Research in: Fatter is weaker?

I'm not a doctor but… 
Cycling injury, recovery and health issues.
Forum rules
The information / discussion in the Cycling Health Forum is not qualified medical advice. Please consult your doctor.

Research in: Fatter is weaker?

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Thu Dec 19, 2013 3:29 pm

From http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20131812-25114.html

Weighty men lose muscle, bone


Deakin University
Thursday, 19 December 2013


As men get fatter their bones and muscles get weaker, a Deakin University study has found.

A research team with Deakin’s School of Medicine measured the BMI (body mass index), fat, muscle and bone density of 1329 men aged 25-96 in the Geelong region during 2001-06 and of 900 men of similar ages five years later. They found that a 1.2 per cent increase in BMI was driven by a 9 per cent increase in body fat and that muscle mass had dropped by 0.9 per cent and bone mass by 1.6 per cent.

“Obesity in men is clearly on the rise,” said Professor Julie Pasco, lead investigator of the study.

“But an even more alarming finding is that while body fat has increased, muscles and bones have deteriorated.

“Obesity is bad enough as it increases the risk for diseases such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes. However we are now seeing that the musculoskeletal system (bones and muscle) could be affected too.”

While the changes in muscle and bone mass found in the study are relatively small compared to the increase in body fat, they foretell serious problems for the future as the population ages.

“During ageing, bone loss leads to osteoporosis and muscle loss leads to a condition known as sarcopenia which makes people physically weak, less mobile and more dependent,” Professor Pasco said.

“When sarcopenia occurs in the face of obesity, fat infiltrates the muscles, which further weakens muscle strength and performance.

“The public health challenge is to identify ways to modify the environment and change behaviour at a population level to combat the obesity epidemic and address these undesirable changes in body composition.”

The findings are part of the Geelong Osteoporosis Study that has been monitoring the health status of Geelong residents for more than 20 years.

The Geelong Osteoporosis Study is a population-based health study conducted by Deakin University’s Epidemiology Unit for Healthy Ageing, in Deakin University’s IMPACT Strategic Research Centre based at Barwon Health.

This new research is published online in the journal Obesity.




Hmmm, just pondering:
  • Does being lazy gives rise to being overweight and being weaker. Sounds reasoanble co-incidence ofthe two arrising out of low physical activity
  • Or does being overweight somehow dictate (by as yet unexplained physiological pathways) the outcomes of less dnese boen and weaker musclature? Cause and effect.
Unchain yourself - Ride a unicycle .Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4289
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

by BNA » Thu Dec 19, 2013 3:56 pm

BNA
 

Re: Research in: Fatter is weaker?

Postby Nobody » Thu Dec 19, 2013 3:56 pm

I'd go for your first point. I blame:
- Cars & motorized transport.
- Computers.
- TV - more TVs per house, more free channels, PVRs, pay TV etc.
- Game consoles.
- Less physical work
Nobody
 
Posts: 6489
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Research in: Fatter is weaker?

Postby biker jk » Thu Dec 19, 2013 4:03 pm

Nobody wrote:I'd go for your first point. I blame:
- Cars & motorized transport.
- Computers.
- TV - more TVs per house, more free channels, PVRs, pay TV etc.
- Game consoles.
- Less physical work


It's actually more do do with the calorie input than burning. Fast food, processed sugar, etc. Portion sizes not being reduced to reflect less physical activity. Think about how much exercise you need to do to burn off a chocolate bar. One a day adds 12kg per year to body weight.
User avatar
biker jk
 
Posts: 2174
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Research in: Fatter is weaker?

Postby Nobody » Thu Dec 19, 2013 4:20 pm

biker jk wrote:
Nobody wrote:I'd go for your first point. I blame:
- Cars & motorized transport.
- Computers.
- TV - more TVs per house, more free channels, PVRs, pay TV etc.
- Game consoles.
- Less physical work


It's actually more do do with the calorie input than burning. Fast food, processed sugar, etc. Portion sizes not being reduced to reflect less physical activity. Think about how much exercise you need to do to burn off a chocolate bar. One a day adds 12kg per year to body weight.
I agree. I went back to add more then found your post. But without getting into a debate on it, I think food type has more to do with it than portion size. Although portion size would probably also make a difference.
Nobody
 
Posts: 6489
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Research in: Fatter is weaker?

