“There is ‘good’ fat and ‘bad’ fat — just like there is good and bad cholesterol”
The above statement is from Dr. Konstantinos Manolopoulos of Oxford University, who specifically distinguishes between fat that lies around the midsection –bad– and fat that resides below it — possibly just the opposite. He and his colleagues pored through a number of various studies on the effect of fat on the body, and found that the location of the fat is a vital factor when it comes to its impact on your health.
You could read their report on their findings this week in the International Journal of Obesity, but the betting here is that you will probably be shot out of a cannon before that happens, so here is a quick summary.
Here comes the biology
Stomach fat breaks down much more easily than fat on the derriere or thighs, and in the process it releases cytokines, which promote inflammation and have been linked to heart disease and diabetes. Belly fat has separately been associated with hardening of the arteries, a common precursor of heart trouble.
Fat on the hips, buttocks and thighs, by contrast, seems to actually offer a some protection from the same health problems, by storing fatty acids that would otherwise migrate to such vital organs as the arteries or liver, thereby posing an increased risk of heart disease and diabetes, and by curbing the production of inflammatory and artery-clogging proteins.
The end result of all this biochemistry can be seen in population studies showing that the more fat that individuals have in the caboose area, the lower their odds of developing heart disease and diabetes, and that women, whose bodies tend to store fat in the hip/thigh/kiester area, enjoy far lower rates of heart disease than men.
The bottom line (just because we couldn’t resist using the phrase)
What researchers don’t know is why women’s fat accumulates where it does, or for that matter, why and how any particular body determines where its fat will be concentrated. We know that it’s at least partly genetic, but beyond that, the subject awaits further research — which, given our national obesity and heart disease rates, you can pretty much count on.
In the meantime, our good Dr. Manolopoulos offers the observation that, “celebrities like J-Lo are better role models for women’s health than supermodels who have much less lower body fat.” Of course, if having a body like J-Lo’s were really a practical option, J-Lo lookalikes would number into the millions already, and Weight Watchers would be bankrupt.
(By Robert S. Wieder for CalorieLab Calorie Counter News)
From the RSS feed of CalorieLab News (REF3076322B7)
Big belly: Bad. Big butt: Bonus!