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"?

13»

Replies

  • cqbkaju
    cqbkaju Posts: 1,011 Member
    xmichaelyx wrote: »
    cqbkaju wrote: »
    As a starting point, I feel you are not "fit" if you cannot deadlift as much as Shirley Webb, a 78-year old grandma who pulls 245lbs.
    So there's no such thing (in your mind) as a fit Olympic female gymnast? You've gone full retard.
    Gymnastic ability isn't as important on a battle field as carrying a wounded squat mate to safety.

    I never said there were not great athletes in any sport, but when *I* define fitness that is some of my criteria.

  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,736 Member
    cqbkaju wrote: »
    That's called moving the goalposts.
    Not at all. It is pointing to where the goalposts might be and telling you to feel free to go there.

    But while you are heading in that direction, understand that other people do not necessarily consider Coach Rippetoe to be "fit".
    Someone like @NorthCascades might want to measure his VO2max to determine if he is "fit" and may not care about how strong he is.
    That has been my point all along.

    You cannot have it both ways. Until everyone agrees on what "fit" means it is just a word.
    Just because I agree with him that strength to be important doesn't mean I consider Coach Rippetoe to be "fit", even if he can lift more than me.

    I acknowledge that there is a need for an objective definition of "fit"

    Likely it will need to be a menu of pick 1/2/3 of 20 or so options because it needs to account for an Olympic gymnast, Rippetoe, an Olympic marathoner, etc

    Regardless, we can all agree that Rippetoe(fit or not) is "more fit" than skinny fat joe the office worker who can't walk a mile, do a pushup or situp, etc but squeezes into a "normal" 24 BMI.. or maybe we can't
  • cqbkaju
    cqbkaju Posts: 1,011 Member
    Regardless, we can all agree that Rippetoe(fit or not) is "more fit" than skinny fat joe the office worker who can't walk a mile, do a pushup or situp, etc but squeezes into a "normal" 24 BMI.. or maybe we can't
    I agree with you there.

  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,967 Member
    cqbkaju wrote: »
    @NorthCascades
    Agreed, VO2max is one way to measure fitness. But what about strength? Flexibility?
    There are many other attributes, right?

    Of course there are.

    I feel like those are easier to gauge. How does a person find out which of us are stronger? Who can lift more seems like a good and objective test. I thought that seemed straightforward and obvious; comparing the fitness of a basketball player to a cross country runner strikes me as more of a challenge. And fortunately it's one that's been solved.

    Personally, I think cardiovascular fitness is more important to health. I think VO2max has been shown to be a good predictor of longevity. People get both strong and fit enough for their daily routines, but then a lot of people die of heart disease. I've heard a lot of cyclists (my people) in their 60s talk about having a heart attack, their cardiologists tell them "if your heart wasn't so strong you'd be dead now." Strength training pays huge dividends, too, and is worthwhile, I personally see it as less about longevity and more to do with quality of life.
  • cqbkaju
    cqbkaju Posts: 1,011 Member
    edited May 2017
    xmichaelyx wrote: »

    They specifically define "fitness" in the article, and limit it to cardiovascular fitness.

    I'm curious how much post-graduate work in sports & rehab medicine you've done in order to offer your opinions that differ so much from people who actually know WTF they're talking about.

    This ARTICLE (what was originally being discussed and what I am referring to):
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/17/obesity-health-no-such-thing-as-fat-but-fit-major-study

    And this STUDY:
    https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/45/4/1159/2951637/Aerobic-fitness-in-late-adolescence-and-the-risk
    are NOT the same thing.

    I think you are confusing the two and are therefore mistaken. They do NOT specifically define "fitness" in the article.
    The study is from 2 years ago and not related directly to the article from this week.

    As for "post-graduate work in sports & rehab medicine" I haven't done any but I have worked along side several doctors and therapists who did.
    Besides that, I have not claimed to be some sort of expert here.
    My position is that simply comparing someone like a UFC fighter's "fitness" and your Olympic gymnast's "fitness" is not some sort of one-for-one, all-size-fits-all proposition. They are training different things for different reasons and goals.