Postby marc2131 » Sun Dec 22, 2013 1:09 pm

Fats and sugars in modern foods, esp fast foods are on the increase. This is not helped by the variety and it's relative cheapness (such a word?) in relation to normal non processed foods.
This coupled with the modern lifestyle does not help.
Also need to look at the change in attitudes to work and especially what is defined as leisure. The whole concept of comfort has also changed considerably since the 1970s and particularly the 80s.
Most of the population are fixated on a 'modernist' perspective to life ie. things get better with time. Old is out and anything new is in. Nothing is judged on its practicality. So today we find people striving to having larger and larger homes, bigger cars, smaller gardens etc simply because these simplistic people think it is a natural progression 'forward'. People don't physically move as much as the previous generation, their climate is controlled, even in their cars. People get lazy - that is when obesity creeps in.
Funnily enough, this 'modernist' perspective which has been around since the late 1800s and esp early 1900s, has become a little passé among the better read middle classes. Change was largely brought on after the counter culture movements in the 1960s. Now it is the working classes, who appear to be the stalwart of the 'modernist' point of view, while their middle class brothers and sisters take to the gyms, cut down on calories, ditch the car and cycle to work.
... 15km short of a cardiac arrest ...
c.1967 Jim Bundy Roadie
c.1952 Alcone 'Road Special'
1985 Raleigh Team Panasonic
User avatar
marc2131
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 9:20 pm
Location: Inner West, Sydney

Re: Research in: Fatter is weaker?

Postby g-boaf » Sun Dec 22, 2013 4:40 pm

There are plenty of people who do physical work who are also overweight. But, it's not easy to split this into classes, eg, middle class, working classes, etc.

Case in point, a "working class" guy I see sometimes when I'm getting breakfast in the city. When I'm just arriving into the CBD, he's already been there for a long time doing his triathlon training.

Other working class people are gym junkies. And then you have white-collar class who are addicted to their cars and probably need to get moving and do some exercise.

The key factors are food types and the ability of the person to make time to fit in exercise. This might mean getting on the bike for a 1.5 hours instead of spending that time at the local pub after work.

If I have to choose between a drink with my colleagues after work or getting on my bike, I prefer my bike more. It's an addiction.
Image
g-boaf
 
Posts: 3330
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Research in: Fatter is weaker?

Postby sogood » Sun Dec 22, 2013 5:10 pm

g-boaf wrote:There are plenty of people who do physical work who are also overweight. But, it's not easy to split this into classes, eg, middle class, working classes, etc.

I agree.
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
User avatar
sogood
 
Posts: 16796
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Research in: Fatter is weaker?

Postby biker jk » Sun Dec 22, 2013 6:11 pm

g-boaf wrote:There are plenty of people who do physical work who are also overweight. But, it's not easy to split this into classes, eg, middle class, working classes, etc.

Case in point, a "working class" guy I see sometimes when I'm getting breakfast in the city. When I'm just arriving into the CBD, he's already been there for a long time doing his triathlon training.

Other working class people are gym junkies. And then you have white-collar class who are addicted to their cars and probably need to get moving and do some exercise.

The key factors are food types and the ability of the person to make time to fit in exercise. This might mean getting on the bike for a 1.5 hours instead of spending that time at the local pub after work.

If I have to choose between a drink with my colleagues after work or getting on my bike, I prefer my bike more. It's an addiction.


There are well established relationships between obesity and income levels/education.

https://www.aihw.gov.au/who-is-overweight/

http://www.oecd.org/eco/growth/relationship%20education%20and%20obesity.pdf
User avatar
biker jk
 
Posts: 2174
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Research in: Fatter is weaker?

Postby sogood » Sun Dec 22, 2013 6:25 pm

That's true at a population level but one needs to be more sensitive at an individual level.
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
User avatar
sogood
 
Posts: 16796
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Research in: Fatter is weaker?

Postby biker jk » Sun Dec 22, 2013 6:36 pm

sogood wrote:That's true at a population level but one needs to be more sensitive at an individual level.


There are exceptions to every rule but public policy shouldn't be guided by outliers.
User avatar
biker jk
 
Posts: 2174
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Research in: Fatter is weaker?

Postby sogood » Sun Dec 22, 2013 6:42 pm

True that policy needs and are guided by statistical population data, but still needs to take into account of the exceptions and the level of exceptions. As for verbal categorical statements, it may not be appropriate nor relevant.
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
User avatar
sogood
 
Posts: 16796
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Research in: Fatter is weaker?

