What makes you think it is muscle? Overnights are why the liver stores glycogen. Dipping into this storehouse is normal.
1 Like
True, I was being dramatic. 
Indeed liver and muscle are the primary glucose storage spots. It’s probably mostly liver, but likely some muscle too. I don’t drink a ton of alcohol (less than 1 per day), but it does reduce liver storage.
Either way, my average is creeping up in an odd insulin resistant way, when I don’t have the lifestyle or habitus typically associated with that condition.
The “lifestyle” and “habitus” you have that are associated with that condition is “surviving infancy” and “living long enough to have a middle aged body.”
Respectfully, a 60 year old who eats very few processed foods, and has a BMI of 22 and a VO2 Max of 43 shouldn’t have a FBS of 120 and an A1c of 5.8.
1 Like
Hmmm… such similar stats. I’m actually a 60 year old with BMI of 22, A1C of 5.8, FBS 120. No idea of VO2 Max, but I run (slowly) at high-ish altitude a few times a week. I eat some processed food but less than in my younger years. PCP is not all that concerned… claimed 1/3 of his patients are in that range. Another backup PCP a few years ago saw A1C 5.6 (my first test ever) and referred me to an endocrinologist. I ended up not going and instead had a few nutritionalist consultations, ate better, got it down to 5.5 for a while. I’ll look later - we may have had a thread on that.
1 Like
Fasting insulin is useful too. Mine is pretty low. I’ve never had a glucose tolerance test.
I’ve never had an A1C test so no idea what mine is. My glucose tests are always fine so my mds aren’t interested in checking A1C levels.
2 Likes
Some people lose the genetic lottery in some ways, so that some health markers like blood sugar are not ideal even with good health habits (but those health markers would be worse with poor health habits).
Other genetic lottery effects can be seen in blood cholesterol, cancer risks, immune response to infections and vaccines, etc…
As a health indicator, BMI is not that good for individual assessments, since it confounds body fat weight with muscle and bone weight. However, body fat is not as convenient to measure directly, though some crude easy-to-measure proxies like waist / height are probably better than BMI.
2 Likes
We all know I agree with this, BMI is not good health indicator at all. I’d get a DXA scan. They’re about $40-50 here in the Bay Area. One can be thin outside and fat inside or TOFI.
Respectfully as well, but “very few” is relative. Also potatoes are “not processed” but can be bad.
I’ve had body fat measured both by skilled caliper and impedance. It’s not absurdly low, but it’s lowish for an American, 17.2%.
I did lose the genetic lipid lottery though. Elevated Lp(a) runs in my family. That’s why I work at the margins on other hopefully controllable stuff.
Processed is relative too. I eat very little bread and pasta, and no packaged frankenfood. I ate no root vegetables or even fruit for quite some time, but slowly reintroduced them. I’m no longer in ketosis, but when I was, my A1c still ran 5.6. The best it has ever been is 5.4.
My fasting insulin is 5. By most standards that’s good, and a better measure of risk than either A1c or FBS, but the most militant prefer it at 3.
It’s an interesting puzzle. I just started using a CGM to hopefully sort it out.
2 Likes
This happened to me today. My BMI was measured right at 25. And the nurse told me that I was “underweight.” 
That’s odd. I thought the definition was under 19. 
It is, but she wasn’t going by the BMI categories. She was just going by my physical appearance. Just musing I guess.
1 Like
I’ve never known of bmi of 25 to be underweight. Mine is lower than that at around 20-21, but I’m never told I’m underweight. My medical charts say I’m well-nourished.
My kids are very low bmi (lower than mine). S is pretty healthy, while D has chronic health issues.
Reading a book Older, Faster, Stronger by Margaret Webb, has some really interesting information about running and exercise in general. I am a marathon runner, BMI less than 20, and was surprised that my body fat via BodPod was in the higher category compared to 10 years ago… the last time I had it analyzed. I look very fit but obviously not as much as I thought. One of the take-aways (I am also a vegetarian) is more protein… specifically 80-110grams a day.
1 Like
While both of these methods can be convenient to measure trends, they do have margin of error greater than tenth of a percent. Calipers mainly check subcutaneous body fat rather than the more risky visceral body fat, while impedance can confound bone with body fat.
1 Like
No measure, including the gold standard, almost never performed because it’s too complicated four compartment (4C) method, is perfect. A tenth of a percent SD is probably more accurate than any method is. What I look for is whole percentage differences, not minutiae. It’s a snap shot that I can usually confirm with a gestalt look in the mirror.
It’s REALLY hard to get super low unless you radically alter your diet, weigh your food, etc.
1 Like
As I alluded to up above, my BMI is right around the line between normal and overweight. I’ve not had a caliper test, but I’ve done both hydrostatic and DXA scans. There can be statistically “significant” variance IMO, at least in my case.
But what the DXA scan does give me, in terms of info, as many here know, is the amount of visceral fat, the amount of fat around your organs as well as bone density and body fat %.
IMO, I would substitute the term “radical” and say it takes lifelong discipline and commitment. Besides diet discipline, inhaling lots of protein, strength training AND cardio not just strength training OR just cardio.
BTW, I don’t weigh my food. That requires too much work for me.
In terms of protein, what I shoot for is my bodyweight in kilos x 2 +/-. So lots.
One group of people who have BMI’s of 25 or even 30+, and can look underweight, are bodybuilders. I am not a bodybuilder.
So which method will confound bone with body fat? I am curious.
The electrical resistance / impedance method (used by the scales that measure body fat and some handheld devices. Both fat and bone have higher electrical resistance / impedance than muscle and water. So the calculations of body fat percentage assume a certain amount of bone, and some devices have an “athlete mode” or “activity level” setting that changes the assumed amount of bone.