Study finds beer not linked to beer belly

[XMoker]

Study finds beer not linked to beer belly | World News | News.com.au

* Study follows 20,000 beer drinkers
* Weight doesn't gather in beer-gut region
* Heaviest drinkers put on more weight

BEER-LOVERS can drink as much as they like without having to fear developing a beer-belly, according to new research.

The UK's Daily Mail broke the welcome news to British beer-lovers yesterday, claiming that scientists have proven a beer-belly is purely the result of genetics.

An eight-year study of more than 20,000 beer drinkers - 7876 men and 12,749 women - found that while heavy drinkers will put on weight, it won't necessarily be around the beer belly region.

The heaviest drinkers - those who drank more than a litre a day - put on the most weight.

But when the researchers then measured hip-to-waist ratios to establish which drinkers developed a pot belly, the results were randomly spread across all drinking groups.

The study was published in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

I'll drink to that! Now I just need some grant money to find out if cheeseburgers make my ass fat.

 

[turbozed]

This is the seriously the best news I've heard in months.

 

[IDRISCKY]

Did we need a study for this, honestly?

The idea that one specific drink adds weight only to one specific area is retarded. Men generally store fat in the abdomen area while women general store it below their waist. Men are generally considered the heaviest drinkers of the two, and drinking is one of the easiest ways to unconsciously go into a calorie surplus. Given this information I thought it was generally accepted that the term 'beer belly' was just a way of describing someone that is overweight and/or their abdominal fat accumulation and not actually the cause of their weight gain in that specific area. Surely not the sole cause at least.

Like calling someone that is obese a fat ass. It doesn't necessarily mean most of their body fat is located in the buttock area. It just means they're fat.

 

[turbozed]

Did we need a study for this, honestly?

The idea that one specific drink adds weight only to one specific area is retarded. Men generally store fat in the abdomen area while women general store it below their waist. Men are generally considered the heaviest drinkers of the two, and drinking is one of the easiest ways to unconsciously go into a calorie surplus. Given this information I thought it was generally accepted that the term 'beer belly' was just a way of describing someone that is overweight and/or their abdominal fat accumulation and not actually the cause of their weight gain in that specific area. Surely not the sole cause at least.

Like calling someone that is obese a fat ass. It doesn't necessarily mean most of their body fat is located in the buttock area. It just means they're fat.

I think there's a popular perception that alcohol has some effect that causes the storage of more visceral belly fat. It's such an ingrained part of the nutritional zeitgeist that even I thought there was some mechanism. I googled "belly fat" and "alcohol" just now and found a bunch of 'sources' claiming a causal relationship. If anything, I'm glad this study came along because I never realized how little evidence there is of any alcohol mechanism targeting belly fat.

 

[IDRISCKY]

Maybe it's because I don't drink. But I don't really see any good news in this. If you still drink in calorie excess you are going to store fat, nothing changes that. It's not like it's a free pass to binge. I mean, unless your sole worry is getting fat around your stomach and you couldn't really careless if you get fat around your ass.

 

[JSN]

Did we need a study for this, honestly?

The idea that one specific drink adds weight only to one specific area is retarded. Men generally store fat in the abdomen area while women general store it below their waist. Men are generally considered the heaviest drinkers of the two, and drinking is one of the easiest ways to unconsciously go into a calorie surplus. Given this information I thought it was generally accepted that the term 'beer belly' was just a way of describing someone that is overweight and/or their abdominal fat accumulation and not actually the cause of their weight gain in that specific area. Surely not the sole cause at least.

Like calling someone that is obese a fat ass. It doesn't necessarily mean most of their body fat is located in the buttock area. It just means they're fat.

at first glance you may think that, but there are forms of fat gain that are especially dangerous in which people accumulate fat in basically in between the organs in the abdominal region, which results from a number of factors including diet.

the bottom line is it's better to be 40 pounds overweight with fat distributed all over your body than to carry 40 pounds of visceral fat in your gut. the difference in risk factors is quite significant.

 

[IDRISCKY]

at first glance you may think that, but there are forms of fat gain that are especially dangerous in which people accumulate fat in basically in between the organs in the abdominal region, which results from a number of factors including diet.

the bottom line is it's better to be 40 pounds overweight with fat distributed all over your body than to carry 40 pounds of visceral fat in your gut. the difference in risk factors is quite significant.

Visceral fat isn't the same as subcutaneous fat. You can have very little visceral fat and still have a beer belly.

