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
Posts: 18,392 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
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/17/obesity-health-no-such-thing-as-fat-but-fit-major-study
2
Replies
-
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
20 -
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.5
-
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.0 -
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
Ha, yeah. Virgie Tovar et al, too. And the Slaton sisters! Not being able to walk is ~totally healthy~ guiz.6 -
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.
2. The effect is very strong, stronger than any other study I've seen recently, which is in itself surprising and calls for closer inspection of the methods of collection, data analysis, and raw data.
3. The authors themselves recognize that some associations are peculiar (death by trauma?). They also note that they do not account for other lifestyle decisions, nor any genetic associations.
4. Really fit men between BMI 25-30 have reduced mortality compared to all but the most fit men between 18.5-20; similarly the top half are comparable to the top half of those in the "normal weight" category. I find it very interesting they chose to report 95% confidence intervals, and those intervals are much, much larger than the variation in the means. That means that the statistical relevance between the comparisons is dubious.
12 -
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.0 -
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
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.4 -
Packerjohn 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.0 -
Packerjohn 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
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...4 -
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.
0 -
Whitney Thore would argue against the article. Then again, I think Whitney Thore is in denial about her actual health.
Whitney Thore claims to be fat and fit.
Fat? Yes.
Fit? She can't even stand up on level ground on skis, ride a bicycle, walk at a pace faster than 3 mph, pick up a bottle of shampoo without back injury, dance for an hour with out a trip to the emergency room, shave her own legs, get up off the floor by herself, wear shoes, or remain standing for 3 hours.
Whitney Thore is not fit.kristikitter 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
Ha, yeah. Virgie Tovar et al, too. And the Slaton sisters! Not being able to walk is ~totally healthy~ guiz.
Tess Holliday, who needs three people to help her up after she's knelt on the floor.Packerjohn 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
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.
She already has serious health consequences. And then she goes home from the ER where they tell her that passing out after 40 minutes of light activity is something that can kill a person her size to eat an entire pizza by herself.9 -
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?2
-
We all know obese people that claim they are healthy because perhaps their blood pressure is normal and they can run marathons and they are comparing themselves to the underweight person who has high blood pressure or cholesterol. The thing I take from it is that eventually it will catch up to you. You are still at greater risk of heart disease , You may have just been lucky . There are 'fitter' obese people true but they are never going to be as fit or as healthy as the person with a normal bmi with no underlying health issues.5
-
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?
3 -
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
I think (hope) that Whitney is starting to come around. Maybe.1 -
Hawaiian_Iceberg 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.4 -
Hawaiian_Iceberg 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?
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.0 -
Hawaiian_Iceberg 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.4 -
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.4 -
Does anyone have a link to the actual study vs the summary by the guardian?0
-
I have an overweight (right on the bubble of obese) friend who is quite fit in terms of being able to perform at a high level of fitness...this article doesn't seem to really be addressing actual fitness but rather overall health.
I've often wondered if my friend's risks are lower even though he is pretty overweight but physically active and physically fit...his cardiovascular endurance capacity is actually very impressive. This article doesn't really seem to be addressing that though...3 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »I have an overweight (right on the bubble of obese) friend who is quite fit in terms of being able to perform at a high level of fitness...this article doesn't seem to really be addressing actual fitness but rather overall health.
I've often wondered if my friend's risks are lower even though he is pretty overweight but physically active and physically fit...his cardiovascular endurance capacity is actually very impressive. This article doesn't really seem to be addressing that though...
Not a medical professional, but I would say his risks would be lower than the typical obese individual, but someone like that is outside the norm.0 -
@cwolfman13 and @Packerjohn
I've ridden with people like that. Overweight (even to the cusp of obesity) goes pretty well with cycling. It's not a weight bearing activity, it's low impact, plays to leg strength, can be done at variable intensity, etc. The people I've known like this were very fast on flat ground (impressive FTP) but not so much on climbs (less impressive w/kg). One of those guys lost a bunch of weight and became a beast.
I call this "the anecdotal record." It's an important way to learn about the world, but it should take a back seat to better statistics.3 -
NorthCascades wrote: »@cwolfman13 and @Packerjohn
I've ridden with people like that. Overweight (even to the cusp of obesity) goes pretty well with cycling. It's not a weight bearing activity, it's low impact, plays to leg strength, can be done at variable intensity, etc. The people I've known like this were very fast on flat ground (impressive FTP) but not so much on climbs (less impressive w/kg). One of those guys lost a bunch of weight and became a beast.
I call this "the anecdotal record." It's an important way to learn about the world, but it should take a back seat to better statistics.
