Inflammation from processed food

[S.Clancy]

Fat person? sure. But you're lumping people carrying, say, more than an average amount of muscle in with fat people.

Weight is weight (for the most part) when it comes to joints. If you're BMI 30+, you are better off from multiple health perspectives being closer to BMI 25 regardless of composition.

If you control all other factors (height, body fat, diet, etc.) being BMI 25 is better than BMI 30, bar none. It's become so normalized in our population to be heavy.

 

[Poser]

Weight is weight (for the most part) when it comes to joints.

That's just not true. Again, your joints get stronger when exposed to stress similar to the way your muscles do, though at a slower pace. Also, stronger muscles better support joints offsetting that the additional weight to some extent.

Where are the data points that suggests genetically larger structured humans, say Icelandics, experience joint damage at a higher rate than smaller structured humans, say, SE Asians, all factors being equal in the population sampling?

 

[mtnwrunner]

Just recently got rid of some stress (retired from a shit job) and started eating right and sans alcohol . Been two weeks and its an unbelievable change.

Randy

 

[S.Clancy]

That's just not true. Again, your joints get stronger when exposed to stress similar to the way your muscles do, though at a slower pace. Also, stronger muscles better support joints offsetting that the additional weight to some extent.

Where are the data points that suggests genetically larger structured humans, say Icelandics, experience joint damage at a higher rate than smaller structured humans, say, SE Asians, all factors being equal in the population sampling?

We're talking about 2 different things. Joints are not just tendons and ligaments. Arthritis is significantly affected by mass.

I also want to be specific about my point. Bodyfat is important when it comes to joint health. The vast majority of people (1-2 STD above and below the median) will not achieve a BMI above 25 or 26 @ a lean body weight, lean being described as 12-13% or less for men. Anyone above this BMI is either, 1) carrying excess bodyfat and almost certainly negatively impacting their joints over the long term or 2) A genetic outlier in terms of muscular bodyweight (everyone thinks they are genetic outliers, but by definition almost no one is). 3) They are lean and high bodyweight and on steroids. I don't think I have to describe the potential confounding variables in this group.

So, if you are above 25-26 BMI, you are most likely fatter than you realize and thus are negatively impacting your joints more on the long term than you realize. If you are in group 2, I don't think there is any study that separates them from other groups. Physics would lead me to believe they are higher risk, but who knows. For group 3, there is so many confounding variables (training, effects of steroids on tendon/ligament strength, training methodology, etc) there would be no way to dial in on weight alone. Group 3 almost certainly sees more long-term joint damage than an average BW individual.

 

[Mosby]

Salt in coffee is similar to sugar if you get the concentration right. It kills the bitterness.

Never heard that before. I'll have to look into that. Some brands of coffee are less bitter than others too but I'm getting used to the lack of sweet and can live with it.

 

[Poser]

Never heard that before. I'll have to look into that. Some brands of coffee are less bitter than others too but I'm getting used to the lack of sweet and can live with it.

Works pretty well. Use some Himalayan pink salt and you even get a bit of an electrolyte type effect.

 

[Poser]

We're talking about 2 different things. Joints are not just tendons and ligaments. Arthritis is significantly affected by mass.

I also want to be specific about my point. Bodyfat is important when it comes to joint health. The vast majority of people (1-2 STD above and below the median) will not achieve a BMI above 25 or 26 @ a lean body weight, lean being described as 12-13% or less for men. Anyone above this BMI is either, 1) carrying excess bodyfat and almost certainly negatively impacting their joints over the long term or 2) A genetic outlier in terms of muscular bodyweight (everyone thinks they are genetic outliers, but by definition almost no one is). 3) They are lean and high bodyweight and on steroids. I don't think I have to describe the potential confounding variables in this group.

So, if you are above 25-26 BMI, you are most likely fatter than you realize and thus are negatively impacting your joints more on the long term than you realize. If you are in group 2, I don't think there is any study that separates them from other groups. Physics would lead me to believe they are higher risk, but who knows. For group 3, there is so many confounding variables (training, effects of steroids on tendon/ligament strength, training methodology, etc) there would be no way to dial in on weight alone. Group 3 almost certainly sees more long-term joint damage than an average BW individual.

What you are omitting from this equation is that bigger stronger people have both larger and stronger joints and tendons. You are lumping trained and untrained populations in the same group under BMI, but a guy who is 6’6 275 lbs with a 600 lbs squat has larger and significantly stronger ACLs than an untrained person of the same height and weight.

 

[S.Clancy]

What you are omitting from this equation is that bigger stronger people have both larger and stronger joints and tendons. You are lumping trained and untrained populations in the same group under BMI, but a guy who is 6’6 275 lbs with a 600 lbs squat has larger and significantly stronger ACLs than an untrained person of the same height and weight.

Dude, you are describing a population of statistically no one. I'm not omitting it, they are described under point #2 (2) A genetic outlier in terms of muscular bodyweight (everyone thinks they are genetic outliers, but by definition almost no one is). Continued....If you are in group 2, I don't think there is any study that separates them from other groups. Physics would lead me to believe they are higher risk, but who knows.