    Fitness speaks in part to "Fitness of purpose: the quality of being suitable to fulfill a particular role or task" so being fit for one type of exercise does not mean you are "fit" for another.
    It is related to the Principle of Specificity / Specificity of Exercise.
    You can choose to say that fitness means "cardiovascular fitness" but (1) the article does not say than and (2) I only partly agree with you. I am not alone in the opinion that VO2max is one important facet of fitness, but not the entirety.

    If you do not understand the distinction then I perhaps I am not making myself clear.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,736 Member
    cqbkaju wrote: »
    xmichaelyx wrote: »

    They specifically define "fitness" in the article, and limit it to cardiovascular fitness.

    I'm curious how much post-graduate work in sports & rehab medicine you've done in order to offer your opinions that differ so much from people who actually know WTF they're talking about.

    This ARTICLE (what was originally being discussed and what I am referring to):
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/17/obesity-health-no-such-thing-as-fat-but-fit-major-study

    And this STUDY:
    https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/45/4/1159/2951637/Aerobic-fitness-in-late-adolescence-and-the-risk
    are NOT the same thing.
    Except that the guardian article cites the Sweden article.

    cqbkaju wrote: »
    I think you are confusing the two and are therefore mistaken. They do NOT specifically define "fitness" in the article.
    The study is from 2 years ago and not related directly to the article from this week.

    As for "post-graduate work in sports & rehab medicine" I haven't done any but I have worked along side several doctors and therapists who did.
    Besides that, I have not claimed to be some sort of expert here.
    My position is that simply comparing a UFC fighter's "fitness" and your Olympic gymnast's "fitness" is not some sort of one-for-one, all-size-fits-all proposition.


    On this, we are in complete agreement.

    They aren't 1:1 comparable. And any discussion of general health and generic fitness there needs to be able to affirm that both of them are fit, and simultaneously distinguish between a healthy gymnast and an anorexic.

    cqbkaju wrote: »
    Fitness speaks in part to "Fitness of purpose: the quality of being suitable to fulfill a particular role or task" so being fit for one type of exercise does not mean you are "fit" for another.
    It is related to the Principle of Specificity / Specificity of Exercise.
    You can choose to say that fitness means "cardiovascular fitness" but (1) the article does not say than and (2) I only partly agree with you. I am not alone in the opinion that VO2max is one important facet of fitness, but not the entirety.

    If you do not understand the distinction then I perhaps I am not making myself clear.

  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    cqbkaju wrote: »
    xmichaelyx wrote: »
    cqbkaju wrote: »
    As a starting point, I feel you are not "fit" if you cannot deadlift as much as Shirley Webb, a 78-year old grandma who pulls 245lbs.
    So there's no such thing (in your mind) as a fit Olympic female gymnast? You've gone full retard.
    Gymnastic ability isn't as important on a battle field as carrying a wounded squat mate to safety.

    I never said there were not great athletes in any sport, but when *I* define fitness that is some of my criteria.

    And what is or isn't important on a battlefield has... what exactly to do with being fit?
  • cqbkaju
    cqbkaju Posts: 1,011 Member
    edited May 2017
    Except that the guardian article cites the Sweden article.

    Ahh!!! Thanks @stanmann571 !!

    NOW I might be starting to understand why some people are getting so bent out of shape!
    Everyone, that is referencing 2 different studies.

    The British study and the Swedish study are not the same thing.

    "The findings, presented at the European Congress on Obesity in Porto, Portugal,..."
    Based on "electronic health records from 1995 to 2015 in the Health Improvement Network – a large UK general practice database."
    {The study in the article is not cited and the article does not define "fit" which started the "fat but fit" discussion}

    AND ALSO

    Last August a study from Sweden...: https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/45/4/1159/2951637/Aerobic-fitness-in-late-adolescence-and-the-risk
    "comprised 1 317 713 Swedish men (mean age, 18 years) that conscripted between 1969 and 1996"
    {a different but similar study which references "aerobic fitness"}

    This is the Queen's English in "The Guardian" of all places! Ya gotta be careful.
    No wonder we are butting heads more than usual!

