5 Ways To Reduce Your Risk Of A Heart Attack By 80%

[Mister D]

It is fairly recent (last decade or so) that many docs are looking at waist circumference rather than BMI for evaluating health concerns.

I think there are two reasons:

1. BMI is only accurate for couch potatoes. I am obese with BMI- 28.8. But my body fat is 17% which is pretty good for my age (50).

2. Not all fat is bad from a health standpoint. Fat that sits closer to the skin, women get this a lot, isn't bad for you, even if it looks bad (not beach ready). Visceral fat- the stuff around your vital organs (at the waist) is the bad fat for health purposes.

Body builders are often overweight. There comes a point where "it's muscle not fat!" becomes delusional. If you're 300 pounds you need to lose weight. It's unhealthy. Period.

[Peter1469]

Body builders are often overweight. There comes a point where "it's muscle not fat!" becomes delusional. If you're 300 pounds you need to lose weight. It's unhealthy. Period.

I can see that with powerlifters. Enough muscle and you lose a lot of mobility and you even stress your internal organs with too much muscle. I have seen muscle heads climb one set of stairs and look and sound like they are about to have a heart attack.

But I think that is largely limited to steroid users. Natural body builders don't get big enough for those effects.

[Bo-4]

It is fairly recent (last decade or so) that many docs are looking at waist circumference rather than BMI for evaluating health concerns.

I think there are two reasons:

1. BMI is only accurate for couch potatoes. I am obese with BMI- 28.8. But my body fat is 17% which is pretty good for my age (50).

2. Not all fat is bad from a health standpoint. Fat that sits closer to the skin, women get this a lot, isn't bad for you, even if it looks bad (not beach ready). Visceral fat- the stuff around your vital organs (at the waist) is the bad fat for health purposes.

Interesting. I still say that neither BMI nor waste circumference is an accurate measure of one's health or heart attack risk. Honestly, there IS no way to one-size it. Only a personal physician or highly skilled and educated personal trainer could tell you that with any accuracy.

And what about family history?- That's huge as well.

I do appreciate your post though Pete. I'm in the process of giving up the 5-10 American Spirits I smoke each day. I'm 62, exercise regularly, and my blood work recently was, per my doc "spectacular".

But it's time, the patches and gum have me down to 3-5, but it's way past time to give those up too.

Thanks for the inspiration.

[Peter1469]

Interesting. I still say that neither BMI nor waste circumference is an accurate measure of one's health or heart attack risk. Honestly, there IS no way to one-size it. Only a personal physician or highly skilled and educated personal trainer could tell you that with any accuracy.

And what about family history?- That's huge as well.

I do appreciate your post though Pete. I'm in the process of giving up the 5-10 American Spirits I smoke each day. I'm 62, exercise regularly, and my blood work recently was, per my doc "spectacular".

But it's time, the patches and gum have me down to 3-5, but it's way past time to give those up too.

Thanks for the inspiration.

I think the waist circumference is a good starting point, but certainly not the end all. It is much better than BMI.

If you track your calories and macros, it is much easier to see what to cut out and how much it really helps.

[Mister D]

I can see that with powerlifters. Enough muscle and you lose a lot of mobility and you even stress your internal organs with too much muscle. I have seen muscle heads climb one set of stairs and look and sound like they are about to have a heart attack.

But I think that is largely limited to steroid users. Natural body builders don't get big enough for those effects.

I'm 5'7" and if I had dedicated myself to body building like I did general fitness I would probably weigh close to 200 lbs. Anything over 180 would be bad, IMO.

[Bo-4]

I think the waist circumference is a good starting point, but certainly not the end all. It is much better than BMI.

If you track your calories and macros, it is much easier to see what to cut out and how much it really helps.

Oh Lordy, who has time to track calories and macros?

Long story short - I lost 40 pounds back in the mid 2000's. Low carb

Just discovered I was 20 over my fighting weight.

Doing the Atkins thing at present and only 10 left to go.

You don't have to get it delivered. My local Safeway is starting to stock up on their frozen entrees.

They're tasty and satisfying!

[carolina73]

I can see that with powerlifters. Enough muscle and you lose a lot of mobility and you even stress your internal organs with too much muscle. I have seen muscle heads climb one set of stairs and look and sound like they are about to have a heart attack.

But I think that is largely limited to steroid users. Natural body builders don't get big enough for those effects.

They create muscle for show not for mobility. The muscle bulk actually restricts them. Mr. Universe could never compete in a performance sport. They are too slow.

[Cotton1]

I was very surprised by how they undervalued exercise.

I was relieved

[Peter1469]

I was relieved

I wouldn't- I think it was an oversight in the study.

But the good news is, it doesn't take much exercise for heart health.