These types of people are way under 1% of the population. Being 6'6" alone you are well over the 99% (75.6" in the US), probably closer to 99.5%. The 600-pound squat is another 99%, likely 99.9%+ of the population. By those 2 metrics alone you are in the .0005% percentile of the population. Ain't no one modeling that specific population for anything. Perhaps their genetic abnormalities for size and strength also predisposes their joints, tendons and ligaments to be more robust. Anecdotally, I would note that all the people in your tiny category I know deal with significant joint issues. However, that is confounded by the fact that they all also played high contact sports (because they are freaks) so it's impossible to tease out whether the joint issues were causes by the sport or the size.

 

[Poser]

Dude, you are describing a population of statistically no one. I'm not omitting it, they are described under point #2 (2) A genetic outlier in terms of muscular bodyweight (everyone thinks they are genetic outliers, but by definition almost no one is). Continued....If you are in group 2, I don't think there is any study that separates them from other groups. Physics would lead me to believe they are higher risk, but who knows.

These types of people are way under 1% of the population. Being 6'6" alone you are well over the 99% (75.6" in the US), probably closer to 99.5%. The 600-pound squat is another 99%, likely 99.9%+ of the population. By those 2 metrics alone you are in the .0005% percentile of the population. Ain't no one modeling that specific population for anything. Perhaps their genetic abnormalities for size and strength also predisposes their joints, tendons and ligaments to be more robust. Anecdotally, I would note that all the people in your tiny category I know deal with significant joint issues. However, that is confounded by the fact that they all also played high contact sports (because they are freaks) so it's impossible to tease out whether the joint issues were causes by the sport or the size.

I'm using a genetic outliers as an example.

Know any serious rock climbers? Look at their finger joints and you'll notice over developed joints. Rock climbers develop crazy strong connective tissue in the fingers and hands. Joints get stronger with progressive stress, recovery adaptation cycles. Size along is not necessarily an indicator of eventual joint problems. The issue in the US is that such as high percentage of the population is obese that is sways the numbes to the point that one can deduce that size + joint problems. You would also have to account for the fact that the vast majority of people who are obese also eat high inflammatory diets. So, applying mass alone to joint issues is a false positive.

 

[S.Clancy]

I'm using a genetic outliers as an example.

Know any serious rock climbers? Look at their finger joints and you'll notice over developed joints. Rock climbers develop crazy strong connective tissue in the fingers and hands. Joints get stronger with progressive stress, recovery adaptation cycles. Size along is not necessarily an indicator of eventual joint problems. The issue in the US is that such as high percentage of the population is obese that is sways the numbes to the point that one can deduce that size + joint problems. You would also have to account for the fact that the vast majority of people who are obese also eat high inflammatory diets. So, applying mass alone to joint issues is a false positive.

I do know some serious rock climbers. Many of them have struggled with finger/wrist/elbow issues in youth and will almost certainly in late adulthood, but that's a function of their sport. Rock climbers are also highly unlikely to have a high bodyweight.

 

[Poser]

I do know some serious rock climbers. Many of them have struggled with finger/wrist/elbow issues in youth and will almost certainly in late adulthood, but that's a function of their sport. Rock climbers are also highly unlikely to have a high bodyweight.

But it demonstrates that joint tissue progressively adapts. The injuries associates with the sport itself, like many sports that require extreme physical expressions, are largely acute injuries. I had a rotator cuff injury from my days of serious rock climbing that I was able to restrengthen considerably over the course of years of dedicated strength training.... until I injured it again snowboarding and right back in the rebuilding phase. Acute injuries are consequences of most any sport, though your recovery timeline, ability to bounce back are greatly influenced by training history. An athlete will tend to recover at a much more expedited timeline than a sedentary person.

Avoiding strength for the sake of being underweight because of concern of impact on joints is fool's errand. Obviously there is a tipping point where the ROI is n/a, but if weighing 200 lbs means an adult male is going to be significantly stronger than a 185# male, for general fitness and longevity, that extra 15 lbs is more than a fair tradeoff. Having spent quite a bit of time in and around strength sports, there is a general observation that most adult trainees experience a "delineation" threshold where, if they drop below a certain weight, they start experiencing joint discomfort. Stay above that threshold and they feel "great." It is an unstudied phenomenon with no scientific analysis that I am aware of, but it has been observed by quite a few trainees nonetheless, including myself. For me that number is aright around 195 lbs.

 

[S.Clancy]

Avoiding strength for the sake of being underweight because of concern of impact on joints is fool's errand. Obviously there is a tipping point where the ROI is n/a, but if weighing 200 lbs means an adult male is going to be significantly stronger than a 185# male, for general fitness and longevity, that extra 15 lbs is more than a fair tradeoff. Having spent quite a bit of time in and around strength sports, there is a general observation that most adult trainees experience a "delineation" threshold where, if they drop below a certain weight, they start experiencing joint discomfort. Stay above that threshold and they feel "great." It is an unstudied phenomenon with no scientific analysis that I am aware of, but it has been observed by quite a few trainees nonetheless, including myself. For me that number is aright around 195 lbs.

You are considering someone with a BMI of 25-26 underweight? Someone at that BMI should be able to Bench 1.5x BW, deadlift and Squat 2x+ bodyweight IF they are lean. More than that isn't getting you dick from a protective standpoint. I agree being weaker makes you weak (joints, etc.) by definition. I would also argue that being extraordinarily strong is a recipe for chronic joint pain later in life.