Guest guest Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 Hi Willie: Perhaps you could clarify for us what this, from the abstract, means: " The highest amount of exercise resulted in decreased visceral (-6.9 +/- 20.8%; P = 0.038) and subcutaneous (-7.0 +/- 10.8%; P < 0.001) abdominal fat. " It seems to me to be saying that after running about 700 miles (SEVEN HUNDRED miles!!!) this group reduced visceral fat by 6.9% on average - although quite a few of them (+/- 20.8%) added a considerable amount of visceral fat. And subcutaneous fat was reduced by 7% on average, with some of them (+/- 10.8%) adding subcutaneous fat. Did I misunderstand this? And how much of each of these two types of fat would they have lost if they had somewhat restricted their caloric intake instead? Rodney. > Hi all, > > That's just the distance you would need to walk or run (it seems > either intensity doesn't matter here) for preventing accumulation of > that diabetes promoting visceral fat. > > Just two notes about the paper: they didn't have a high amount low > intensity exercisers because they would be walking for more than 8 > hours a week, and was not easy to fing volunteers. Another point to > look at is that non exercises were gaining visceral fat in spite of > they weren't gaining neither body weight nor subcutaneus fat!! > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi? > cmd=retrieve & db=pubmed & list_uids=16002776 & dopt=Abstract > > http://tinyurl.com/a4j3a > > Cheers. > > Willlie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 Hi Willie: Perhaps you could clarify for us what this, from the abstract, means: " The highest amount of exercise resulted in decreased visceral (-6.9 +/- 20.8%; P = 0.038) and subcutaneous (-7.0 +/- 10.8%; P < 0.001) abdominal fat. " It seems to me to be saying that after running about 700 miles (SEVEN HUNDRED miles!!!) this group reduced visceral fat by 6.9% on average - although quite a few of them (+/- 20.8%) added a considerable amount of visceral fat. And subcutaneous fat was reduced by 7% on average, with some of them (+/- 10.8%) adding subcutaneous fat. Did I misunderstand this? And how much of each of these two types of fat would they have lost if they had somewhat restricted their caloric intake instead? Rodney. > Hi all, > > That's just the distance you would need to walk or run (it seems > either intensity doesn't matter here) for preventing accumulation of > that diabetes promoting visceral fat. > > Just two notes about the paper: they didn't have a high amount low > intensity exercisers because they would be walking for more than 8 > hours a week, and was not easy to fing volunteers. Another point to > look at is that non exercises were gaining visceral fat in spite of > they weren't gaining neither body weight nor subcutaneus fat!! > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi? > cmd=retrieve & db=pubmed & list_uids=16002776 & dopt=Abstract > > http://tinyurl.com/a4j3a > > Cheers. > > Willlie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 Hi folks: Oooops. Correction. Someone just alerted me off list that the group that jogged 692 miles is not the group for which they quoted data for fat loss. If we get to see the full text I could re-do the calculations with the appropriate fat loss data for that group. Sorry about that. Rodney. --- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...> wrote: > Hi Willie: > > Perhaps you could clarify for us what this, from the abstract, means: > > " The highest amount of exercise resulted in decreased visceral (- 6.9 > +/- 20.8%; P = 0.038) and subcutaneous (-7.0 +/- 10.8%; P < 0.001) > abdominal fat. " > > It seems to me to be saying that after running about 700 miles (SEVEN > HUNDRED miles!!!) this group reduced visceral fat by 6.9% on average - > although quite a few of them (+/- 20.8%) added a considerable amount > of visceral fat. > > And subcutaneous fat was reduced by 7% on average, with some of them > (+/- 10.8%) adding subcutaneous fat. > > Did I misunderstand this? > > And how much of each of these two types of fat would they have lost > if they had somewhat restricted their caloric intake instead? > > Rodney. > > --- In , " " <wmbragg@h...> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > That's just the distance you would need to walk or run (it seems > > either intensity doesn't matter here) for preventing accumulation > of > > that diabetes promoting visceral fat. > > > > Just two notes about the paper: they didn't have a high amount low > > intensity exercisers because they would be walking for more than 8 > > hours a week, and was not easy to fing volunteers. Another point to > > look at is that non exercises were gaining visceral fat in spite of > > they weren't gaining neither body weight nor subcutaneus fat!! > > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi? > > cmd=retrieve & db=pubmed & list_uids=16002776 & dopt=Abstract > > > > http://tinyurl.com/a4j3a > > > > Cheers. > > > > Willlie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 Hi folks: Oooops. Correction. Someone just alerted me off list that the group that jogged 692 miles is not the group for which they quoted data for fat loss. If we get to see the full text I could re-do the calculations with the appropriate fat loss data for that group. Sorry about that. Rodney. --- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...