I don’t think of a six-pack being the same thing as visible abs. Someone with a reasonable diet and level of activity can have visible abs since it’s just a matter of having a low enough % of BF that the basic shape of the abs can show. That could easily be 20-25%. But a six-pack requires working out enough to produce large, firm ab muscles that look like rolls and having a BF less than 15% so that they are clearly visible.
Six-pack abs like these take a lot of exercise and focus on diet to achieve. It would not be possible to achieve that through diet alone.
A man with 25% bodyfat is not going to have any ab definition. Period. And while it’s true that the the abs of the man in the pic above couldn’t really be achieved without exercise as well as diet, it’s the diet that is far and away in the driver’s seat as far as what is determining what we see. If we look at his (likely) exercise plan and compare it to his (likely) diet plan, it would be his diet plan that was much, much more strict and unusual for the regular joe.
Well, for one thing, anorexics aren’t exactly models for smart, healthy methods of calorie reduction. Anorexics don’t care what weight they lose, be it fat or muscle, they just want to weigh less. A fitness-oriented diet plan that focused on retaining maximum amounts of muscle mass while burning maximum amounts of fat can, if properly followed, produce great results that are achieved primarily through calorie reduction with a bit of accompanying exercise.
While I don’t want to speak for the esteemed doc, I believe he was speaking in terms of the typical person; in generalities. Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule, some people have naturally higher testosterone levels and because of this are naturally leaner and/or more muscled. Just as there are those with naturally higher metabolisms and can eat whatever they want and stay skinny. They aren’t the typical person, but they certainly exist. You, by your own account, seem to fall into one of these categories.
No, he asked a question that he thought he knew the answer to. He argued very well for his opinion. And then, when others told him he was wrong, he asked for clarification, and then, finally agreed.
How in the fucking world is that an agenda? If anyone has an agenda, it’s you, having an agenda to prove that the guy’s concern about his friend is somehow evil. You are the one who made up claims but then refused to back them up. You are the one who continued attacking him baselessly.
And, thus, he is right to no longer engage with you, as you have indicated you are unwilling to discuss this topic honestly. I used to think this sort of thing was stupid, but I’m starting to see the merit. Sure, it leaves him open to his own biases, but none are apparent here.
Seriously, there was absolutely no call in accusing of doing something wrong. People on this board need to figure out that, just because they have a grudge against someone, doesn’t make all their actions horribly suspect. It’s one of the most frustrating things about this messageboard that so many of this board are completely unaware of their own personal biases in this regard.
If I recall correctly, the OP stated the individual in question was “working out”, which sounds like the person is trying to achieve this through exercise at least as much as through calorie reduction.
A grudge from what? I’ve never entered a conversation with the OP. And you might want to examine the rest of the discussion, wherein the OP and a doctor have agreed that a man who wishes to spend a couple hours each day improving himself is suffering from a “disorder” when all one has to do is turn on the television to see men and women in their forties and fifties in excellent shape, some very buff. It’s a doable project, may not be your cup of tea, but discouraging someone from setting a high goal to get in shape isn’t something a nice person would do. There is no indication that the man in the photo is suffering from anything at this point, and merely giving voice to a goal is not enough evidence to assume a disorder.
Many opinions were then appropriately offered that sure it was was safe and of health benefit. Some people were odd in their offense taken that someone would even question that it might not be the healthiest course to take.
I joined the party late:
Please note: I am responding directly to the question of the op. I do not know enough about this particular individual to say what his goal should be. But is it safe? Probably depending on what an individual does to achieve the goal. Is there a health benefit? Not compared to having healthy nutrition and exercise habits for their own sake and having a more typical body fat percentage of say 18% that would not be associated with washboard abs. On a population basis there is no question that the middle aged male with good nutrition and exercise habits whose BF% is 12% to 22% is at less risk of death than the one who is dieting to a BF% of under 10%, no matter how many ab exercises they are doing.
Is it pure vanity? Of course.
The jumping all over the op was unwarranted.
Clearly six packs do not define “physical health.” And of course being clinically underweight/underfat is possible without working at it. A woman has dropped to too low body fat at 23% and at a BMI of 18.5 (again healthiest outcomes correlated at higher, about 23 to 27 BMI) If you have a six pack I highly doubt that you are at the healthiest level. What is your height and weight? Not diagnosing you or giving you medical advice, thin is fine, but if a near 40 yo woman had a BMI of 23 and 30% body fat (rough correlation) she would be unhealthier by losing weight in pursuit of a six pack.
Yes, pretty self-evidently.
Maybe, but to the level of a serious athlete, where those BMI correlations do not hold? We do not know but I’d suspect not. Those are an elite bunch.
Again, the pursuit of a six pack, the pursuit of a BF% of under 10% in a middle aged male, is driven not by health but by vanity, by an unreasonable dissatisfaction with a reasonable body shape, and is likely less healthy than maintaining a BF% closer to 18%. Ambi has explained that even bodybuilders, whose hobby is of course all about the looks, will not maintain that low of a BF%. They will cut down to that for competition (and FaceBook photos) but otherwise spend training season with a higher BF% as the calorie restriction required to main that low of a BF% conflicts with gaining more muscle mass.