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Mon Dec 23, 2013 12:39 am

I was hoping to move away from the same-oh on what works for each of us to reduce weight etc,

Any comment about the relationship between bone density/strength and weight for example?
Unchain yourself - Ride a unicycle .Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4289
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Research in: Fatter is weaker?

Postby sogood » Mon Dec 23, 2013 1:12 am

It's not really worth worrying about. Get the weight to a good range, do what's best for bone strength, the two factors can be managed separately. Otherwise, poor health parameters can affect other organ systems, something that's hardly surprising.
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
User avatar
sogood
 
Posts: 16796
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Research in: Fatter is weaker?

Postby Leiothrix » Mon Dec 23, 2013 3:27 pm

g-boaf wrote:If I have to choose between a drink with my colleagues after work or getting on my bike, I prefer my bike more. It's an addiction.


Me too, except that it's more what I think about my colleagues than my commitment to cycling :twisted:
User avatar
Leiothrix
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 5:25 pm
Location: Wollongong

Re: Research in: Fatter is weaker?

Postby HappyHumber » Mon Dec 23, 2013 4:22 pm

You guys and these threads..... tsk...

Might as well be arguing about daylight savings in W.A. or religion for all the good it does in society.
Do you enjoy talking in circles? Love arguing over silly semantics with like minded people?
Try an online forum today!
User avatar
HappyHumber
 
Posts: 3863
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 10:48 pm
Location: Perth, (S.o.R.) W.A.

Re: Research in: Fatter is weaker?

Postby casual_cyclist » Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:11 pm

ColinOldnCranky wrote:Hmmm, just pondering:
  • Does being lazy gives rise to being overweight and being weaker. Sounds reasoanble co-incidence ofthe two arrising out of low physical activity
  • Or does being overweight somehow dictate (by as yet unexplained physiological pathways) the outcomes of less dnese boen and weaker musclature? Cause and effect.

I don't think you can draw any conclusions between overweight and obesity, muscle and bone density without controlling for physical activity and diet.

As far as I know, an active overweight person won't necessarily have lower bone density. Conversely, a sedentary "normal" weight person may. Diet may also play a role with number of serves of vegetables and fruit being a factor.

I found an article with a good description of osteoporosis and risk factors: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3419346/

In addition to age and sex, established lifestyle-related risk factors of osteoporosis comprise reduced physical activity and the amount of calcium and vitamin D intake. Body mass or body composition parameters, respectively, are putative risk factors.


The type of activity also has an impact on bone density.

I am not aware of any studies that demonstrate an increased risk of osteoporosis due to overweight independed of activity levels and nutrition.

I would guess that low activity levels and poor nutrition lead to overweight, weaker musculature and lower bone density. It would take a lot of time reading through the research to confirm this.
<removed by request>
User avatar
casual_cyclist
 
Posts: 6788
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:41 am
Location: Kewdale

Re: Research in: Fatter is weaker?

Postby casual_cyclist » Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:55 pm

Diet: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23001895

A good general nutritional status and adequate dietary protein, calcium, vitamin D, fruits, and vegetables have a positive influence on bone health, while a high caloric diet and heavy alcohol consumption have been associated with lower bone mass and higher rates of fracture


It would have been useful if the study mentioned in the first post collected data on nutrition. Data on diet would have made the BMI/bone density correlation more meaningful. For example if the research subject were overweight but had a good general nutritional status, that would be one thing but if they were overweight with a high caloric diet and heavy alcohol consumption, that would be another thing entirely.
<removed by request>
User avatar
casual_cyclist
 
Posts: 6788
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:41 am
Location: Kewdale

Re: Research in: Fatter is weaker?

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Mon Dec 30, 2013 3:14 pm

casual_cyclist wrote:Diet: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23001895

A good general nutritional status and adequate dietary protein, calcium, vitamin D, fruits, and vegetables have a positive influence on bone health, while a high caloric diet and heavy alcohol consumption have been associated with lower bone mass and higher rates of fracture


It would have been useful if the study mentioned in the first post collected data on nutrition. Data on diet would have made the BMI/bone density correlation more meaningful. For example if the research subject were overweight but had a good general nutritional status, that would be one thing but if they were overweight with a high caloric diet and heavy alcohol consumption, that would be another thing entirely.

In terms of validity then provided the sample size is large enough and you are not stratifying it too finely then theset thngs will even out.

However, if one then wishes to see it's applicability to specific sub-cohort the data collected needs to also include that on which subjects can then be allocated to the cohort of interest. I sometimes find out that I cannot determine if what is published is relevant to particular circumstances that I am interested in too.
Unchain yourself - Ride a unicycle .Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4289
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: Research in: Fatter is weaker?

