Diabetes can also cause weight gain. People love to blame diabetics’ weight gain for their disease, when often the opposite is at least partly true. See doctor-recommended “The First Year . . .” by Gretchen Becker.
1
I have found the tag line "if you can pinch more than an inch" (from a Kellogg's ad, I think) to be simple and helpful. When I'm in shape and at my ideal weight, I can pinch an inch or less of abdominal fat. Today, I'm 20 lbs heavier than I'd like to be, and reluctantly pinch about 2.5 inches.
1
My comical father in law would say his measurements were easiest to remember for the tailor-- 38, 38, 38! (Chest waist butt)
1
I am puzzled by the absolute waist measurement cited as an indicator of belly fat.
Shouldn't it be adjusted against height? Or normalized in some other way?
5
When I moved to NYC, I encountered many many vegetarians and they are almost universally thin. Some eat fish some dont -- but veggies are virtually all of their daily diet. It (finally) dawned on me that LOTS more veggies needed to happen in my life. Salads salads salads.
4
Ive met quite a few fat vegetarians on the west coast. Some of these folk's eat large amounts of pasta, maybe to the neglect of 'produce' and perhaps consume plenty of other 'empty' carb calories. Such as baking enthusiasts. More often than not women.
3
If salads mean veggies to you then you're likely missing a lot of them in side dishes or even as main dishes.
5
According, to the article "Do I Carry a Dangerous Amount of Belly Fat?" The article suggests that "the only useful way of losing visceral fat is through diet and exercise." I believe that the amount of chemicals in our food system contributes to the reason why losing weight, for some people, is an arduous task. I have come across various individuals of different ethnicity, who gain weight and lose the weight whenever they travel to another remote location. Even though some visceral fat may be hereditary, I think the amount of chemicals and additives added to our produce is the main contributing factors to the soon to be epidemic. The government is doing its part to cut down on sugary drinks--no matter how much exercise and diet one engages in, if we do not take precaution as what we consume--all our efforts would be futile.
9
Evidence?
When I was a teen I was appalled by the size of my grandmother's stomach. Yet she had a small butt, hips and thighs. When my mother gained weight in her 70s that was her shape as well. And it's mine now too. So reading all the dire predictions about belly fat annoy me. My butt doesn't get fat, nor my thighs. So I'm supposed to do what?
5
I have been flirting with 35" waist and BMI of 30 for years. My doctor encouraged me to count calories. I have been very active, doing bike trips of 300 miles and hiking trips of 10 miles a day. My butt and legs (and boobs) have always been very big, and I think many women are like me (waist / hip ratio 0.814). But being over 60, I thought weight loss would be better on my joints, and have noticed potential symptoms of insulin resistance.
I decided to start calorie and carb counting to keep this weight off, and continue daily exercise. It is my thinking that exercise boosts metabolism. I also try to ensure adequate hydration. So for 4-5 weeks, I have eaten 1200-1400 calories a day, no more than 50% from carbs, and expend an average of 1800-2000 calories a day. I have lost a total of 8-9 pounds, which feels successful. It also seems sustainable as I'm not feeling deprived, though sometimes tired.
A BMI of 25 seems unrealistic for a woman with my body type. But they say losing about 12% of your weight may disrupt insulin resistance so that's my goal. Is it a cliche to say I have 5 more pounds to go?! As an experiment, I'm interested to see if there is a weight plateau and whether there is an impact on belly fat.
18
Another theory concerning visceral fat is that our body reacts to poor glucose absorption by the mussel cells around visceral fat area due to poor insulin receptor performance (blocked by glue-like leptins) and, because of this reason, glucose is more absorbed by the surrounding fat cells to create toxic visceral fat. (source: Stevem R. Gundry, "The Plant Paradox) He also says that similar to atherosclerosis ( never-healing injury due to chronic artery inflammation that causes of heart attack or stroke) that fat accumulation occurs in the area surrounding heart/arteries, visceral fat built-up occurs when gut is suffering from chronic inflammation. Because he is a surgeon, he has seen fats surrounding heart or gut many times. He also has seen terrible condition of leaky gut as well.
1
Steven R. Gundry, the anti-lectin crusader. Lectin is the new gluten. The observation about fooling some people all of the time comes to mind.
2
Mussel cells? I didn't know I had those, but I always wondered about the crackling sounds when I fell down.
12
None of this is supported by peer-reviewed research. Follow the money, rubes. Gundry sells "vitamin G6" that he "invented." Another is a “lectin shield” that’s “designed to neutralize the effects of lectins.” These are available on his website for $79.99.
Quacks taking bucks from the sick. Sad!