CLee, I have examined the rest of the conversation. You may want to because you are making shit up. You may also want to consider that looking to media images for body shape goals is not the healthiest thing to do. The op asked a reasonable question which is based on a reasonable general principle (whether or not it applies to his friend): you can have too little fat for optimal health and the BF% allegedly associated with a six pack is in that range for the typical 40+ yo male. If anyone comes off as having an agenda it is you.
I’m 5’9 and 130-135 pounds, but I’ll pass on the armchair analysis, thank you, I see a doctor regularly. I do not have a chiseled “six-pack” as I’m not a body builder and I’m female with the associated distribution of body fat, but I do have visible abdominal muscles. I wouldn’t attempt to achieve the six pack goal as spending that much time at the gym doesn’t interest me, but I regularly see older clients at my gym spending a couple hours several days per week working on the same goal as the OP’s family member and they certainly appear well-adjusted, healthy, and pleased with themselves.
Body dysmorphic disorder as described on the Mayo Clinic site apparently requires a lot more than merely a goal of chiseled abs. And the use of the word vanity may be a convenient foil for demonstrating that the health benefits of such a low body fat percentage are low to negative, but the word vanity also carries a value judgment. There are emotional and social benefits to achieving an appearance one is happy with that supersede mere vanity.
I don’t believe you have enough evidence to imply that the OP’s family member is heading for a dangerous emotional path by merely setting a goal for defined abs.
Your BMI is about 19.5, lowest 8% for your gender and age. Low end of the so-called normal range and at a level clearly at a higher populationmortality risk than for those who are in the over 23 to 27 BMI range have. Higher than those who are 27 to 30 as well. (See this figure.) BMI’s predictive value of course is a population-wide metric and of limited value for an individual. Commenting on your health, physical or mental, is not my job, but your doctor’s and other healthcare professions’ jobs.
Not quite sure how you define vanity but the point is indeed that it is a goal placed exclusively based on appearance factors and is of no to negative health benefit, which was the question of the op. I do not and have not made any or implied any specific diagnosis of any specific individual in my comments in this thread.
I’m aware that I’m within the normal weight range.
It certainly seems as though you have assigned a mental illness to the OP’s family member based on nothing more than his stated goal of achieving six pack abs. The Mayo symptom list does not include setting high goals for exercise and weight loss. Body dysmorphic disorder - Symptoms and causes - Mayo Clinic
Signs and symptoms of body dysmorphic disorder include:
[ul]
[li]Preoccupation with your physical appearance with extreme self-consciousness[/li][li] Frequent examination of yourself in the mirror, or the opposite, avoidance of mirrors altogether[/li][li] Strong belief that you have an abnormality or defect in your appearance that makes you ugly[/li][li] Belief that others take special notice of your appearance in a negative way[/li][li] Avoidance of social situations[/li][li] Feeling the need to stay housebound[/li][li] The need to seek reassurance about your appearance from others[/li][li] Frequent cosmetic procedures with little satisfaction[/li][li] Excessive grooming, such as hair plucking or skin picking, or excessive exercise in an unsuccessful effort to improve the flaw[/li][li] The need to grow a beard or wear excessive makeup or clothing to camouflage perceived flaws[/li][li] Comparison of your appearance with that of others[/li][li] Reluctance to appear in pictures[/li][/ul]
These numbers all exists within a relative range, and there are only limited hard figures which can be applied, as everyone is different. From what I’ve seen and in my own experience, your abs can start showing in the 13-15% range, too.
That said, your second link says that the healthy range for a 40 year old male is 8-19%, but you’ve stated this is serious and unhealthily underweight? By the chart, he is within the “healthy range”, and we also have to consider BMI is a general measure. But even if we place him in the next category of 11-22%, he will still lean towards the lower end, due to age, and given the overlap in numbers, it’s not a dramatic swing, especially if he’s maintaining an overall healthy lifestyle. He could still show abs in that range and remain healthy, overall. Otherwise, I’m in full agreement that it’s not necessary and lends more to pride.
More importantly, I’m not arguing that I’m right/wrong vs your stance. What I’m saying is that we have to make too many assumptions to arrive at any specific conclusion about his health. Something like a sudden cut in body fat, as opposed to gradual work where your body properly acclimates itself to changes, can have just as much bearing on what is determined as healthy. He’d do well with a plan and professional consulting, because from reading the thread and brazil84’s responses, some of the perspectives and conclusions he and his family member hold, aren’t very clear or thorough**** (and I can’t see the picture he posted).
**He feels he has a gut? They feel he is fine (what’s fine?). He wants a six-pack (how defined?). How did he measure his own body fat (partially answered)? He claims his BMI is overweight (??), How healthy or unhealthy are we talking? etc. All of these are questionable or non-specific observations or desires.