Postby casual_cyclist » Mon Dec 30, 2013 3:17 pm

Activity: http://www.niams.nih.gov/health_Info/Bone/Bone_Health/Exercise/default.asp

The best exercise for your bones is the weight-bearing kind, which forces you to work against gravity. Some examples of weight-bearing exercises include weight training, walking, hiking, jogging, climbing stairs, tennis, and dancing. Examples of exercises that are not weight-bearing include swimming and bicycling. Although these activities help build and maintain strong muscles and have excellent cardiovascular benefits, they are not the best way to exercise your bones.


With regard to the original post, it would have been useful if the study collected data about activity levels. For example, if the study participants were overweight and sedentary, overweight could be discounted as a causal factor for low bone density. However, if the participants were overweight and active, then overweight could not be discounted as a causal factor for low bone density.
<removed by request>
User avatar
casual_cyclist
 
Posts: 6788
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:41 am
Location: Kewdale

Re: Research in: Fatter is weaker?

Postby casual_cyclist » Mon Dec 30, 2013 3:23 pm

Obesity: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24079076

Ah ha! Maybe there is a link after all.

In obese individuals, greater visceral adiposity is associated with greater marrow fat, lower bone density and impaired bone structure.


http://www.cof.org.cn/pdf/2009/5/Bone,%20Fat,%20and%20Body%20Composition%20Evolving%20Concepts%20in%20the%20Pathogenesis%20of%20Osteoporosis.PDF

[url]A disturbing picture also has emerged from the ongoing obesity epidemic. The prevalence of radial fractures in young adults has increased dramatically during the last decade, and one of the strongest predictors of fracture in this population is excess body weight. The mechanism(s) responsible for this relationship is unknown but likely to be multifactorial and related to lifestyle, nutrition, and genetic determinants.[/url]
<removed by request>
User avatar
casual_cyclist
 
Posts: 6788
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:41 am
Location: Kewdale

Re: Research in: Fatter is weaker?

Postby Davobel » Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:30 pm

I would agree with your first assumption. As the increase of muscle tension increases bone density then it is not a big surprise that a decrease in muscle mass decreases bone mass. What else would you expect? As we age (post-35) we would normally expect to lose muscle mass on a yearly basis, this gradual loss adds up over time. (We never see an 80 y.o. as strong as when they were 40.) As a tissue, muscle takes energy to maintain, decreased muscle mass means a decreased energy requirement. If we maintain the same caloric intake then excess energy gets stored as fat.
Davobel
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2011 6:16 pm

Re: Research in: Fatter is weaker?

Postby Razorwolf » Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:30 am

The way we stem the loss of this muscle mass would be to continue to live an active lifestyle and force our bodies to keep the muscle mass. Examples of this can been seen in really fricken fit 60 - 70 year olds. Like my uncle who lives on the farm and gets up at 5am every morning to do the farm chores, or my old taekwondo instructor who at 60 years of age was fitter than most 20 year olds due to 3 hours of training every day.

Nobody wrote:- TV - more TVs per house, more free channels, PVRs, pay TV etc.

This is so true, since moving to Brisbane in August we sold our TV before the move and haven't bought a new one yet.
Both my wife and I have lost approx 5% body weight and feel much fitter due to spending more time outdoors or in the pool rather than on the couch and infront of the TV.
I'm considering not buying another TV at all, we haven't really missed it.

g-boaf wrote:If I have to choose between a drink with my colleagues after work or getting on my bike, I prefer my bike more. It's an addiction.

Why can't there be both?! I normally try and have a couple of drinks with my Colleagues on a Friday afternoon and then go on an easy ride home.
To me the drinking isn't about the beer, it's the social aspect of it. Like everything, you gotta keep it in moderation and remember the golden rule:

(energy in) - (energy out) = 0

It's really that simple. There's no real myths to dieting. Everyone know's it. It's just some people have no discipline or cant grasp common sense.
I have a quiet chuckle everytime I see a new "diet" regime come out. What a sham!
I know... preaching to the chor, I'll shut up now.
User avatar
Razorwolf
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 5:52 pm
Location: Brisbane


Return to Cycling Health

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: zill



Support BNA
Click for online shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Cycling Express Cycling Express
Ebay Ebay AU
ProBikeKit ProBikeKit UK
Evans Cycles Evans Cycles UK
JensonUSA Jenson USA
JensonUSA Competitive Cyclist