Sun, Sep-25-16, 21:59
|
 |
Senior Member
Posts: 258
|
|
Plan: MyOwn:CHO<90g/d
Stats: 207/149/150
BF:40%/17%/18%
Progress: 102%
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by deirdra
Zero is ridiculous; the organs need some protection. I also would like to know where the 0.4kg number comes from. Is it the typical amount found on a healthy person who has never been obese? If our regular fat cells reduce in size but not number (except by autophagy over a longer time range), I suspect the same is true for visceral fat.
I was just looking at your weight loss graphs and they look just like mine. Clearly the advice to get help from a registered dietician (or registered dogmatist,  as I call them) would increase your fat levels. |
I feel a lot more relaxed after reading all the feedback here. I think the clinics and the registered dogmatists might just be touting for extra business.
As for the 0.4kg threshold I’ve continued searching around for info since starting this thread and the only thing I have managed to find so far is the following statement from a health writer's blog:
"How Much Visceral Fat can I have before it causes health problems?
Research has demonstrated that when we look across the population and stuff everyone under the bell curve, a visceral fat area ranging from 10 to 100 cm2 is considered normal and at around 100 cm2 the risk for heart and metabolic problems begins to increase."
http://www.drbillsukala.com.au/heal...-should-i-have/
This is interesting but like so many blog statements it is not backed up by any references/citations. Also it refers to a threshold measure of visceral fat in terms of area (i.e. square centimeters, cm2). My DEXA scan results for visceral fat are reported in volume (cubic centimeters, cm3) and mass (kg). I have no idea how to relate the blogist’s threshold of 100cm2 to my DEXA result.
However, at least this information supports the notion that there is a threshold, which IS NOT zero. |