by not being able to take on an additional patient load >> due to his activities here is testament in and of itself. > You appear to be ignorant of the definition of "practice", which in this > context is: > > "The business of a practicing physician or group of physicians, including > facilities and customary patients." You appear unable to read when I directly commented that posting to SMC IS part of Chung's practice by his own admission. But then you don't know Chung from Chang and I do. > The fact that Chung can post so many messages during normal working hours > indicates that his "practice" must be very slow indeed. And again you would be wrong. But then you don't know Chung from Chang and I do. > Most medical > professionals of my acquaintance are far too busy to even think about going > online during the business day, much less post the staggering volume of > inanities that Chungie seems to crank out. So what? Means nothing except, as I point out thrice for you, you are wrong.....again. But then you don't know Chung from Chang and I do. >>>As usual, you are incorrect. Chung's practice, which is for all practical >>>purposes 7/24/365 INCLUDES posting advice freely to SMC. If anything, the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > You appear unable to read when I directly commented that posting to SMC IS > part of Chung's practice by his own admission. Um, aren't you the one who says he never posts for anyone else? Idiot. > But then you don't know Chung from Chang and I do. Parallel to "sh.t from Shinola" construction. Cliché and uninformative. But what's new...? >>The fact that Chung can post so many messages during normal working hours >>indicates that his "practice" must be very slow indeed. > > And again you would be wrong. > > But then you don't know Chung from Chang and I do. <LOL> More wit and wisdom from the witless and unwise MU_ffin. >>Most medical >>professionals of my acquaintance are far too busy to even think about going [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So what? Means nothing except, as I point out thrice for you, you are > wrong.....again. <LOL> "You're wrong *because* I say so." Laughable fool... > But then you don't know Chung from Chang and I do. Could you be more hilariously ridiculous...? Rhetorical question. Bob > >> As usual, you are incorrect. Chung's practice, which is for all practical > >> purposes 7/24/365 INCLUDES posting advice freely to SMC. If anything, the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You appear unable to read when I directly commented that posting to SMC IS > part of Chung's practice by his own admission. So, are you saying the Chung is "practicing medicine" here in smc with his posts? Doesn't that have some rather significant professional and legal implications? What about doctor-patient confidentiality? What about seeing the "patients", ordering tests, taking their vitals, etc.? No, MUster...you are wrong. Chung's posts here can be characterized as many things...but, they are most certainly not part of his "practice". GG > But then you don't know Chung from Chang and I do. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > But then you don't know Chung from Chang and I do. >> You appear unable to read when I directly commented that posting to SMC IS >> part of Chung's practice by his own admission. > So, are you saying the Chung is "practicing medicine" here in smc with his > posts? Certainly. Legally, probably not. Effectively, you bet. >Doesn't that have some rather significant professional and legal > implications? You tell me. > What about doctor-patient confidentiality? What about seeing > the "patients", ordering tests, taking their vitals, etc.? Folks that post to Usenet can have both. > No, MUster...you are wrong. Chung's posts here can be characterized as many > things...but, they are most certainly not part of his "practice". As I have said before, we disagree, and Chung certainly believes, and correctly so, that his medical practice on SMC is most definitely part and parcel to his medical responsibilities. As is his testimony for Christ. Who are you to detail what Chung considers as part of his medical practice? Chung does that; neither you nor I do. But then you don't know Chung from Chang and I do. >>>You appear unable to read when I directly commented that posting to SMC IS >>>part of Chung's practice by his own admission. He seems to disagree with MU_nkfish on this one, if his words are to be trusted. Oh, wait... >>So, are you saying the Chung is "practicing medicine" here in smc with his >>posts? > > Certainly. Legally, probably not. Effectively, you bet. A false distinction that the medical boards wouldn't like to see. >>Doesn't that have some rather significant professional and legal >>implications? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Folks that post to Usenet can have both. Right. On usenet. >>No, MUster...you are wrong. Chung's posts here can be characterized as many >>things...but, they are most certainly not part of his "practice". > > As I have said before, we disagree, and Chung certainly believes, and > correctly so, that his medical practice on SMC is most definitely part and > parcel to his medical responsibilities. As is his testimony for Christ. So you say that Chung is practicing medicine on usenet? He has strenuously denied it after doing so for several years. He's more concerned with the legalities of it and the ethical considerations. But, of course, that wouldn't be an issue with you. Ethics...? MU_kluk don need no steenkeen ethics... > Who are you to detail what Chung considers as part of his medical practice? > Chung does that; neither you nor I do. > > But then you don't know Chung from Chang and I do. How relentlessly stupid is this statement... Not a question. Bob > Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD says... