Fit and Fat Not Possible?

Options
«1

Replies

  • tomatoey
    tomatoey Posts: 5,446 Member
    edited December 2015
    Options
    It looks like the suggestion is that fitness helps reduce risk in obese people a bit, but that obesity cancels out part of that risk reduction. It doesn't feel like a massive surprise, to be honest.

    (What about that weirder correlation, that aerobically unfit people were found to be more likely to die of trauma? My immediate thought is that maybe they're more clumsy/accident-prone & just bad with spatial awareness, which is maybe why they might not bother with e.g. running or cycling or what have you. I am guessing this because I'm sort of bad with space [but think fitness has helped with that a bit]).
  • RodaRose
    RodaRose Posts: 9,562 Member
    edited December 2015
    Options
    From a different version of the news story:
    http://www.sciencenewsline.com/news/2015122120590048.html
    Men in the highest fifth of aerobic fitness had a 48 per cent lower risk of death from any cause compared with those in the lowest fifth. Stronger associations were observed for deaths related to suicide and abuse of alcohol and narcotics.

    Unexpectedly, the authors noted a strong association between low aerobic fitness and also deaths related to trauma. Co-author Peter Nordström has no explanation for this finding: "We could only speculate, but genetic factors could have influenced these associations given that aerobic fitness is under strong genetic control."

  • tomatoey
    tomatoey Posts: 5,446 Member
    edited December 2015
    Options
    RodaRose wrote: »
    This from co-author Peter Nordström
    http://www.sciencenewsline.com/news/2015122120590048.html
    Men in the highest fifth of aerobic fitness had a 48 per cent lower risk of death from any cause compared with those in the lowest fifth. Stronger associations were observed for deaths related to suicide and abuse of alcohol and narcotics. Unexpectedly, the authors noted a strong association between low aerobic fitness and also deaths related to trauma. Co-author Peter Nordström has no explanation for this finding: "We could only speculate, but genetic factors could have influenced these associations given that aerobic fitness is under strong genetic control."

    I did see that, but am scratching my brain to imagine what kind of genetic factors they think would come into it. Poor CV system (so, maybe, fitness-avoidant, because it's somehow aversive) --> some kind of coagulation problem (?? no idea! ) --> bleeding complications with trauma? It seems strange that there would be a high enough incidence (of this factor X, say it's something more probable [and real] than what I just made up) in a sample of the general population to find a significant correlation, no?

    (The "clumsy" factor was the first thing that came to my mind, just because of my own experience of having been a lifelong clutz, and having avoided fitness in the early part of my life (because it felt so unpleasant and I was so bad at it), and seeing that my reflexes, physical confidence, and general spatial awareness slightly improved once I did get past my issues and into fitness. I mean I do keep injuring myself but I think I could probably dodge a truck more quickly than I would have before. I realize this is a stretch too, haha! Although there are studies showing that cardiovascular exercise improves memory & all kinds of other cognitive functions. Still a stretch, I know.)

    Sorry for the derail. The main finding makes sense to me.
  • Merkavar
    Merkavar Posts: 3,082 Member
    Options
    So unless I misunderstood, the studies conclusion was that being obese has increased risks, being fit and fat doesn't eliminate the risks of being fat.

    So basically what everyone except the more extreme healthy at every size and fat acceptance activists already believed?
  • robertw486
    robertw486 Posts: 2,389 Member
    Options
    tomatoey wrote: »
    RodaRose wrote: »
    This from co-author Peter Nordström
    http://www.sciencenewsline.com/news/2015122120590048.html
    Men in the highest fifth of aerobic fitness had a 48 per cent lower risk of death from any cause compared with those in the lowest fifth. Stronger associations were observed for deaths related to suicide and abuse of alcohol and narcotics. Unexpectedly, the authors noted a strong association between low aerobic fitness and also deaths related to trauma. Co-author Peter Nordström has no explanation for this finding: "We could only speculate, but genetic factors could have influenced these associations given that aerobic fitness is under strong genetic control."

    I did see that, but am scratching my brain to imagine what kind of genetic factors they think would come into it. Poor CV system (so, maybe, fitness-avoidant, because it's somehow aversive) --> some kind of coagulation problem (?? no idea! ) --> bleeding complications with trauma? It seems strange that there would be a high enough incidence (of this factor X, say it's something more probable [and real] than what I just made up) in a sample of the general population to find a significant correlation, no?

    (The "clumsy" factor was the first thing that came to my mind, just because of my own experience of having been a lifelong clutz, and having avoided fitness in the early part of my life (because it felt so unpleasant and I was so bad at it), and seeing that my reflexes, physical confidence, and general spatial awareness slightly improved once I did get past my issues and into fitness. I mean I do keep injuring myself but I think I could probably dodge a truck more quickly than I would have before. I realize this is a stretch too, haha! Although there are studies showing that cardiovascular exercise improves memory & all kinds of other cognitive functions. Still a stretch, I know.)