6
I find the waist measurement criteria to be a bit off, at least in my case. I have a narrow waistline and even with the poundage I have put on in the last year, my waist to hip ratio is low, as I just measured it. I also think BMI has a bias as my BMI is also low. But I know that I should be trying harder to lose the fat I gained while rehabbing from surgery. I think that people know whether or not they are eating properly and exercising enough and many people are just looking for "measurements" to justify their current situations. Americans are obsessed with looking for the magic bullet, whether from a diet or an exercise protocol rather than slogging through the mud as they know they need to do.
Of course, if someone is already obese, their struggles to lose and maintain the weight loss are monumental and any relevant information could help.
6
Where you put on weight most readily is a genetic thing. Some of us are apples and some are pears. Apple weight (carrying excess weight around the midriff and waist) is more associated with type 2 diabetes than weight carried on the hips and thighs.
5
And metabolic disease.
3
According to 2012 Korean research, greater visceral fat and lower muscle mass were associated with lower 25(OH) vitamin D3 levels in elderly Korean men, suggesting that screening for vitamin D deficiency may be appropriate in older Koreans with visceral obesity or sarcopenia (muscle loss).
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/article/greater-visceral-fat-and-sarcopenia-...
4
Ring Around the Belly is a sign that you're having a problem handling insulin; the way your body is burning fuel for energy is all mucked up. Belly fat is biologically active, and like "The Dance of Anger" described by relationship therapist Harriet Lerner in her insightful book, triggers a positive feedback loop that cycles out of control. Exercise and diet--including what you eat AND when you eat--help reset your metabolism. https://eatandbeatcancer.com/2017/01/01/ring-around-the-belly-5-keys-to-...
6
Instead of using a one size fits all for waist size, the writer should consider using the easy formula for waist hip ratio. Divide the waist size by the hip size and you will arrive at a factor. Example: a woman has a 31 inch waist and 37 inch hips. 31/37= .84. For a woman, low risk is approx. .80 or below, moderate risk is .81 to .85, and .85+ is high risk. The woman therefore falls into the moderate risk zone.
Another commonly used formula is to take a person's height in inches and divide it by 2 and their waist size should not exceed this number. Example: 5'2 = 62in/2=31. Waist should be no larger than 31. As you can see, the most efficient way is to calculate the waist hip ratio.
Monica Monedero
American College of Sports Medicine
Certified Personal Trainer
46
@ Monica - Waist to hip ratio, the most efficient way? I think not. That ratio is just as flawed as BMI is - if not more. It completely ignores the fact that women have many different builds.
3
However in most studies, it works out that people with a larger waist/hip or waist/thigh ratio (in that the waist is small and the hips or thighs are bigger) have better mortality rates. Like it or not.
4
Don't weight and waist circumference vary with height?
A 40" waist circumference would be expected to be normal in a 6'6" male compared to one 5'6".
14
This ballpark standard is just that.... ballpark.
I have the same problem with using your BMI to determine how healthy you are, and here's why.... Let's look at two people who are each 5'10" and 175 lbs. Since BMI only measures your height and weight, each person has the same BMI. Now let's say one person is 10 % body fat, and the other is 35 % body fat. Same height, same weight, same BMI measurements. The difference?
At 5'10" and 175 lbs and 10% body fat, you'll look like a muscular Charles Atlas.
At 5'10" and 175 lbs and 35% body fat, you'll look like a round Atlas.
7
Upon further review.... allow me to go to the replay judge on this one.
Let's change the numbers to a more recognizable level....
Let's take an NFL running back, who checks in at 5'8", 205 lbs., and 8% body fat. That is not out of the realm of anyone's imagination, and I'm sure we can all think of powerful, tank-like running backs who might fit that mold.
Now, let's take Average Joe at 5'8", 205 lbs., and 40 % body fat.
Both have the same BMI. But they will look nothing alike.
9
BMI is especially misleading for women, as we carry -- and require -- more subcutaneous fat than men. As a very tall, muscular woman, my BMI number skews higher than my more meaningful Body Fat Percentage. Both of these measurements are useful gauges to keep track of how your body composition changes over time, though. And that's what matters in weight management.
3
The sad reality is that far more people fall into the second category and that includes a lot of former athletes who no longer exercise the way they used to. BMI is one tool; like many tools, it has its limitations but in most cases it does give you a pretty good idea of where you are. And the problem is really not among the people who are 5'10 and 175 pounds. It's that too many people are 5'10 and 250 pounds.
3
Isn't the fat a symptom first and foremost? At one point, it feeds into itself but it IS a symptom of high blood sugars. The fat occurs around the liver and pancreas because of their secretions. Wouldn't a diet lower in carbs as eaten for centuries be more helpful than just calorie counting because it controls blood sugar? Yes, some of us have the amylase gene but most do not.