Edit: You can also be "skinny" to the eye and have dangerous level of visceral fat. This study, and the term beer belly really don't have anything to do with separating the two.

 

[turbozed]

at first glance you may think that, but there are forms of fat gain that are especially dangerous in which people accumulate fat in basically in between the organs in the abdominal region, which results from a number of factors including diet.

the bottom line is it's better to be 40 pounds overweight with fat distributed all over your body than to carry 40 pounds of visceral fat in your gut. the difference in risk factors is quite significant.

This is a really important consideration. There's a big difference in terms of health between visceral and subcutaneous fat. This is one of the reasons why Sumo wrestlers, who have huge amounts of subcutaneous fat, are faster and more athletic (and generally healthier) than say their skinny-fat Japanese brethren. The gladiators back in the day actually ate a diet to specifically increase their subcutaneous fat in order to have more 'padding' during fights. Fedor is a good example of a modern day gladiator who doesn't seem to be slowed down at all by a little fat.

 

[turbozed]

Visceral fat isn't the same as subcutaneous fat. You can have very little visceral fat and still have a beer belly.

Also true, but the 'beer belly' is positively correlated with a higher amount of visceral fat.

 

[IDRISCKY]

Also true, but the 'beer belly' is positively correlated with a higher amount of visceral fat.

How so? Just assuming that if someone has a large amount of abdominal fat that they will likely have a large amount of visceral fat?

 

[turbozed]

How so? Just assuming that if someone has a large amount of abdominal fat that they will likely have a large amount of visceral fat?

I don't have a study handy but I remember doing a little research on the subject a while back by just googling visceral vs subcutaneous fat and I remembered it stated that people that store more fat around the abdomen ("beer belly") are at higher risk for visceral fat than people that store it in other places (like butt or thighs). So the guy with the beer belly will more likely have excess visceral fat than the dude with huge thighs and ass.

 

[JSN]

Visceral fat isn't the same as subcutaneous fat. You can have very little visceral fat and still have a beer belly.

Edit: You can also be "skinny" to the eye and have dangerous level of visceral fat. This study, and the term beer belly really don't have anything to do with separating the two.

you can have just fat ankles too, all subcutaneous fat, but that doesn't have anything to do with anything. people think of a beer belly as being just a fat belly, caused by something, where they have a big belly but aren't nec. fat anywhere else. as it so happens, physiologically this very thing does happen. now you may point to a guy who's just generally fat and has a big gut and say he has a beer gut, but this isn't what the actual study is about. it's about beer specifically causing fat specifically to accumulate abdominally. and it's certainly medically relevant.

 

[IDRISCKY]

I don't have a study handy but I remember doing a little research on the subject a while back by just googling visceral vs subcutaneous fat and I remembered it stated that people that store more fat around the abdomen ("beer belly") are at higher risk for visceral fat than people that store it in other places (like butt or thighs). So the guy with the beer belly will more likely have excess visceral fat than the dude with huge thighs and ass.

Ok, I'll go along with that. But then we also have to assume men are predisposed to more easily accumulate visceral fat than women. Again, making this a gender and/or a calorie excess issue, not an excuses to binge or anything to do with beer itself in my opinion.

you can have just fat ankles too, all subcutaneous fat, but that doesn't have anything to do with anything. people think of a beer belly as being just a fat belly, caused by something, where they have a big belly but aren't nec. fat anywhere else. as it so happens, physiologically this very thing does happen. now you may point to a guy who's just generally fat and has a big gut and say he has a beer gut, but this isn't what the actual study is about. it's about beer specifically causing fat specifically to accumulate abdominally. and it's certainly medically relevant.

Not in my opinion. It's absurd to think one drink (beer) would cause you to store fat solely in the abdomen in the first place. This study also didn't measure visceral fat at all from what I see. So for all we know, all the people with low "belly fat", or however they used hip-to-waist t determine it, had absurd amounts of visceral fat.

Again, I don't see the good news to be honest. It isn't an excuse to binge or go into a calorie surplus because you won't get a "beer belly" from beer. Honestly I think it's a wasted study. I didn't think anyone bought into beer actually being the sole reason you get a beer belly.

 

[Skyler]

you'll still get fat, you'll just get fat everywhere instead of only your stomach.

just like it's always been? calories are calories.

 

[IDRISCKY]

you'll still get fat, you'll just get fat everywhere instead of only your stomach.

just like it's always been? calories are calories.