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I don't know what I said to warrant that response. You had questions about my comments but you chose to ask for second-hand information regarding these comments. Servant to the humblest person in the universe, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ ** Who is the humblest person in the universe? http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048 What is all this about? http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48 Is this spam? http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867 Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD says... >> > Let me know when you want the answers. >> > Meanwhile, you will be in my prayers, dear neighbor >> > whom I love. >> I don't know what I said to warrant that response. > You had questions about my comments but you chose to ask > for second-hand information regarding these comments. Sorry if I wasn't sufficiently reverential. If you can point me to published studies which may be relevant, I would appreciate it. > Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD says... > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Sorry if I wasn't sufficiently reverential. This is not about reverence. Why should I post answers to your questions when I believe you are not interested in the answers (from me anyway)? You remain in my prayers, dear neighbor whom I love. Servant to the humblest person in the universe, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ ** Who is the humblest person in the universe? http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048 What is all this about? http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48 Is this spam? http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867 >>Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD says... >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> > This is not about reverence. Of course it is. Peabody didn't prostrate himself sufficiently for the Big Guy Doctor to help - like he's sworn to do. You know that Hippy Oath thingy... It says right here in the Book Of Confabulations, Chapter 3, verses 8-12: No one may question the words of the one true Chung for he who hath questioned with questions hath not sufficient reverence for the truth discernment ray that comes out from his, um, head or something to discern. The One True Chung discerneth like anything all the hours of the day and even unto the night for he posteth instead of taketh care of business. The One True Chung poseth, posteth and discerneth and becometh fatigued with those who kowtoweth not in sufficient depth. For them, The One True Chung hath only scorn and dismissal unto the Lesser Other One Trues around the place. And so they are cast out into the eyes of the actual world where abideth intelligence, care and generosity, and the contrast demonstrateth the real soul of The One True Chung. > Why should I post answers to your questions when I believe you are not > interested in the answers (from me anyway)? <LOL> Chung believes you aren't interested in his opinion and might actually be considering listening to someone else. That means what he thinks is infallibly true. Clown, he is. > You remain in my prayers, dear neighbor whom I love. Chung loves you. Just not enough to offer information. <LOL> Could his big red nose shine any brighter? Shoes get any floppier...? Bob >Peabody >> Sorry if I wasn't sufficiently reverential. > This is not about reverence. > > Why should I post answers to your questions Peabody when I believe you are not > interested in the answers (from me anyway)? Because you know as well as I do that it is not necessarily the answers, nor the effect of the answers, that require you to do so. You do it not for the effect but because it is the right thing to do. With that Usenet spanking I just gave you, I will run, duck and hide from the fact that I have not called you, contacted you, and been a part of your Wellness promotion as I have promised. I apologize without any significant reason I can put forward as an excuse. > It is said, by some, that using BMI (Body Mass Index) as a risk > factor for heart disease is invalid with respect to muscular men [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > What I'm really asking is whether there have been any studies that > specifically address this issue. I've been unable to find any. Those are excellent questions! Unfortunately, I've seen no research that specifically studied the mortality risks of heavily muscled men (i.e., those with high BMI's but low body fat percentage). Hopefully, if such research has been done someone else will post a link. As for yourself - at your height and weight, your Body Mass Index is currently 24.7, which is in the Normal range. In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine that involved one million subjects, they found that for men the low point in the mortality curve was at BMI's of 23.5 and 24.9 (the study can be found at http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/341/15/1097 - you may need to register to view it). So, based on that large-scale study of mortality and BMI, your current Body Mass Index looks great (especially in light of your low body fat, and your presumably active lifestyle). As for Dr. Chung's opinions - I would urge you to not pay much attention to them. He is a well-known internet whacko of long standing, as you can tell from his cryptic reply to your post. A Google Groups query for "Andrew Chung troll" returns nearly 1700 hits: http://groups.google.com/groups?