Yeah, that's like my friend for sure...he can kill me in the flats. I'm not the best climber myself, but that's because I get lazy on training for it which I'm working on, but I do better than he does.
My assumption is that he's probably at less risk than someone who is obese and does nothing, but probably not all he could be on the health front...but his actual fitness capacity is rather impressive...he can go for days and likes tour riding and taking multiple day trips, etc which I don't think I could probably do at the moment...I've just always wondered on the health front where he stood.
I've jokingly told him that if he just stopped using 12 packs of beer as a recovery food that he'd probably dump a lot of weight and totally kill it on the bike. I met him when I first got into riding and wanted to meet other riders and went on meetup.com...it was a 40 mile ride and I saw him and was like, "no way this guy is going to roll for 40 miles." Had to eat my words.0 -
I'd love to know more about people like that, too. I love rich and creamy Indian foods, raspberry smoothies, and tacos; it takes work to stay out of the category myself.1
-
My brother-in-law is a stocky guy and he used to ride in the MS-150 every year until other training priorities -and life in general- got in the way too much. His legs are practically like tree trunks although he could stand to lose some body fat. Like most people.
Sort of a "dad-bod" I guess but he is in pretty good shape overall. Strong as an ox.
The first time we worked out together I took him to the ground, which surprised him because he probably has 70 or 80 lbs on me.
We rolled for a minute or so, but he was gassed out because he did not know how to breathe, relax or move efficiently in those positions.
He could ride a bike for 150 miles but not roll for a minute or two before he was done.
After literally watching the clock and counting down another 10 seconds out loud (because I'm a poopy head sometimes) I tapped him out with a kimura shoulder lock from inside my guard.
Point is as most people know, your capacity for exercise has a high degree of specificity so defining "fitness" in these terms is almost meaningless. I wouldn't try riding a bike for 40 miles, forget 150.
My buddy does triathlons, I would not dream of trying to match him in a pool, running or on a bike.
But I know I will outlast him in a ring or cage; I've adapted to the endurance requirements and I know how to breathe to make the most of my energy reserves under that sort of stress.
Now how long I would last on a treadmill is another thing entirely.
My grip strength is much higher than his (tested with Captains of Crush grippers) but his forearms are bigger.
Who is more fit? Depends on how you define it. Depends on the exercise.
They use "fit" here when they should be focusing on "health risks".
However "fat but fit" sounds better (alliteration) than "fat but healthy".
Getting most of the population (especially "fitness enthusiasts" and medical professionals) to buy into the idea that being fat is healthy would be a hard sell anyway.
Plus "fit" implies sexiness, as mentioned previously.
The idea that you can be carrying too much body fat but still sexually desirable may help with how self-conscious people are about their weight and general appearance.
In my experience skinny girls still think they are (or say they feel) fat.
My wife says it all the time - she is 5'8" & maybe 120lbs - in a soaking-wet jiu-jitsu uniform!
Unless there is an objective -or at least agreed to- standard for "fitness" then it is just a word, often used in marketing.
My brother-in-law has been training with me for years now (3rd degree black belt in fact) and laughs about how bad his endurance on the ground was back then...3 -
For the link, go to the news article in the original post and find this paragraph:Professor Peter Nordstrom, who led the study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology, said at the time: “These results suggest low BMI early in life is more important than high physical fitness with regard to reducing the risk of early death
No paywall. Sorry, I'm on my cell and getting links in properly is no fun. I'm doing good to get a semi-coherent post.0 -
For the link, go to the news article in the original post and find this paragraph:Professor Peter Nordstrom, who led the study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology, said at the time: “These results suggest low BMI early in life is more important than high physical fitness with regard to reducing the risk of early death
No paywall. Sorry, I'm on my cell and getting links in properly is no fun. I'm doing good to get a semi-coherent post.
Here's the direct link for the lazy:
https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/45/4/1159/2951637/Aerobic-fitness-in-late-adolescence-and-the-risk
(I can't ever get links to work properly on my phone so I don't even bother trying anymore. I'm happy when I manage to quote correctly
) 4 -
For the link, go to the news article in the original post and find this paragraph:Professor Peter Nordstrom, who led the study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology, said at the time: “These results suggest low BMI early in life is more important than high physical fitness with regard to reducing the risk of early death
No paywall. Sorry, I'm on my cell and getting links in properly is no fun. I'm doing good to get a semi-coherent post.
Based on the chart, they could have just as easily identified an inverse relationship between height and risk of early death.
4 -
But still, being fat but fit has got to be better than fat and unfit. I wish that would have been addressed. Or, are they saying it doesn't matter?1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions