View Single Post
  #7   ^
Old Sun, Sep-25-16, 10:16
MickiSue MickiSue is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 8,006
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 189/148.6/145 Female 5' 5"
BF:36%/28%/25%
Progress: 92%
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Default

If it's true that having visceral fat mass of > 0 is a risk factor for metabolic syndrome, then you have A risk factor. But since you are negative on all other measured risk factors, you do not have the disease itself.

A similar example. I have a grandmother, two aunts, a sister and a cousin who have had breast cancer. I have a strong family history, thence, strong risk factors for breast cancer. But I, myself have not had it. And, the older I get, the less likely I am to get it: ALL of them had their first symptoms before the age of 50.

You have neatly eliminated all but one of the risk factors for metabolic syndrome. And that one is a guess.

MY guess is that it's about as accurate as assuming that total cholesterol greater than 200 is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, and should be aggressively treated with statins. IOW: totally inaccurate, and based on further totally inaccurate assumptions about fat, in general.
Reply With Quote