re: Waist circumference

quote:

---

Are there any studies about optimal amount of muscle mass and BF% by age/height?

---

here is a good series of articles from BM

Part 1
part 2 part3
part 4

4 part series. in the article is gives a link to a lecture by Dr Sullivan that is a good watch


another really good article from that crew that goes over the list of priorties to improve health
LINK

Strength and Cancer mortality


how to measure your waist correctly

the whole barbell medicine site with the articles is a great place to start when looking at all of this. have whole series on youth training, blood pressure, cholesterol, nutrition, training, aging etc that are all backed by studies which they list in each article.

quote:

---

Id like to see this. Tons of powerlifters and body builders need CPAP's, have heart attacks in their 50s, etc.

---

A) most powerlifters have a much higher wasite circumference and carry lots of body fat

B) both powerlifters and bodybuilders have huge necks and that is one of the main culprits of sleep apnea and sleep apnea puts tons of stress on the heart

C) both groups use tons of anabolics that destroy lipids and cause all kinds of heart issues

D) both groups cut weight in unhealthy ways especially BBers. Terrible for the heart to get that dehyrated at that low of a BF% or to cut tons of water in a 24 hours period.

quote:

---

In the simplest sense, your lungs and heart don't know what kind of tissue that extra 30 lbs sitting on them is.

---

hey be my guest to find a study that shows that because i couldnt.

but as far as total weight and bodybuilders, powerlifters etc if you look at the FFMI index of known naturals you will see that they can only get to about a FFMI of around 26 or maybe 27 if just absolutely genetically gifted if they are at a good bodyfat percentage of 15% or below. So they arent carrying around 250lbs at 5'10"


read the articles i listed above though, tons of studies linked.

here is another study, showing more muscle mass...the better for older populations

LINK

quote:

---

Unadjusted all-cause mortality risk was significantly higher in the lowest muscle mass index quartile compared with the highest muscle mass index quartile (58% compared with 41%; relative reduction of 30%)

---

quote:

---

As hypothesized, in older Americans, muscle mass relative to body height was associated inversely with all-cause mortality over a 10- to 16-year follow-up. This inverse relationship was not explained by traditional cardiovascular risk factors (dyslipidemia, hypertension, and inflammation) or glucose dysregulation (pre-diabetes, diabetes, insulin resistance, and dysglycemia), suggesting that relative muscle mass is an independent prognostic marker for survival in older adults.
Traditional cardiovascular risk factors and glucose dysregulation are linked to the development of atherosclerotic vascular disease and reduced cardiac output,21, 22 which in turn lead to reduced blood flow to skeletal muscle, and thus, potentially, to reduced muscle mass.23 The cardiovascular risk factors and markers of glucose dysregulation and inflammation in this study may not have completely captured the extent of subclinical cardiovascular disease, and the independent prognostic ability of relative muscle mass may be a reflection of the mortality risks conferred by subclinical cardiovascular disease in older adults.
Alternately, factors that lead to better than average relative muscle mass, such as genetic predisposition and a consistently active lifestyle over the life-course, also are likely to increase cardiorespiratory fitness, a major predictor of improved survival.24 The survival prediction ability of relative muscle mass may simply reflect the protective role of cardiorespiratory fitness. Finally, a potential causal pathway from muscle mass to longevity is through the role of muscle as a reliable protein reserve, which is vital in protecting an individual after a prolonged illness.25
Even if there are no causal links between muscle mass and longevity, this study definitively demonstrates that muscle mass relative to body height has independent predictive ability for all-cause mortality in older adults. This is the first study to establish this in a large, nationally representative cohort. Previous studies have uncovered associations between muscle function (strength, power, speed) and mortality, but have failed to find associations between muscle bulk and mortality.10, 11, 26, 27 With a few exceptions, prior studies were small or in select populations.28, 29, 30, 31 In a younger (50-64 years at baseline) Danish cohort, Bigaard et al32 noted an inverse association between skeletal muscle mass and mortality. Our study extends the findings of Bigaard et al to an older, nationally representative cohort from the United States.
Increasingly, it is being recognized that total body mass is an inadequate marker of prognosis in older adults,4, 5, 6 although it is still standard clinical practice to counsel patients regarding their BMI. A recent meta-analysis noted that although older adults (=65 years) with BMI =35 kg/m2 (grade 2 or 3 obesity) indeed had increased mortality relative to normal-weight adults (BMI, 18.5-25 kg/m2), older adults with grade 1 obesity (30=BMI<35 kg/m2) were not at increased mortality risk, and overweight older adults (25=BMI<30 kg/m2) actually had lower mortality.33 This is in sharp contrast to the declines in mortality across the quartiles of relative muscle mass, documented in this study in a national cohort, pointing to the potential usefulness of muscle mass in the assessment of prognosis in older adults. It should be noted that bioelectrical impedance is easily measured in a physician's office (using a device that looks like, and takes up as much space as, a weighing scale with 2 grip handles and costs a few hundred dollars) and can be quickly converted to muscle mass index for routine assessment of relative muscle mass in a busy clinical practice.

---

quote:

---

I'll read through it, but how many people actually have excess muscle not on gear that you can actually study? That's my point, I don't think there's enough data points to really say either way.

---

well considering we know less that 10% of the population actually does resistance training .....not many

quote:

---

What's important is that most people, even the ones who lift weights, are fat, and that's bad for all cause mortality.

---

while i agree to a certain extent, so long as somebody is meeting the following waist requirements




then they are going to be in the healthy range no matter the amount of muscle.

and i get your theory about the heart doesnt know the difference between fat or muscle....but the studies show a decrease in all cause mortality the more muscle you have. also typically the more muscle...the higher the metobolism and the less bodyfat you carry.

quote:

---

Again, and I think we're pretty much on the same page here, almost no one that's not geared out of their minds is carrying enough muscle to test that theory on the top end

---

i think so. all im saying is if you are natural and at the top end of the FFMI but also are 10% BF....your all cause mortality rate will be lower


and there are no studies showing you can have too much muscle mass that i am aware of and i have tried and tried to find them

here is one that discusses heart disease and inverse relationship of muscle mass in middle aged men
LINK

quote:

---

Doesn't HFP sort of address that with the statement about the increased cardio work helping those with a larger BMI that may be more muscular. Essentially, at worse higher weight from the muscle mass and cardio strength would cancel each other out? Neither apply to me, just curious about what you've seen around this

---

guess im confused on your question

what i was saying

2 guys who are 5'10,

#1 weighs 150 but is skinny fat 24% bodyfat
#2 weights 190 but only 15% bodyfat

#2 is healthier due to more muscle mass.

I went back and reread your post, I was reading through the thread and responded and thought you were saying the studies were about BMI. Now it makes a lot more sense

Way I see it could be viewed is that an increased capacity for strength and muscle makes everyday tasks easier and more efficient for the body but only having to exert a couple hours a week.

A skinny fat person would have less efficient efforts on the same tasks. If the skinny fat person also avoided everything the fit person does then you get into muscle atrophy and osteoporosis.