Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

University of Birmingham study says there is no such thing as "fat but fit"?

Alatariel75
Alatariel75 Posts: 17,945 Member
Haven't read anything more than the article yet, but I'm sure this will spark discussion:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/17/obesity-health-no-such-thing-as-fat-but-fit-major-study
«13

Replies

  • kristikitter
    kristikitter Posts: 602 Member
    edited May 2017
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    I wish the article had said how much of a higher risk it is being obese vs. Normal weight for those health conditions. It makes a difference if it's only a 3% increase in risk or a 30% increase in risk.

    I imagine that this is hard to quantify, given that there are different levels of obesity.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    I wish the article had said how much of a higher risk it is being obese vs. Normal weight for those health conditions. It makes a difference if it's only a 3% increase in risk or a 30% increase in risk.

    Not quite sure what you're asking, but this is from the article:

    The study found that those obese individuals who appeared healthy in fact had a 50% higher risk of coronary heart disease than people who were of normal weight. They had a 7% increased risk of cerebrovascular disease – problems affecting the blood supply to the brain – which can cause a stroke, and double the risk of heart failure.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Whitney Thore would argue against the article. Then again, I think Whitney Thore is in denial about her actual health.

    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

    IMO Whitney is just prostituting herself hoping she's in the small minority that can be morbidly obese and not have serious health consequences.

    Very sad.
  • Macy9336
    Macy9336 Posts: 694 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    I wish the article had said how much of a higher risk it is being obese vs. Normal weight for those health conditions. It makes a difference if it's only a 3% increase in risk or a 30% increase in risk.

    Not quite sure what you're asking, but this is from the article:

    The study found that those obese individuals who appeared healthy in fact had a 50% higher risk of coronary heart disease than people who were of normal weight. They had a 7% increased risk of cerebrovascular disease – problems affecting the blood supply to the brain – which can cause a stroke, and double the risk of heart failure.

    Thank you. I missed that part. I have trouble reading lots of info in one go...poor memory function.
  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,731 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Whitney Thore would argue against the article. Then again, I think Whitney Thore is in denial about her actual health.

    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

    IMO Whitney is just prostituting herself hoping she's in the small minority that can be morbidly obese and not have serious health consequences.

    Very sad.

    I started watching her show... but it was just quite sad watching her trying to convince herself she was happy...
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,736 Member
    tomteboda wrote: »
    Well, I read the original paper, but haven't completely digested it yet. However a couple things stand out to me.

    1. they are taking a single point for reference for BMI, that is, at conscription. Which is interesting because it may point to long-term effects of high adiposity on future health regardless of later weight status.

    So the question is then, Is the conclusion that someone who is moderately overweight or obese at 18-22 will continue to plump up, thus increasing risk.

    Also, do you have a link for the paper, or is it paywalled.

  • FreyasRebirth
    FreyasRebirth Posts: 514 Member
    Interesting but not what I personally thought "fat but fit" meant. I'd love to see it redone with physical activity paid attention to. If, for example, someone can run a mile with an age-graded score above 50% (and not end up in the hospital), does their BMI still significantly matter?
  • Stockholm_Andy
    Stockholm_Andy Posts: 750 Member
    Why is this being reported as "fat but fit" rather than "fat but healthy" ?!?!

    They seem to be comparing various health risks rather then measuring fitness indicators such as VO2MAX?



  • leajas1
    leajas1 Posts: 823 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Whitney Thore would argue against the article. Then again, I think Whitney Thore is in denial about her actual health.

    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

    I think (hope) that Whitney is starting to come around. Maybe.
  • Macy9336
    Macy9336 Posts: 694 Member
    Why is this being reported as "fat but fit" rather than "fat but healthy" ?!?!

    They seem to be comparing various health risks rather then measuring fitness indicators such as VO2MAX?



    It's in a British publication so it has tongue in cheek humour. The term "fit" has two meanings and uses: healthy is one meaning and the second is to be sexually attractive "that girl is fit!" So they're saying that fat but fit being a myth they're saying it's not healthy, and oh by the way, it's not attractive either. It's a play on words.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,967 Member
    Why is this being reported as "fat but fit" rather than "fat but healthy" ?!?!

    They seem to be comparing various health risks rather then measuring fitness indicators such as VO2MAX?



    VO2max = the max amount (volume) of oxygen (O2) your body can process.

    It's scaled to your body weight. For example, at my age, 42 ml per kg per minute is average.

    What that means is if you take two people who both run a mile in the same amount of time, but have different weights, the lighter person will have a better (higher) VO2max.
  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,731 Member
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    Why is this being reported as "fat but fit" rather than "fat but healthy" ?!?!

    They seem to be comparing various health risks rather then measuring fitness indicators such as VO2MAX?



    It's in a British publication so it has tongue in cheek humour. The term "fit" has two meanings and uses: healthy is one meaning and the second is to be sexually attractive "that girl is fit!" So they're saying that fat but fit being a myth they're saying it's not healthy, and oh by the way, it's not attractive either. It's a play on words.

    The guardian using a play on the word 'fit'? Really? I didn't interpret it to be doing that at all.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    This is is good study, but even good studies of this type have to be approach with caution, IMO. Especially when looking at "risk", the definitions and significance can get a little slippery.

    I first saw this topic seriously addressed 20-25 years by Dr. Steven Blair, who at the time was the director of the research part of the Cooper Clinic. His research was motivated by his personal frustration at feeling like no matter how much he exercised and tried to follow an appropriate intake, he could not lose significant weight. He was about 5'9", 220-230 pounds.

    IIRC, he used data from both the Cooper Clinic and the Framingham study. By using whatever statistical techniques one could use at the time, he tried to isolate the effect of different risk factors on overall risk for cardiovascular disease and overall mortality, as well as measure the effect of fitness level.

    His conclusions were that, if you controlled for other risk factors, and that if you stratified people by fitness levels, that, for a fit person, being overweight did not increase statistical risk at all. It was his conclusion that the higher CAD risk and mortality associated with being overweight was actually due to the collection of other behaviors/conditions associated with being overweight--e.g. poor food choices, lack of activity, etc.

    At the time there was less emphasis on things like metabolic syndrome and visceral fat. I also think the science of meta-analysis has advanced since then.

    I always liked the Blair conclusion because, as a fitness professional, I know that I can't promise that I can get someone to lose weight, but I am confident that I can make them more fit. And we do know that increased fitness and increased activity have a "halo" effect that reduces risk at all levels of risk and for almost all lifestyle conditions.

    This study seems to suggest a different perspective--that being overweight increases risk in all categories. It could be that it is saying the same thing, just with different points of emphasis.
  • inertiastrength
    inertiastrength Posts: 2,344 Member
    Does anyone have a link to the actual study vs the summary by the guardian?