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fit-but-fat-may-be-a-myth-study-says/
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,736 Member
    cqbkaju wrote: »
    xmichaelyx wrote: »
    cqbkaju wrote: »
    As a starting point, I feel you are not "fit" if you cannot deadlift as much as Shirley Webb, a 78-year old grandma who pulls 245lbs.
    So there's no such thing (in your mind) as a fit Olympic female gymnast? You've gone full retard.
    Gymnastic ability isn't as important on a battle field as carrying a wounded squat mate to safety.

    I never said there were not great athletes in any sport, but when *I* define fitness that is some of my criteria.

    And what is or isn't important on a battlefield has... what exactly to do with being fit?

    fitness applies to a given purpose... it has evolved in the vernacular to a generic nebulous nothing that implies general health and wellness.

    But for any given definition used generically there are notable exceptions that make the nebulous generic definition meaningless.

    If you use BMI then Coach Rippetoe and the skinny fat office worker with a 24 BMI are the notable exceptions... as is the Olympic gymnast

    If you use strength then you find other exceptions again in all categories

    VO2Max is better, but still defective.



  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,967 Member
    cqbkaju wrote: »
    xmichaelyx wrote: »
    cqbkaju wrote: »
    As a starting point, I feel you are not "fit" if you cannot deadlift as much as Shirley Webb, a 78-year old grandma who pulls 245lbs.
    So there's no such thing (in your mind) as a fit Olympic female gymnast? You've gone full retard.
    Gymnastic ability isn't as important on a battle field as carrying a wounded squat mate to safety.

    I never said there were not great athletes in any sport, but when *I* define fitness that is some of my criteria.

    And what is or isn't important on a battlefield has... what exactly to do with being fit?

    fitness applies to a given purpose... it has evolved in the vernacular to a generic nebulous nothing that implies general health and wellness.

    But for any given definition used generically there are notable exceptions that make the nebulous generic definition meaningless.

    If you use BMI then Coach Rippetoe and the skinny fat office worker with a 24 BMI are the notable exceptions... as is the Olympic gymnast

    If you use strength then you find other exceptions again in all categories

    VO2Max is better, but still defective.




    It's true that a VO2max score may not be very flattering to these individuals.

    07995eb97a008cb4f93be609caf52540.jpg

    Remember, people can be fit to purposes that have nothing to do with what we would recognize as "fitness."
  • cqbkaju
    cqbkaju Posts: 1,011 Member
    edited May 2017
    It's true that a VO2max score may not be very flattering to these individuals.
    Maybe, maybe not.
    Guys around this size have also blown up hot water bottles like balloons until they popped...

    But yeah, probably not... ;)

  • Theo166
    Theo166 Posts: 2,564 Member
    Their definition of fit was useless, too broad. They didn't filter people who exercised, just people who hadn't YET exhibited disease markers linked to obesity. I would also have expected this group to exhibit problems given followup testing.

    A study that actually looked at overweight people who were physically active would be interesting.
    They found records for 3.5 million people who were free of coronary heart disease at the starting point of the study and divided them into groups according to their BMI and whether they had diabetes, high blood pressure [hypertension], and abnormal blood fats [hyperlipidemia], which are all classed as metabolic abnormalities. Anyone who had none of those was classed as “metabolically healthy obese”.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Theo166 wrote: »
    Their definition of fit was useless, too broad. They didn't filter people who exercised, just people who hadn't YET exhibited disease markers linked to obesity. I would also have expected this group to exhibit problems given followup testing.

    A study that actually looked at overweight people who were physically active would be interesting.

    Yeah, I finally looked at the article, and exactly this.
  • WaterBunnie
    WaterBunnie Posts: 1,372 Member
    I'm disappointed that they are comparing fat & fit vs normal weight. Surely the comparison should be fat & fit vs fat & unfit (non-exercisers). I've been doing several classes a week for 5 years now and have more stamina than a lot of the slim girls but do appreciate being heavy is putting more strain in my body overall than being slim would do.