Mick F wrote:We also had the thread some few years back about being an "ape". Do your outstretched arms and hands to your fingertips measure more than your overall height?
I'm an ape.
That can be a sign of connective tissue disorders such as Marfans Syndrome.
I used to think that at 6ft 2in, 18st was my natural weight and having a big belly was part of that. After all, I’ve been that way for 25 years. However, 2 years ago I was diagnosed as Type 2 Diabetic (though now under control), this year my doc said that I was showing early signs of Fatty Liver disease. This was the wake call I needed and I’ve lost 2.5 stone in 3 months, following the Michael Mosley Fast 800 diet. I’ve done this whilst continuing to do 150 miles a week on my bike.
I’ve now realised that my belly was due to years of overeating. Being overweight, especially round the middle, will eventually have implications for your health, but you can do something about it. The good news is that the area with the most fat, is the first one where fat will start to disappear, if you do lose weight.
thelawnet wrote:tummy fat is surely a male thing, rather than a cyclist thing
It's a human thing. Females can be similarly classified, with some body types moire easily developing the bulging tums via visceral fat.
Females have an overall variation in shape from that of otherwise similar males, though, which can often emphasis any endomorph (pear-shaped) features because all women tend to have wider hips and smaller rib cages compared to males with similar body types.
Not only is it a male vs female thing, the 'body type' issue is much stronger in females than males.
Body fat distribution is well known to differ between males and females, which we also clearly show in our study. We also show that the genetic effects that influence fat distribution are stronger in females compared to males.
In other words there are genes that affect where women lay down fat, that don't affect men.
It is noted that fat around the internal organs is very unhealthy, so women have a survival advantage in that they will tend to lay down fat in their hips & legs rather than their tummies, reducing the risk of heart disease etc. in women.
Mick F wrote:We also had the thread some few years back about being an "ape". Do your outstretched arms and hands to your fingertips measure more than your overall height?
I'm an ape.
That can be a sign of connective tissue disorders such as Marfans Syndrome.
I'm not tall and thin and I don't have any connective tissue disorders of any sort.
My finger-tip to finger-tip span is a few inches longer than my height.
Lots of talk about body type. What interests me is the ectomorph. The reason?? My older brother was this, with long limbs, long digits, double jointed. The reason I'm posting this is that he died suddenly from what we later found to be MARFANS SYNDROME. If anyone reading this is, say, a Peter Crouch type physique, there is a chance you are a sufferer. I recommend you ask your GP for a check up, which takes a few minutes. The problem is that many GPs still don't know about it. Basically the problem is down to a weakness in connective tissue, the main problem area being the main aorta, which gradually stretches until it bursts with immediate fatal consequence. My brother was early 50s, but many people die of this much younger. I'd hate to think of others dying for lack of info. If in doubt, check up asap. My brother's son was also found to suffer, but early diagnosis has saved his life.
briansnail wrote:Does any aspiring Biochemist know why/can explain the following ?. Cyclists can be as skinny as skeletons. Excepting the cyclists Achilles heel. Our Tummies. Fat is one fuel supply and tummies the depot..... Enjoy. No one escapes"
Have to say I've a six pack.
It's remarkable that one side effect of starting to do 500+ sit ups' as the minimum during each gym visit since 2016(4-5 visits per week), has been the development of a six pack Never used to have a six pack, when I only did a token 50-100 situps' 2-3 occ's per week
Though need to get rid of the flab, starting Monday (NB. The final 100 days of 2019). Back to the diet of beans, peas, lentils, white fish et al, banning the sugar and fat.
I,m intrigued.Why are you doing a huge number of sit ups?I thought sit ups had a bad press for back related issues.
cyclop wrote:I,m intrigued.Why are you doing a huge number of sit ups?I thought sit ups had a bad press for back related issues.
I find it best to take short breathing spaces from heavy exercise whilst at the gym and find blocks of 100-150 situps' provide that useful breathing space (NB. Couldn't do them this morning, as my broken shoulder and ribs are preventing it - had to take a break for ten minutes on a recliner exercise bike instead )
As for bad backs, I've never found situps' have any adverse effect - though the local buses can be bd for backs, as one gets thrown in a multitude of directions from one second to the next whilst taking the 90 minute bus into town
Sit-ups have a bad name for back problems because they develop a few muscles in isolation, including the hip flexors. They also compress discs and vertebrae. When hip flexors are too tight, they can pull on the lower back, causing discomfort. If other lower back muscles are substantially less developed, the combination of compression & overdeveloped flexors can lead to a lower back injury.
That's not to say that there are no benefits, but the 'plank' is generally a better exercise for core development, as it includes more muscles and less strain/compression than sit-up or crunches.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.” ― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Why has no one come to the obvious conclusion? I asked my wife, who is a human biologist and teaches about muscles/fuel etc Her answer (slightly simplified)was that muscles use the fat stored around them when needing to use fuel. I’ve got no fat on my legs but a slight tummy. My legs use fuel all the time but my tummy basically gets no exercise therefore doesn’t use its surrounding fat. The poster above who does loads of sit ups and doesn’t have tummy fat is a great example. Want a flat stomach? Core exercise and sit-ups, crunches etc.
Niallmo wrote:Why has no one come to the obvious conclusion? I asked my wife, who is a human biologist and teaches about muscles/fuel etc Her answer (slightly simplified)was that muscles use the fat stored around them when needing to use fuel. I’ve got no fat on my legs but a slight tummy. My legs use fuel all the time but my tummy basically gets no exercise therefore doesn’t use its surrounding fat. The poster above who does loads of sit ups and doesn’t have tummy fat is a great example. Want a flat stomach? Core exercise and sit-ups, crunches etc.
But is it natural? How many of the Great Apes do you see doing sit-ups and crunches?
" Ectomorphs really struggle to gain any kind of weight ....etc.."
That. As finger/thumb/wrist test says I am. No weight gain when young even when manual work and 8 -10 pints of beer often Guiness per day. None when years on spirits. None since I quit the booze 16 years ago. No tummy either. Same 29-30" waist (genuine not trouser size) at over 70 as 15. I've always wanted to reach 10st.
But then both my parents could have said much the same until at least 80. My mum didn't drink. My dad most certainly did! My late wife was also in the same category as are both our children so far (mid-30s).
Never used to have a six pack, when I only did a token 50-100 situps' 2-3 occ's per week
)
