Abdominal fat predicts heart disease risk better than BMI

Relatedly, there is evidence that certain types of "resistant starch" can help reduce visceral fat. This starch comes from green bananas, potatoes, legumes, etc. It has to be either raw (there are supplements for this) or cooked and cooled."Resistant starch intake facilitates weight loss in humans by reshaping the gut microbiota"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10963277/Edit: Ah, HN submission 2 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39592367 reply: I feel like I've heard this story 1 million times before.

For non-invasive heart disease risk prediction nothing beat ECG, period.Somehow American Heart Association and its European counterpart are in denial, and still pushing dinasour screening mechanism with very low accuracy for heart disease risk prediction.The standard risk model for CVD based on PREVENT (US) and SCORE-2 (Europe) like parameters are very poor as reported in the recently published paper on the their accuracy performance by the Swedish team [1]. As all CVD risk stratification with cardiologist review (expert-in-the-loop), the most important accuracy metric is sensivity/recall (avoiding false negative that will escape review) of PREVENT and SCORE-2, 26% and 48%, respectively.The paper alternative proposal increased the sensitivity to 58% by performing clustering instead of conventional regression models as practiced in the PREVENT and SCORE-2.These type of models including the latest proposal performed very poorly as indicated by their otherwise excellent and intuitive display of graphical abstract results [1].[1] Risk stratification for cardiovascular disease:... reply: Get as many scans you can under insurance....

I thought this was pretty well known already. Being “overfat” is the problem, not being overweight (though they’re often correlated). BMI is really easy to measure, and is mostly accurate, that’s why it’s so pervasive. However it remains a pretty rudimentary metric (and really should use the third power or your height instead of the second). reply: > BMI is really easy to measure, and is mostly accurate, that’s why it’s so pervasive.BMI is easily misunderstood by people who know just enough to see that it’s imperfect, but not enough to understand why it’s still a valuable screening tool.I’ve been in the “overweight” BMI range with low body fat before. It’s not too hard to get there if you’re lifting weights and paying attention to your diet consistently for years, but it takes a lot of work to get there....

A nitpick about the title: Not strictly abdominal fat, but visceral abdominal fat, which surrounds the organs. Not all abdominal fat is visceral; in fact, in many people the majority is not. The article mentions visceral early on, which is the subject. reply: If you have a lot of abdominal fat then you also have visceral fat so it's just a proxy

> Those with obesity and low WC [waist circumference] were not found to be associated with a significantly different risk of outcomes compared with those who had normal weight and low WC, except for all-cause mortality, for which risk was significantly lower.If I'm reading that right, it sounds like obesity (and therefore BMI) is still a better predictor for all-cause mortality. Perhaps waist circumference is better at predicting cardiovascular risk but BMI is still useful.

This is new? I thought they have been saying this for years reply: They have. BIM is usually talked about in the same breath as waist circumference which would be a better measure of abdominal fat.

You can control your CVD risk.Cutting saturated fat to under 15g per day and increasing intake of viscose fibre (e.g. beans) will reduce your LDL particle count in a few weeks, which reduces your CVD hazard ratio. You can measure your LDL and look up the papers yourself. Statins will reduce it a lot too (potentially with side effects). Replace solid fats like butter with liquid fats like olive oil.Literally any amount of regular exercise, including walking, will decrease CVD HR. The more the better (up until quite a large amount e.g. professional athlete). The more your heart is steadily pumping during exercise the better. Every bit helps reduce CVD risk. Movement is medicine.For the love of God do not smoke. Literally one of the surest ways to die a horrible death. Stopping smoking reduces CVD risk by a large amount.Do not give yourself diabetes by eating vast amounts of sugar. If you are doing this, stop. Not having diabetes decreases CVD risk.Other factors you probably can't change so focus on these.Doctors, if I got anything wrong please correct me. reply: You said all this like you know something, but you didn’t bring up oxidative stress once....

> Studies have shown that visceral fat, which is fat that surrounds the internal organs in the abdominal area, is associated with chronic diseases like heart disease and diabetes, while subcutaneous fat, which is located directly under the skin, is not as strongly associated.How does one determine if one has an excess of visceral fat? reply: A waist measurement is the cheapest and simplest way other than just looking.You want to make sure you measure under similar conditions, like in the morning after relieving yourself (for example).If it's too high, losing a ~0.5-1 lbs per week while strength and endurance training with progressive overload will get it down sustainably.https://www.barbellmedicine.com/blog/visceral-fat-waist-vs-w...

Yeah because it has an actual correlation, whereas BMI is a ridiculously oversimplified measurement designed for population statistics based on what data is easily available, not individual assessment.

take a look at myticker.com(previously at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45857053)

It doesn’t matter how fat you are or how much cholesterol you have in your blood. What matters is the oxidative stress that oxidizes the lipids.They need to figure out a way to reliably Measure OXLDL.

The irony of BMI is that people with plenty of muscle mass are more likely to have a high BMI as well as lowered risk for heart disease.BMI was never meant to be used as a diagnostic measure. BMI is just a rough filter for large data sets, and entirely dependent on the average height and habits of that population.Anyone taller than about 6'3" could tell you the recommended weight according to their BMI has always been absurdly low. If it's a printed chart on the wall, they might not even be on it.

For two people that are the same height, one could have X lbs of pure muscle, and one could have X lbs of pure fat, and they would have the same BMI. Color me shocked that it is not always a good predictor of disease.

The 2000's called. We've known this for decades because we did a LOT of studies back in the day when you could still get government funding.

“Be athletic don’t eat food” they saidThen basically ALL the athletes die young lol. Particularly of heart conditionsIdk guys