    Sorry for the derail. The main finding makes sense to me.

    The spatial awareness and fitness approach would make some sense to me. We all have varied abilities in the spatial awareness thing, but if you took a gymnast and added more fat to them certainly their abilities of balance and such would be affected, even if their sense of spatial awareness remained the same. Having a lean solid mass is what would help them calculate and control high balance required movements better. Add some jiggle factor and the results might quickly change.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,574 Member
    Options
    I believe so. I just look at NFL linemen and am in awe of their speed, power, stamina and size.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png
  • tomatoey
    tomatoey Posts: 5,446 Member
    Options
    robertw486 wrote: »
    tomatoey wrote: »
    RodaRose wrote: »
    This from co-author Peter Nordström
    http://www.sciencenewsline.com/news/2015122120590048.html
    Men in the highest fifth of aerobic fitness had a 48 per cent lower risk of death from any cause compared with those in the lowest fifth. Stronger associations were observed for deaths related to suicide and abuse of alcohol and narcotics. Unexpectedly, the authors noted a strong association between low aerobic fitness and also deaths related to trauma. Co-author Peter Nordström has no explanation for this finding: "We could only speculate, but genetic factors could have influenced these associations given that aerobic fitness is under strong genetic control."

    I did see that, but am scratching my brain to imagine what kind of genetic factors they think would come into it. Poor CV system (so, maybe, fitness-avoidant, because it's somehow aversive) --> some kind of coagulation problem (?? no idea! ) --> bleeding complications with trauma? It seems strange that there would be a high enough incidence (of this factor X, say it's something more probable [and real] than what I just made up) in a sample of the general population to find a significant correlation, no?

    (The "clumsy" factor was the first thing that came to my mind, just because of my own experience of having been a lifelong clutz, and having avoided fitness in the early part of my life (because it felt so unpleasant and I was so bad at it), and seeing that my reflexes, physical confidence, and general spatial awareness slightly improved once I did get past my issues and into fitness. I mean I do keep injuring myself but I think I could probably dodge a truck more quickly than I would have before. I realize this is a stretch too, haha! Although there are studies showing that cardiovascular exercise improves memory & all kinds of other cognitive functions. Still a stretch, I know.)

    Sorry for the derail. The main finding makes sense to me.

    The spatial awareness and fitness approach would make some sense to me. We all have varied abilities in the spatial awareness thing, but if you took a gymnast and added more fat to them certainly their abilities of balance and such would be affected, even if their sense of spatial awareness remained the same. Having a lean solid mass is what would help them calculate and control high balance required movements better. Add some jiggle factor and the results might quickly change.

    Ah, you mean like their centre of balance would be affected? Maybe! I thought that correlation was between cardiovascular fitness and death by trauma irrespective of weight, but it wasn't specified further, would be interesting to see. (I'm thinking of it in terms of cardiovascularly unfit people not being able to respond to the kinds of threats that cause fatal trauma as well as others, via e.g. delayed reaction times or poorly coordinated responses, which might in some way be related to their lack of fitness. Or maybe they just can't outrun tigers or dodge trucks and would be the first to die in a zombie apocalypse. But this is far off from the point I think the OP (and study) wanted to look at :/)
  • Lourdesong
    Lourdesong Posts: 1,492 Member
    edited December 2015
    Options
    Merkavar wrote: »
    So unless I misunderstood, the studies conclusion was that being obese has increased risks, being fit and fat doesn't eliminate the risks of being fat.

    So basically what everyone except the more extreme healthy at every size and fat acceptance activists already believed?

    Maybe I misunderstood, but what I got from it is that a fit fat person is still at a higher mortality risk then normal weight individuals regardless of fitness levels.

    lt's challenging the idea (rationale) that a fit obese person is less at risk than an unfit normal weight person. Like the idea that being "skinny fat" is worse than being literally obese but "fit". They seem to be saying, no, if you're obese you're at greater risk than people of normal weight, full stop.

  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,344 Member
    Options
    Lourdesong wrote: »
    Merkavar wrote: »
    So unless I misunderstood, the studies conclusion was that being obese has increased risks, being fit and fat doesn't eliminate the risks of being fat.

    So basically what everyone except the more extreme healthy at every size and fat acceptance activists already believed?

    Maybe I misunderstood, but what I got from it is that a fit fat person is still at a higher mortality risk then normal weight individuals regardless of fitness levels.

    lt's challenging the idea (rationale) that a fit obese person is less at risk than an unfit normal weight person. Like the idea that being "skinny fat" is worse than being literally obese but "fit". They seem to be saying, no, if you're obese you're at greater risk than people of normal weight, full stop.

