Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A reality check...

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    A reality check...

    What do you think this gentleman's (Mark Sisson's) body fat percentage is? (He's in his 50's by the way!)



    5%?

    8%?

    10%?


    Would you believe he was hydrostatic-tested to be 16.9% body fat ? Hydrostatic testing is purportedly the best there is out there on this type of stuff.

    So, the next time you sweat over a bodyfat number (especially if measured by calipers, etc.), stop sweating.

    For Atkineers, you might also find this information interesting (and quite disconcerting):

    Case in point, I had breakfast with a friend a few weeks ago who wanted my opinion on his recent blood tests and whether or not he should continue taking statins. Right off the bat I told him (as I am telling you now) that I am not an MD and am not allowed to advise anyone on any medical issues whatsoever. So we agreed to have a philosophical discussion (like we are having here now). He showed me the results of two blood lipid panels taken from the same sample (blood drawn in the same collection sitting) but that were sent to two different labs that same day. Of course, as I anticipated, no two lab values were the same from one lab’s test results to the other. Most notably, the total LDL differed by 40% from one test to the other.
    Interesting read:
    The Value of Lab Values | Mark's Daily Apple
    • M/37
    • Started March 17, 2009
    • Pounds lost to date: 57
    • Pounds to go: 15
    Tags: check..., reality
  • #2
    Re: A reality check...

    he looks good at 50 jeez!
    highest 230 ---- started atkins------current 175 lbs
    July 2009 ---------12/20/2009 ---------03/18/2010
    <------------------>

    I started atkins in late november but every other week just sort of fell off the wagon and was not working out..late december I started to really follow it and added the gym from november to december I only lost like 7 lbs not following it right..from december to march 18 I lost 50 lbs give or take depending what mood my scale is on lol.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: A reality check...

      Originally posted by Slapshot View Post
      For Atkineers, you might also find this information interesting (and quite disconcerting):
      Very disconcerting. It would be nice if just one, ONE, indicator of health could be relied upon as solid indicator of weight loss and general health. If you can't trust your blood tests, what can you trust? sigh.
      Grant
      x20

      Consecutive days nuts free - 0
      Consecutive work days commuted by bike - 5

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: A reality check...

        Originally posted by Grant View Post
        Very disconcerting. It would be nice if just one, ONE, indicator of health could be relied upon as solid indicator of weight loss and general health. If you can't trust your blood tests, what can you trust? sigh.
        No kidding. My jaw dropped when I saw the 40% number.
        • M/37
        • Started March 17, 2009
        • Pounds lost to date: 57
        • Pounds to go: 15

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: A reality check...

          Absolutely amazing......
          MAY 2010 Challenges
          ABS-1200, Squats-1200, Lunges-400, PushUps-700, Stability Ball-250 mins,
          I weigh once a week, Mondays !


          re-started 10/12/09 -F/55/5'9" -(July 14-265) 252/206/170
          Goals
          240 (nice round number)-Yippee 238.5 on 11-16-09
          226 (where I was when I fell off the wagon) - 01-03-10
          210 (another round number) -04/09/10
          199 (Onedurland!!!) -

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: A reality check...

            40%?????!!!??? That's horrendous!
            Before and after:






            PLEDGING FLIGHTS
            Completed: 1st set of buildings and mountains (Everest,M.Blanc & Kilimanjaro, twice); Tower Masts & Chimneys; More virtual buildings; Challenger's Choice x 2 (volcanos and mountains on Mars). Currently climbing: Mount Snowdon again: 416/475

            Start 10 Jan 2005. Maintenance since Aug. 2005.
            F/56yrs/5'.4"
            SW:77.7 LW:56.5 CW:60.1 (kilos)

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: A reality check...

              Originally posted by Grant View Post
              Very disconcerting. It would be nice if just one, ONE, indicator of health could be relied upon as solid indicator of weight loss and general health. If you can't trust your blood tests, what can you trust? sigh.
              Too true, unfortunately. My DH, whose background is in science, complains about this regularly. Whenever there is any new scientific or medical breakthrough, his response is usually along the lines of, "Give it five years and the conclusions will be different."

              I've posted several times on here about cholesterol, but after learning that my "bad" cholesterol (supposedly) increased, I was shocked to do research and discover that the science is completely unsettled and there are different methods for calculating LDL. The one currently used is some 30+ years old or so and is considered by many to be inaccurate if you have very high or, like me, very low triglycerides. The "better" one for those with extremes in their triglyceride numbers is called the Iranian method and gives quite a different result. For me, the result is a much lower LDL, i.e., a better number. The best option is to have your LDL actually measured, rather than calculated.

              I also was shocked to learn how little an impact statins have on the fatality rate. Some studies have shown an absolute risk reduction in death from 3% to 2%. However, pharmaceutical companies will advertise the relative reduction rate of 33+%.

              From the post, I thought this paragraph was spot on:

              In my estimation, medicine has become way too reliant on testing for lab values that reflect aggregates, population norms, cohort quintiles from dubious studies, or simple averages to arrive at reference ranges and the calculated risk factors that these numbers appear to represent. Even the term “risk” is deceptive, because an increase in risk for a disease doesn’t guarantee you’ll actually get the disease – even if you show a strong genetic predisposition (another test I wonder about). Sometimes the preventive or prophylactic treatments that follow such tests are useless or even harmful. Nevertheless, doctors often prescribe, biopsy, radiate, excise or otherwise operate based on assumptions they have made regarding your relative risk of disease – and sometimes simply on their relative risk of getting sued if they don’t follow the standard of care – based solely on lab values. We have spoken here often about how medicine is not “black and white” and how there is typically not a right answer to a medical issue so much as an educated opinion (or not) on a course of action. It’s my contention that your own opinion is often the most precise and valid. Certainly, use your doctor, but do your own research to be sure you make an informed decision.

              Comment

              Previous template Next
              Working...
              X