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=andrew+chung+troll Likewise, a Google Groups query for "Andrew Chung idiot" returns 2100 hits: http://groups.google.com/groups?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=andrew+chung+idiot GG > > It is said, by some, that using BMI (Body Mass Index) as a risk > > factor for heart disease is invalid with respect to muscular men [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > Likewise, a Google Groups query for "Andrew Chung idiot" returns 2100 hits: > http://groups.google.com/groups?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=andrew+chung+idiot And a similar query for "Andrew Chung cardiologist" returns 12,500 hits: http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z1D323E49 For once, there is truth in the greater numbers :-) > GG You remain in my prayers, dear neighbor whom I love. Please consider the following to save yourself: http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129 Servant to the humblest person in the universe, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ ** Who is the humblest person in the universe? http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048 What is all this about? http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48 Is this spam? http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867 > > As for Dr. Chung's opinions - I would urge you to not pay much attention to > > them. He is a well-known internet whacko of long standing, as you can tell > > from his cryptic reply to your post. > > > > A Google Groups query for "Andrew Chung troll" returns nearly 1700 hits: http://groups.google.com/groups?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=andrew+chung+troll > > Likewise, a Google Groups query for "Andrew Chung idiot" returns 2100 hits: http://groups.google.com/groups?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=andrew+chung+idiot > And a similar query for "Andrew Chung cardiologist" returns 12,500 hits: > > http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z1D323E49 > > For once, there is truth in the greater numbers :-) The "truth" is that you are an incessant cross-poster, as you have once again demonstrated - your reply was sent to 3 usenet groups, although the original post was only in sci.med.cardiology. This is considered ill-mannered, and is one of the reasons why people consider you a whacko. As for the number of posts in which "Andrew Chung cardiologist" appears - that says nothing about your skills or mental competence. It merely reflects the fact that you have been cross-posting incessantly for quite a few years, and you add those words to each of your posts. The fact that you have been called "idiot", "whacko", "troll", "moron" and other names thousands of times speaks more "truth" than your self-serving exposition of your credentials. That you seem to derive some sort of pleasure from being so abused is kind of sad, but also kind of fascinating from a psychological perspective. GG > > > As for Dr. Chung's opinions - I would urge you to not pay much attention > to [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > GG The fact is that you used Google to support your namecalling. This backfired because none of the insulting names you are choosing have come close to exceeding the 12,500 count of what I truly am in the eyes of God: a cardiologist and His servant. Nonetheless you remain in my prayers, dear neighbor whom I love. Servant to the humblest person in the universe, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ ** Who is the humblest person in the universe? http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048 What is all this about? http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48 Is this spam? http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867 >>>>As for Dr. Chung's opinions - I would urge you to not pay much attention >>>>to them. He is a well-known internet whacko of long standing, as you can [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >>> >>>For once, there is truth in the greater numbers :-) Chung's "Bigger is better" philosophy. Poor sap posts and crossposts and thinks that many=good. He's under the bizarre notion that his boasting for thousands of posts somehow transcends the assessments of hundreds of intelligent analysts who see him for what he actually is and say so. >>The "truth" is that you are an incessant cross-poster, as you have once >>again demonstrated - your reply was sent to 3 usenet groups, although the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > The fact is that you used Google to support your namecalling. Slight misstatement. He "used Google to support" a substantive series of conclusions. They're axiomatically true because you've made them be true. > This backfired because none of the insulting names you are choosing have come close > to exceeding the 12,500 count of what I truly am in the eyes of God: a cardiologist > and His servant. <LOL> Idiot Chung forgets that his name appears in all the replies to his insanities - and all the posts calling him the sorts of characterizations he has earned with his crippled, sociopathic behavior are included in that 12,500 he claims (who can be bothered to check?)