> wrote: > Hi Willie: > > Perhaps you could clarify for us what this, from the abstract, means: > > " The highest amount of exercise resulted in decreased visceral (- 6.9 > +/- 20.8%; P = 0.038) and subcutaneous (-7.0 +/- 10.8%; P < 0.001) > abdominal fat. " > > It seems to me to be saying that after running about 700 miles (SEVEN > HUNDRED miles!!!) this group reduced visceral fat by 6.9% on average - > although quite a few of them (+/- 20.8%) added a considerable amount > of visceral fat. > > And subcutaneous fat was reduced by 7% on average, with some of them > (+/- 10.8%) adding subcutaneous fat. > > Did I misunderstand this? > > And how much of each of these two types of fat would they have lost > if they had somewhat restricted their caloric intake instead? > > Rodney. > > --- In , " " <wmbragg@h...> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > That's just the distance you would need to walk or run (it seems > > either intensity doesn't matter here) for preventing accumulation > of > > that diabetes promoting visceral fat. > > > > Just two notes about the paper: they didn't have a high amount low > > intensity exercisers because they would be walking for more than 8 > > hours a week, and was not easy to fing volunteers. Another point to > > look at is that non exercises were gaining visceral fat in spite of > > they weren't gaining neither body weight nor subcutaneus fat!! > > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi? > > cmd=retrieve & db=pubmed & list_uids=16002776 & dopt=Abstract > > > > http://tinyurl.com/a4j3a > > > > Cheers. > > > > Willlie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 [ ] Re: 11 miles a week Hi folks:Oooops. Correction.Someone just alerted me off list that the group that jogged 692 miles is not the group for which they quoted data for fat loss.If we get to see the full text I could re-do the calculations with the appropriate fat loss data for that group.Sorry about that. --Say 130 kcal per mile, 3500 per flubber pound = about 27 miles/wk for every extra 500 kcal/day (easy to do when one's appetite gets kicked up) or a mere 5 miles extra/wk for a barely noticeable (for normal people) increase of 100 kcal per day? --The point remains that if you start eating more "to maintain lean-body mass" when exercising, you'll very soon be putting on flab rather than maintaining muscle. Maco Maco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 Jeeez. It must be Monday. I was right in the first place. I think. LOL. Here is what I think it says: " The highest amount of exercise resulted in decreased visceral (-6.9 +/- 20.8%; P = 0.038) and subcutaneous (-7.0 +/- 10.8%; P < 0.001) abdominal fat. " The highest amount of exercise was 20 miles jogging per week, which was ~693 miles over the eight months of the study. Eight months is two-thirds of a year or 34.7 weeks. 34.7 weeks x 20 miles per week = 693 miles. I hope! Rodney. > > > Hi all, > > > > > > That's just the distance you would need to walk or run (it seems > > > either intensity doesn't matter here) for preventing accumulation > > of > > > that diabetes promoting visceral fat. > > > > > > Just two notes about the paper: they didn't have a high amount > low > > > intensity exercisers because they would be walking for more than > 8 > > > hours a week, and was not easy to fing volunteers. Another point > to > > > look at is that non exercises were gaining visceral fat in spite > of > > > they weren't gaining neither body weight nor subcutaneus fat!! > > > > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi? > > > cmd=retrieve & db=pubmed & list_uids=16002776 & dopt=Abstract > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/a4j3a > > > > > > Cheers. > > > > > > Willlie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 Jeeez. It must be Monday. I was right in the first place. I think. LOL. Here is what I think it says: " The highest amount of exercise resulted in decreased visceral (-6.9 +/- 20.8%; P = 0.038) and subcutaneous (-7.0 +/- 10.8%; P < 0.001) abdominal fat. " The highest amount of exercise was 20 miles jogging per week, which was ~693 miles over the eight months of the study. Eight months is two-thirds of a year or 34.7 weeks. 34.7 weeks x 20 miles per week = 693 miles. I hope! Rodney. > > > Hi all, > > > > > > That's just the distance you would need to walk or run (it seems > > > either intensity doesn't matter here) for preventing accumulation > > of > > > that diabetes promoting visceral fat. > > > > > > Just two notes about the paper: they didn't have a high amount > low > > > intensity exercisers because they would be walking for more than > 8 > > > hours a week, and was not easy to fing volunteers. Another point > to > > > look at is that non exercises were gaining visceral fat in spite > of > > > they weren't gaining neither body weight nor subcutaneus fat!! > > > > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi? > > > cmd=retrieve & db=pubmed & list_uids=16002776 & dopt=Abstract > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/a4j3a > > > > > > Cheers. > > > > > > Willlie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.