Originally posted by yo its me
In laymans terms, what dose 'metabolically active fat' mean, please. I don't visit this forum very often. I know you're the ones to ask about technical things 😀. I've been reading some weightloss articals and this frase puzzles me. I expect it's completely clear and straight forward to you......

the edits were only to try and get rid of the smiley faces. you can see the original by searching in bing.com

Clinical significance of epicardial fat measured using cardiac multislice computed tomography.Sarin S, Wenger C, Marwaha A, Qureshi A, Go BD, Woomert CA, Clark K, Nassef LA, Shirani J. Department of Cardiology, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, Pennsylvania, USA.

Cardiac adiposity defined as increased epicardial adipose tissue and massive deposits of fat within the atrial septum (lipomatous hypertrophy) is seen in overweight persons and is associated with coronary artery disease (CAD), atrial arrhythmias, and increased risk of left ventricular free wall rupture after acute myocardial infarction. Unlike subcutaneous fat, epicardial fat is metabollically active and produces hormones, cytokines, and other vasoactive substances that work systemically or locally to alter vascular endothelial function and may be implicated in the pathogenesis of CAD. The aim of the study was to assess the feasibility of measuring epicardial fat volume (EFV) and identify its clinical correlates using (64-slice) multislice computed tomography (MSCT). A protocol was devised to measure EFV using MSCT in 151 adults (age 26 to 83 years, mean 51 +/-12 ; 55% men). Cross-sectional tomographic cardiac slices (2.5-mm thick) from base to apex (range 28 to 40 per heart) were traced semiautomatically using an off-line workstation, and EFV was measured by assigning Hounsfield units ranging from -30 to -250 to fat. Coronary computed tomographic angiography was performed using a standard protocol. EFV ranged from 25 to 274 ml (mean 121 +/- 47), corresponding to 2.4% to 30.5% (mean 15 +/- 5😵 of total cardiac volume and correlated with age, atrial septum thickness, body weight, and body mass index. Coronary calcium score was significantly higher in patients with EFV >100 ml (67 +/- 155 vs 216 +/- 639; p = 0.03), and a higher percentage of patients with increased EFV had CAD (46% vs 31%; p <0.05) or metabolic syndrome (44% vs 29%; p <0.05). In conclusion, quantification of EFV was feasible using MSCT. Large deposits of fat around the heart and within the atrial septum were associated with obesity, coronary calcium, metabolic syndrome, and CAD. Measurement of EFV may provide another useful noninvasive indicator of heightened risk of CAD in addition to calcium score and coronary angiography.

Originally posted by coquette
the edits were only to try and get rid of the smiley faces. you can see the original by searching in bing.com

Clinical significance of epicardial fat measured using cardiac multislice computed tomography.Sarin S, Wenger C, Marwaha A, Qureshi A, Go BD, Woomert CA, Clark K, Nassef LA, Shirani J. Department of Cardiology, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, ...[text shortened]... asive indicator of heightened risk of CAD in addition to calcium score and coronary angiography.

Thank you.

I don't want to seam ungratful, I'm grateful that you tried to explain for me, but I don't understand. Is metabolically active fat different to normal fat- in the way that it's stored or in the way that it can be used or something?

Originally posted by yo its me
Thank you.

I don't want to seam ungratful, I'm grateful that you tried to explain for me, but I don't understand. Is metabolically active fat different to normal fat- in the way that it's stored or in the way that it can be used or something?

If something is metabolically active, it simply means that it somehow interacts with the process of
metabolism, either disrupting or helping it. Visceral fat for instance, have been shown to increase
the risk for diabetes, because they're metabolically active in the sense that they collect in the liver
and interfere with the process of insulin uptake. Muscles (though obviously not fat) are also
metabolically active in that the more muscle mass you have, the more effective your metabolism
are.

So I imagine that you would have to read the term in context to understand whether or not it's a
good thing in your case. In general I would guess that metabolically active fat is the kind of fat
that's not directly under your skin, but somehow accumulate in your arteries and inner organs (for
good or bad). Cholesterol for instance (also not a fatty acid), is not necessarily a bad thing unless
you consume a lot of it. It actually improves the condition of your cell walls. However, the body
produces its own cholesterol, and therefore if you consume a lot of cholesterol through your food,
they tend to build up and disrupt the blood flow in your arteries. So, cholesterol would definitely be
considered metabolically active, but on the one hand it's a good thing, on the other it's not. As is
always the case with food intake. Eat too much of a given substance and it disrupts your bodily
functions, eat too little and things start to shut down. Eat just right and voilá, you're body's happy
and cheerful from dawn to dusk.

Self-professed Professor Jigtie, signing out.

More reading:

http://www.cytochemistry.net/Cell-biology/membrane_intro.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041116231405.htm
http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=4&article=heart

Originally posted by Jigtie
If something is metabolically active, it simply means that it somehow interacts with the process of
metabolism, either disrupting or helping it. Visceral fat for instance, have been shown to increase
the risk for diabetes, because they're metabolically active in the sense that they collect in the liver
and interfere with the process of insulin uptake. M ...[text shortened]... 11/041116231405.htm
http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=4&article=heart

Cheers Jigtie, I get it now.
🙂