    The medical term for "skinnyfat" is MONW - Metabolically obese, normal weight. People at what would be considered a "healthy" weight, but with bodyfat levels of an obese person. Research has indicated that such people have risk factors similar to clinically obese people. So while being fit and fat carries risks, so does being skinny and unfit.
  • Ashtoretet
    Ashtoretet Posts: 378 Member
    Options
    Everyone dies, so saying that death is an outcome of obesity is disingenuous. What would be more helpful is to know what things obesity does to a body that it would be free of at a healthy weight. Real proof of it and not just educated guesses.

    Even with my own body, I can't say what things have been improved because of weight loss because good things keep happening simultaneously. I don't know the true cause of any, or if it's been a combined effect. Is my depression better because I'm a healthy weight, or because I think I look better? Do I have more energy because I lost weight, or because my new job is less stressful? I'll never know definitively.
  • robertw486
    robertw486 Posts: 2,389 Member
    Options
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    I believe so. I just look at NFL linemen and am in awe of their speed, power, stamina and size.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

    We were watching some science show and they used an obstacle similar to what a lineman might do. Forget who it was but they had a lineman compare to a pretty fit "normal" guy, and the changes of direction were freaking amazing. I'd say most lightweights couldn't even change direction at that rate, and for a bigger person even harder.
  • LKArgh
    LKArgh Posts: 5,179 Member
    Options
    JenCOPD wrote: »

    I think it is just verifying common sense. The only people I have seen support the "fat but fit" claim are obese. To me is no different than a smoker claiming he/she is fine chain smoking because he/she jogs.
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    edited December 2015
    Options
    So basically overweight (but not obese) and fit Swede remains the lowest risk group.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    So basically overweight (but not obese) and fit Swede remains the lowest risk group.

    I want to say apart from risk of suicide but I think their rates have finally decreased
  • Paleodiet4beginnersdotcom
    Options
    Wow. That's crazy. Thanks for sharing.

    Never thought of linebackers before.
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    Options
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    So basically overweight (but not obese) and fit Swede remains the lowest risk group.

    I want to say apart from risk of suicide but I think their rates have finally decreased

    Well, the study didn't cover Finland.
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    Options
    robertw486 wrote: »
    tomatoey wrote: »
    RodaRose wrote: »
    This from co-author Peter Nordström
    http://www.sciencenewsline.com/news/2015122120590048.html
    Men in the highest fifth of aerobic fitness had a 48 per cent lower risk of death from any cause compared with those in the lowest fifth. Stronger associations were observed for deaths related to suicide and abuse of alcohol and narcotics. Unexpectedly, the authors noted a strong association between low aerobic fitness and also deaths related to trauma. Co-author Peter Nordström has no explanation for this finding: "We could only speculate, but genetic factors could have influenced these associations given that aerobic fitness is under strong genetic control."

    I did see that, but am scratching my brain to imagine what kind of genetic factors they think would come into it. Poor CV system (so, maybe, fitness-avoidant, because it's somehow aversive) --> some kind of coagulation problem (?? no idea! ) --> bleeding complications with trauma? It seems strange that there would be a high enough incidence (of this factor X, say it's something more probable [and real] than what I just made up) in a sample of the general population to find a significant correlation, no?

    (The "clumsy" factor was the first thing that came to my mind, just because of my own experience of having been a lifelong clutz, and having avoided fitness in the early part of my life (because it felt so unpleasant and I was so bad at it), and seeing that my reflexes, physical confidence, and general spatial awareness slightly improved once I did get past my issues and into fitness. I mean I do keep injuring myself but I think I could probably dodge a truck more quickly than I would have before. I realize this is a stretch too, haha! Although there are studies showing that cardiovascular exercise improves memory & all kinds of other cognitive functions. Still a stretch, I know.)

    Sorry for the derail. The main finding makes sense to me.

    The spatial awareness and fitness approach would make some sense to me. We all have varied abilities in the spatial awareness thing, but if you took a gymnast and added more fat to them certainly their abilities of balance and such would be affected, even if their sense of spatial awareness remained the same. Having a lean solid mass is what would help them calculate and control high balance required movements better. Add some jiggle factor and the results might quickly change.

    Except the study says a little giggle is good. Whoops.
  • tomteboda
    tomteboda Posts: 2,171 Member
    Options
    So basically overweight (but not obese) and fit Swede remains the lowest risk group.

    So, basically, me.
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    Options
    tomteboda wrote: »
    So basically overweight (but not obese) and fit Swede remains the lowest risk group.

    So, basically, me.

    Wrong stuff in the shorts.
    The study was about men.
  • tomteboda
    tomteboda Posts: 2,171 Member
    Options
    Women live longer than men anyway, @EvgeniZyntx .