20
Glad to see someone out there spreading the correct info, here's hoping more and more people catch on that sugar and carbs are the enemy, and not fat and salt
6
Carbohydrates are not the enemy. People who consume traditional diets high in carbohydrates, prominently featuring dishes such as beans and rice, do not as a general rule have excess body fat. Whole plant foods like grains, beans, vegetables, and fruits are higher in carbohydrates than in protein or fat, but they are not calorie-dense. Calorie-dense foods, mostly processed foods, contain high amounts of sugar or fat - but usually both - and virtually no fiber or water.
11
A diet lower in carbohydrates is the diet of a lion or tiger, not ideal for humans. A large study conducted in rural areas of China and Asia showed how people eating mostly plant based, high carbs, were the healthiest and didn't suffer from the common chronic illnesses of western society (The China Study).
The issue is not the carbs but the type of carbs. The processed carbs, high fats and sodium being consumed by western society, and now spreading like a plague into the rest of the world, are killing many every year (more than terrorist attacks, but no one is doing something to stop it). The more people consume refined carbs and less fruits, vegetables, whole grains and legumes, the more sick they become and die young.
Complex, fiber rich carbohydrates are the best human source of fuel and energy. Don't unfriend them.
7
The entire concept is easily refuted when at the very end it says removing visceral fat is not effective. IOW's visceral fat is associated with health issues. Or to put it bluntly, exercise, diet are crucial and you can forget about focusing on your waist measurements.
8
Exactly. Of course admitting that would affect someone's grant application; if Nutrition were a science like math and physics, that fact alone would disprove the theory that visceral fat is singularly bad.
1
Maybe the reason having visceral fat surgically removed doesn't improve health is because this is another case of correlation versus causation; that is, perhaps having health problems causes the accumulation of visceral fat. In any case, it doesn't seem like the presence of the fat is the problem in itself, even though the current belief is to the contrary.
16
I think you're on to something. However, that is the sort of logical thinking that physicians reject because they can't or won't prove it.
2
Then why does losing visceral fat by diet and exercise improve health outcomes if the fat is a secondary effect of a health problem?
2
Since fat is caused by insulin (triggered by sugar and carbs/starches), going on a diet that decreases consumption of these items will lead to improved health, a side effect of which is weight loss. Surgically removing the fat, without changing diet, only provides a cosmetic change while leaving all the problems from a sugar- and carb-rich diet in place.
7
Underwater weighing is the only accurate test for body fat percent. If the visceral fat is too high, it will be disclosed by this test. It is more informative than a random waistline dimension.
2
There are other laboratory-based gold-standard methods besides underwater weighing. Most sports scientists use either a BODPOD or else dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan. Not too many people still use underwater weighing.
2
If you aren't stick-skinny, you carry a dangerous amount of belly fat. Period.
Argue this truth until the cows come home, but truth is truth.
You're overeating and/or not getting enough exercise if you aren't stick-skinny and that's the real problem. And being old is no excuse.
No one is more sad about this than I am.
19
Because skinny people never get sick...
7
Stick skinny? No. How about normal pre-food additives fit? A lot of older movies show normal weight, not bloated people. Skinny started with Twiggy in the 60s. We have been subjected to 50 years of images of opioid fueled super model rock star skinny and it is NOT normal, neither is the weird visceral bloat that people cannot lose.
16
@Honeybee:
"Eat less, exercise more" has been demonstrated to be the least successful method for long-term fat loss, over and over again throughout a century of obesity research. I recommend a read of Gary Taubes.
"Eat less, exercise more" is unsuccessful in the long run because it's a fundamental misunderstanding of _why_ the body gains or loses weight. "Overeating" is a symptom and not a root cause.
14
Wait, so there aren't any alternatives to take visceral fat off? Last time I checked laser surgery can knock it off in a breeze with the right surgeons. Why don't we have alternatives besides dieting to give us something to aim for? This research has to give us more detail on what we can do to avoid having a beach ball belly, especially those ready to hit 40 and above. Otherwise, this article is nothing more than a warning to those that want to hit Mighty Quinn's BBQ for its famous dinosaur ribs during Oktoberfest every week...
4
The last paragraph of the article says that visceral fat can be removed by surgery, but that fat removal by surgery does not improve the health of the person having the surgery. The next sentence says that the only "useful" way to remove visceral fat is diet and exercise. "Useful" being defined as improving the overall health of the individual, not just getting rid of belly fat.
31
But that was one study, in 2010. This would be a really good thing to study again, perhaps in conjunction with diet and exercise protocols randomized across the group. I'd be curious to know if you combined fat removal plus reg exercise plus lower carbs, lower sugar diet if that might help and to what degree a person's inflammatory genetic profile affected things...
12
Some anti-HIV drugs are also known to cause an increase in visceral fat in long term users.
3
Dang! We keep coming back to this again and again: There is no easy way to be healthy, except through diet and exercise, diet and exercise, diet and exercise.
55
Shamu - This "diet and exercise" thing is a not-so-great synonym for how we humans have evolved over millenia to be optimally adapted to the diet provided by Mother Nature and to be capable of great physical fitness and endurance. But when you kattywompus those things very quickly in the cosmic timeframe and introduce novel toxins and stresses into the environment, you reap what you sow which we are now witnessing.
12
Actually, if you search the NYT you'll find a number of articles refuting the health benefits - or at least weight losing potential - of exercise. It really is more complicated than diet and exercise: which diet, how much exercise, and for which population?
Does "surgery" include the Sono Bello ( http://www.sonobello.com/ ) treatment that I've seen advertised on cable TV?
Like anything else, I'm guessing if you don't treat the underlying cause, you're bound to have the same issue again later.
1
The measurement is so general that it seems that it could only apply to a small subset of the population. I'm 5'2", have a slender bone structure and weigh 115 lbs. Why would the same standard apply to someone my size and also to someone taller and bigger boned? I'm pretty sure that a 35" waist on a 5"10" woman with a mesomorph body type would look a lot more proportionate than it would for someone my size. How can one measurement possibly apply to an entire gender?
73
I've wondered that myself. It seems preposterous on its face. Yet MD's and journalists trot out that "guideline" a straight face.
7
The article clearly states that a waist of "MORE THAN 35 inches in women" which means that a measurement below 35 is considered and that 35 is not the ideal only.
"Although the definitive test for visceral fat is a CT or other specialized scan, a waist circumference of more than 35 inches in women and more than 40 in men indicates an unhealthy amount of visceral fat, said Dr. Apovian, an obesity medicine specialist at the Boston University School of Medicine."
4
I don't think it has anything to do with looking proportionate. Remember, this is not about the subcutaneous fat that is more readily visible under the skin; this is visceral fat around your internal organs. The only way this one-measurement-fits-all approach makes sense to me is that it's measuring more from the inside out. In other words, how thick of a layer of visceral fat around a core of internal organs does it take to enter the "unhealthy" zone? But that's only my own train of thought, I haven't seen this issue answered anywhere.
4
Seen one study that says visceral fat is impervious to exercise. Indeed. a few years ago I lost 30 pounds, shedding body mass everywhere except the layer of visceral fat, which clung to me like a tumor.
MDs are exceptionally reluctant to discuss this. Mine says 'per reviewed studies cannot prove it even exists except by autopsy.'
Boosting metabolism seems like a great method. How do you do that?
The editors of Well, this is a topic that deserves a lot more attention, not only evaluating the research but helping people find real life solutions now.
48
Living in the southwest, I've noticed that the people who often have my body type are Pueblo or Navajo Native Americans. I certainly can't explain it, but hope someone can. I have not yet found an answer for myself being in an appropriate weight range but carrying much excess fat in the belly, with thin legs two sizes smaller than the waist.
1
Boost metabolism through exercise - exercise will keep your metabolism higher for a couple of days.
2
Holy ox, My waist is 44. I am dead already.
30
Oh Homer!
4
I am 70 and have a 42 inch waist. I weigh about 180. My arms and legs are thin. I don't eat carbs; sometimes rarely. I am sick of my clothes not fitting. In my late 30s I became anorexic for one year. My normal weight should have been around 135 lbs. When I went down to 114, my stomach disappeared for the first time in my life. I cannot live on no cheese, a tablespoon of brown rice, a cup of vegetarian soup and some broccoli florets per day. Solutions should be sought other than demanding heroic efforts from people. Appetite control should be the focus.
5
Controlling one's blood sugar reduces one's appetite to more normal levels. In other words, if I have a day where I eat more carbs, I am more hungry...my appetite soars. People that don't have this refuse to understand.
13
'the only useful way of losing visceral fat is through diet and exercise'. My bet is that loss of fat through exercise indicates that your metabolism is working well. A friend of ours had lipo, only to have the fat return over 2 years or so. She did not change her diet and exercise to keep it off.
8
I have no doubt that too much visceral fat is a health risk. But the inability to quantify that risk may create unnecessary anxiety. A 40 inch waist in men and a 35 inch waist in women sounds too vague as cutoffs. I don't think the information provided in this article satisfactorily answers the question. I assume this is due to lack of good research data.
36
It seems like those same numbers have been floating around for years. I'd like to know how they were found in the first place.
4
Well, they are still working on it, as stated here. The last comment by the doctor was interesting inasmuch as it wasn't only the visceral fat itself that was the health problem but probably the overall state of the person that caused such fat in the first place.
A waist of 40" is already telling me you're far over the limit!