Can't even say that for sure. Since the ratio of women to men was so high, it's likely that since women tend to store fat below their waist, that these ratios negatively impacted the results.

There isn't much detail. There isn't any information on if the men had a higher, and if so how much higher, percentage of "beer belly" than women.

I see no medical relevance or better yet new information.

 

[JSN]

well for starters, a liter of beer a day is more than just one beer, it's closer to 3 beers a day, and when you literally measure tens of thousands of people, you can statistically correct the results without having to actually put a sonogram to peoples' stomachs or however they measure it radologically.

 

[IDRISCKY]

well for starters, a liter of beer a day is more than just one beer, it's closer to 3 beers a day, and when you literally measure tens of thousands of people, you can statistically correct the results without having to actually put a sonogram to peoples' stomachs or however they measure it radologically.

And what exactly does that have to do with anything?

Even if they did statistically correct the results. I see no mention of visceral fat or subcutaneous fat at all. In fact all I see is the mention of hip-to-waist ratios, which again, women being the majority and tending to have bigger hips than waist, and tend to more commonly store fat in the hips compared to the waist area.

So what is the medical relevance of the study you mentioned? Were is the new information?

Beer itself isn't the reason for abdominal fat accumulation, ok, nothing shocking and nothing new. Gender and genetics determine how you store body fat, ok, nothing new nor shocking. If you drink excess calories in beer you'll store body fat. Still not seeing the good news. Most men will still accumulate the extra fat they store from excess calories, from beer or anything else, in their abdomen area.

 

[Flexwave2003]

How many calories are contained in your average glass of beer? How about carbohydrates? You dont think that contributes to peoples weight problems?

I beg to differ. Thats why they spend a fortune advertising light beers.

 

[JSN]

And what exactly does that have to do with anything?

Even if they did statistically correct the results. I see no mention of visceral fat or subcutaneous fat at all. In fact all I see is the mention of hip-to-waist ratios, which again, women being the majority and tending to have bigger hips than waist, and tend to more commonly store fat in the hips compared to the waist area.

So what is the medical relevance of the study you mentioned? Were is the new information?

Beer itself isn't the reason for abdominal fat accumulation, ok, nothing shocking and nothing new. Gender and genetics determine how you store body fat, ok, nothing new nor shocking. If you drink excess calories in beer you'll store body fat. Still not seeing the good news. Most men will still accumulate the extra fat they store from excess calories, from beer or anything else, in their abdomen area.

there is nothing substantive here.

you base you argument that it's a worthless study on some asinine assumption that the researchers literally processed the data the same way for men and women (i'm surprised they'd bother to record the sex hmm).

i find these criticisms kind of weird. you take a like 40 word blurb in a newspaper and extrapolate a whole series of methodological criticisms, as well as attack a study that clearly is medically relevant, as there is both a popular notion and some scientific evidence suggesting that drinkers or varying spirits and behaviors run larger risks for cardiovascular disease in a way that relates to abdominal fat storage.

your other criticisms revolve around you somehow knowing every mechanism for caloric processing.

 

[IDRISCKY]

there is nothing substantive here.

you base you argument that it's a worthless study on some asinine assumption that the researchers literally processed the data the same way for men and women (i'm surprised they'd bother to record the sex hmm).

i find these criticisms kind of weird. you take a like 40 word blurb in a newspaper and extrapolate a whole series of methodological criticisms, as well as attack a study that clearly is medically relevant, as there is both a popular notion and some scientific evidence suggesting that drinkers or varying spirits and behaviors run larger risks for cardiovascular disease in a way that relates to abdominal fat storage.

your other criticisms revolve around you somehow knowing every mechanism for caloric processing.

My comments are based only on the available information I have for the study. If there is more detailed and exact information, that's fine, but I don't see it and can't comment on it. I see no attempt for separation and no further detail on grouping.

And again, if it "clearly is medically relevant" please point out how. You still have yet to do so. First you talked about visceral fat, and now cardiovascular disease. But again, I see nothing on the two, no data and no mention. So are we just going to go with correlation equals causation then?

You're even trying to nitpick my comments on excess calories. So what, do you disagree that if you consume excess calories that they won't be stored as fat?

From the information I have, this study had nothing to do with cardiovascular disease, visceral fat, or any other medically relevant information. In my opinion it was a wasted study, a waste of time, money, and resources. But I am still more than willing to reconsider my opinion if more detailed information on the study is posted, or you point out this "medically relevant" information within the study. Since for some reason, I failed to see it in what I read but you did not.