CLee, again read what I actually wrote, not what you *imagine *I have written. I have responded to the general question, not to the specific circumstance of the individual. A generic male in his 40s, of normal musculature for a person who is “recreationally fit” to the level consistent with long term health, is not healthier getting down to a BF% that has six pack abs than at a BF% of 18ish. Being driven to achieve that goal is consistent with (not diagnostic of) a body dysmorphic condition. I do not know enough details to know if this person meets the other criteria and you do not know that he does not. Based on that one bit of information and that alone there is reason to have concern and to be on the look out for other signs consistent with that condition - which you have kindly cited (although other criteria also exist). It is enough to raise concern absent other information.
Is he preoccupied with his body appearance? I don’t know, do you? Does he have a strong belief that his appearance has a defect? So on? Neither of us know. Maybe our op does, maybe not. We don’t.
Krouget the op specified “in his 40s” - for 41 to 60 yo the link states “healthy” as 11 to 22%. 40s is not 40 and under. And no, I did not say that under 10% BF is a serious health risk; just less healthy than a bit less underweight. Again BMI is predictive as a population-wide metric and not as good used for individuals as a stand alone information point. But for populations underweight and low normal BMI is less healthy than high normal and low overweight. Absent other information that is what we have to go on.
Yes I suspect the BF% for six packs varies greatly depending on where someone stores their fat and on the genetic nature of their muscles. Some might never get them at any BF%. Some at more reasonable BF%s. All the more reason to be concerned about using that as a goal from a health perspective.
I also could not see the picture. I suspect from the responses of those who did that he is in a normal range. I’d be concerned in that case only if his drive to achieve that goal was causing dysfunction otherwise and/or if his perception of his current appearance was interfering with his function or psychological well-being. We agree completely that we do not have all the information needed to draw any conclusion about this specific individual. We do have enough to agree that there may be just reasons for concern, depending on the additional specifics.
I’ve read you tossing out a potential mental health diagnosis based on a photo you admittedly can’t see and a goal stated second-hand. If you have cited criteria for body dysmorphic disorder that includes the pursuit of six pack abs please share, but I’ve read nothing from the OP that indicates a potential emotional or mental disorder and I can’t see a good reason to reinforce the OP’s interference (or concern) for his family member.
I feel no need to provide a cite for what I have not claimed but here is an article about how perception of “ideal body” is distorted by media images in males:
Females have dealt with this for a long time, a sense of inadequacy with their normal healthy body shapes, fueled by media images that are atypical and not necessarily healthy body types (thinner that is healthy or unrealistically proportioned), sometimes resulting in eating disorders. The same thing occurs in males with increasing frequency. The media image of “male” increasingly is unrealistic and the body dissatisfaction that some develop in response to that bombardment can result in unhealthy behaviors.
brazil, again the answer to your op is that the drive to have six packs, his apparently believing that not having a six pack is a defect, may be based on a distorted self image and is a stupid goal to set from a health perspective. What is your take on how he fits the other aspects being discussed? Does this self image result in significant psychologic distress? Does he engage in any unhealthy approaches in order to achieve his goal? Does working towards achieving his goal interfere with his other successful function in any way? If no to all then there is not at this time any problem even though his goal is dumb. If any are yes then there may be a problem.
How is it “increasingly unrealistic” when male stars of silent films in the 20s and 30s were also slim of figure? 1930s male film stars - Google Search
So now you’re asking for more diagnostic criteria when earlier you assigned a diagnosis of the mental disorder called body dysmorphia based on nothing other than a second hand goal of six pack abs for a man in his 40s?
Probably in order to have a productive discussion, we need to have a definition of “six pack abs.”
I propose the following definition: Sufficient muscle definition so that each of the 6 main abdominal muscle areas is separately visible to casual viewing in normal light.
Using that approach, I would say that the man whose picture I posted has a four pack but not a six pack. Mainly because he has a bit of a “spare tire” around his waist.
It seems reasonable to estimate that approximately 10 pounds of fat loss would be sufficient to get him the rest of the way. (?) i.e. going from a body fat percentage of about 20 percent to one of about 15 percent.
So one can ask the question – all things being equal, is it healthier for a man to be at 20% or 15% body fat?
Let’s put it this way - when I was at my leanest - 144lbs - my Cardiologist was the happiest. There is actually very little downside to being extremely lean (for men - there are some issues for women). Clearly, it’s not healthy to be “anorexic,” but a man with normal muscle mass and and very low bodyfat is not at any significant health risk. 15% BF is not particular lean. If he gets down into the single digits, post back.
CLee, your continued stating that I have said something that I have not stated, despite multiple times having your misunderstanding corrected by both myself and another poster is annoying. I will no longer respond to such statements.
Telemark, from the description by those who saw his photos that he matched the mid teens to 20 BF% picture, which is hardly a gut hanging the belt, and to my read of the op. It could be a misread on my part.
brazil84, to answer narrowly 15 is probably marginally healthier than 20% BF. Again no reason to believe that less than that is better and significantly less than that (as stated single digits) may be worse. A little subcutaneous fat spare tire is of no significant health consequence. Again the devil’s in the details … how does he get there, etc.