... <LOL> Chung believes that the more posts he vomits out into usenet, the more favorably God will look upon him. No matter that he's driving people away from religious considerations, no matter that Chung's credibility is in the toilet, no matter that his capacity to do good is severely compromised by his wackiness. Only that he generate more posts than anybody else. God won't mind Chung's lies, his quackery, his charlatanism, his forgeries, his self-worship, his malice, his "praying on the street corners," his obvious mean-spiritedness... nope, just how many puked posts he generates. The man is incapable of learning... Bob > >>>>As for Dr. Chung's opinions - I would urge you to not pay much attention > >>>>to them. He is a well-known internet whacko of long standing, as you can [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >>>>http://groups.google.com/groups?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=andrew+chu ng+idiot > >>>And a similar query for "Andrew Chung cardiologist" returns 12,500 hits: > >>>http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z1D323E49 [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > Bob "Doctor" Chung is a hero. He's closer to God than anyone. Did I ever mention that I'm a friendly as hell drunk? >>>>>>As for Dr. Chung's opinions - I would urge you to not pay much > [quoted text clipped - 114 lines] > > Did I ever mention that I'm a friendly as hell drunk? <LOL> As perfect a three-sentence testimonial as I've heard for Chung. Can't find any fault with it and am awed by the full range of its inclusiveness and its quotation marks. Chung couldn't ask for a better endorsement. Well, he could, but... You know. Bob Peabody schrieb: > It is said, by some, that using BMI (Body Mass Index) as a risk > factor for heart disease is invalid with respect to muscular men [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > What I'm really asking is whether there have been any studies that > specifically address this issue. I've been unable to find any. There is a lot of evidence that cardiorespiratory fitness is a better predictor of mortality than BMI and even than the percentage of body fat or the waist-hip ratio. You might want to take a look at the following study: Cardiorespiratory fitness, body composition, and all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality in men - C. Lee, S. Blair and A. Jackson - American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 69, No. 3, 373-380, March 1999 http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/69/3/373 In this study unfit, lean men had a significantly higher mortality than those who were obese and fit: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content-nw/full/69/3/373/T2 This does not mean that being obese is not risky because most obese people will also be unfit. But if you are just a bit overweight or at the high end of normal weight and this is due to being muscular, you shouldn't worry too much, unless you are also unfit. Thorsten  Signature"Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution" (Theodosius Dobzhansky) It seems to me I heard somewhere that Peabody wrote in article <81i2d.284930$sh.18342@fed1read06>: >It is said, by some, that using BMI (Body Mass Index) as a risk >factor for heart disease is invalid with respect to muscular men >because BMI only takes into account total body weight and height, >not the percent bodyfat. So, for example, a gymnast might have a >high BMI because he is heavily muscled, and be classified as obese, >even though he is not really at risk. >And then I see Dr. Chung talking about "ideal" weight, without >making any distinctions about body type. >My question is whether there is any research that shows whether >being heavily muscled, but with low bodyfat, still puts a man more >at risk than someone who is scrawny, assuming both get lots of >exercise. Is there any indication that being muscular is indeed as >risky as being fat, and that BMI is therefore valid for all body >types? >I ask this because I have a number of risk factors (age, sex, family >history, smoking when younger, and hypertension), but at 5'10" and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >sure I'm well above Dr. Chung's ideal wieght for my height, >and I'm just beginning to wonder about it all. A narrow reliance on weight as the single factor involved in cardiac risk, *especially for the non-obese*, is IMO the major problem with so much of Chung's advice. >What I'm really asking is whether there have been any studies that >specifically address this issue. I've been unable to find any. I don't know of studies either, but my gut tells me body type and level of fitness are more relevant than how many pounds of food one eats daily. You *may* find something of interest or some hints in the summary article I posted a link to yesterday: http://members.nuvox.net/~on.jwclymer/bmi.html SignatureDon donkirk@covad.net |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.