Re: 11 miles a week (fat loss)

[Guest guest]

Rodney,

Decreased visceral fat(-6.9 +/- 20.8%; P = 0.038) means that the

average visceral fat lost was 6.9% with a range from +20.8 to -20.8%

and a confidence correspodning to P=0.038 (which is very confident).

Since 20.8% of 6.9 is 1.44, the authors could have said that the range

of visceral fat loss was -5.46% to -8.34%. However, by using the mean

we can see that visceral fat and subcutaneous fat is lost at the same

rate ~7.0%. This basically re-states the well-known principle that

you cannot target fat loss to just the stomach. When you lose fat,

you lose it throughout your body.

Tony

--- 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.

[Guest guest]

Rodney,

Decreased visceral fat(-6.9 +/- 20.8%; P = 0.038) means that the

average visceral fat lost was 6.9% with a range from +20.8 to -20.8%

and a confidence correspodning to P=0.038 (which is very confident).

Since 20.8% of 6.9 is 1.44, the authors could have said that the range

of visceral fat loss was -5.46% to -8.34%. However, by using the mean

we can see that visceral fat and subcutaneous fat is lost at the same

rate ~7.0%. This basically re-states the well-known principle that

you cannot target fat loss to just the stomach. When you lose fat,

you lose it throughout your body.

Tony

--- 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.

[Guest guest]

Hi Tony:

Well I am not sure about that. First, I believe the 20.8% is not the

range but the size of one standard deviation in the data. Second,

how sure are you that the 20.8 is quoted as a percentage of THE

CHANGE in fat, and not as a percentage of the absolute amount of

fat.

I.E. are you sure it does not mean that some of the subjects had an

increase of visceral fat of 14% and more, and others had a decrease

of 27%?

If it is as you say, then the amount of variation among the subjects

was tiny, considering they were making such a huge effort. I would

have expected some to lose a lot more fat weight than that in

response to 700 miles of jogging. And others, those whose appetite

is increased by exercise (and modest gains in caloric intake can only

be balanced by huge amounts of extra exercise - 30 or 35 miles per

pound) to have gained weight.

The full study is only available by subscription.

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.

[Guest guest]

Hi Tony:

Well I am not sure about that. First, I believe the 20.8% is not the

range but the size of one standard deviation in the data. Second,

how sure are you that the 20.8 is quoted as a percentage of THE

CHANGE in fat, and not as a percentage of the absolute amount of

fat.

I.E. are you sure it does not mean that some of the subjects had an

increase of visceral fat of 14% and more, and others had a decrease

of 27%?

If it is as you say, then the amount of variation among the subjects

was tiny, considering they were making such a huge effort. I would

have expected some to lose a lot more fat weight than that in

response to 700 miles of jogging. And others, those whose appetite

is increased by exercise (and modest gains in caloric intake can only

be balanced by huge amounts of extra exercise - 30 or 35 miles per

pound) to have gained weight.

The full study is only available by subscription.

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.