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"?
Replies
-
The risks of obesity go far beyond fitness. You can run and jump and ride if you're fit and overweight so long as your heart is healthy and your muscles are strong, but, if one is prone to carrying excess belly fat, there's a good chance it's visceral fat surrounding your internal organs raising your risk of diabetes, high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease etc. I'd say one can be fat and fit because fit is generally measured as strength and/or endurance but it's near impossible to be fat and healthy in the long run.
5 -
carolyn000000 wrote: »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?
It was assessed, and you are correct.0 -
Obesity cuts your lifespan by at least 14 years.
Right now my dad is 73 and it's a miracle he's lived this long. He was obese his whole life, and he was recently sent home a week after having one of his legs amputated (diabetes--adult onset based on lifestlye). I am one of his 2 full time caregivers because his Medicare for the year is overspent. The other caregiver is my 74 year old mother who still works, who recently survived kidney cancer. The next person who says their diet, lifestyle and obesity doesn't impact others gets to live my life for a week. They get to try and put him a hoyer lift from his living room hospital bed before he has a bowel movement requiring 45 minutes of personal and bed cleanup. They get to worry about his bedsores forming. They get to manage what I do, and wonder, "will I live into my 70's, and when I eat all this garbage food and refuse to do what the doctors tell me, hey, life is short and it won't impact anyone, it's my life."
Yeah, he still wants to eat garbage food despite all of this. He also says trying to transfer onto the commode is more trouble than it's worth to him, but he isn't cleaning up his own feces on his bed, bedding, body and everything. It's his wife and daughter.
There is no fat and fit. There is, as mentioned in the article, "metabolically healthy" and fat. It's isn't the same thing. Not at all. It just means you aren't dying at the moment. How many pushups did you do last week? I did over 100, and I'm dealing with this.
Before you throw shade, note that I had my wakeup call and lost 151lbs in 14 months. I'm NEVER going back. Fat and fit is a myth. Fat and not functioning is luck.15 -
JohnnyPenso wrote: »The risks of obesity go far beyond fitness. You can run and jump and ride if you're fit and overweight so long as your heart is healthy and your muscles are strong, but, if one is prone to carrying excess belly fat, there's a good chance it's visceral fat surrounding your internal organs raising your risk of diabetes, high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease etc. I'd say one can be fat and fit because fit is generally measured as strength and/or endurance but it's near impossible to be fat and healthy in the long run.
Absolute sanity.3 -
carolyn000000 wrote: »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?
The research says "fat but fit" is a myth. It does not matter.
They may be able to perform certain types of exercise but that does not mean a "fat" person is healthy or truly "fit".
"They still have a higher risk of heart disease than normal-weight people."
If you were truly "fit" then you would not be "fat". It is a matter of energy balance.
Exercising hard enough and eating well enough to become "fit" usually means you will be losing at least some body fat.
You cannot have it both ways. That is one reason why how we define "fit" matters so much.
If "fit" is merely a measure of strength performance or cardio capacity then it needs to be measured and given some sort of standard or baseline.
If you look at "fitness models" they are judged in part by aesthetics and body fat percentages, similar to bodybuilders.
Contrast that to other athletes such as ones who run triathlons, compete in powerlifting or compete in Olympic weight lifting.
They are all judged on different criteria. Who among them is the most "fit"?
Extra body weight in powerlifting changes the leverages and enables competitors to move heavier loads -sometimes 1,000 pounds or more!- but at what cost? Read what Jim Wendler has to say on that subject.
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.
I have additional guidelines, but that is one is objective and easy to test.
People may disagree with me because they think other things are more important to being "fit".
I train fighters, LEOs and military personnel so what matters to me is survivability and being able to carry a wounded squad member off the field.
4 -
If "fit" is merely a measure of strength performance or cardio capacity then it needs to be measured and given some sort of standard or baseline.
It sounds like you just described VO2max (aerobic capacity) which is the amount of oxygen you can make use of, normalized by weight. When people say "competitive Nordic skiers are the fittest people on Earth" what that means is the best VO2max scores ever recorded have been ski racers.
2 -
carolyn000000 wrote: »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?
The research says "fat but fit" is a myth. It does not matter.
They may be able to perform certain types of exercise but that does not mean a "fat" person is healthy or truly "fit".
"They still have a higher risk of heart disease than normal-weight people."
If you were truly "fit" then you would not be "fat". It is a matter of energy balance.
Exercising hard enough and eating well enough to become "fit" usually means you will be losing at least some body fat.
You cannot have it both ways. That is one reason why how we define "fit" matters so much.
If "fit" is merely a measure of strength performance or cardio capacity then it needs to be measured and given some sort of standard or baseline.
If you look at "fitness models" they are judged in part by aesthetics and body fat percentages, similar to bodybuilders.
Contrast that to other athletes such as ones who run triathlons, compete in powerlifting or compete in Olympic weight lifting.
They are all judged on different criteria. Who among them is the most "fit"?
Extra body weight in powerlifting changes the leverages and enables competitors to move heavier loads -sometimes 1,000 pounds or more!- but at what cost? Read what Jim Wendler has to say on that subject.
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.
I have additional guidelines, but that is one is objective and easy to test.
People may disagree with me because they think other things are more important to being "fit".
I train fighters, LEOs and military personnel so what matters to me is survivability and being able to carry a wounded squad member off the field.
Did you seriously quote Rippetoe when trying to debunk fit but fat?
2 -
@NorthCascades
Agreed, VO2max is one way to measure fitness. But what about strength? Flexibility?
There are many other attributes, right?
@stanmann571
If you want to consider Coach Rippetoe to be "fit but fat" at age 61 when he probably still deadlifts, squats, benches, etc. more than both of us put together then that is your prerogative. Last I heard he still does 20 rep pull-ups at that size. We have not defined what his body fat percentage is either.
I did not say Coach Rip wasn't carrying extra body fat anyway.
I was referencing his quote on strength being important in contrast to something like VO2max, per @NorthCascades
If someone wants to use Coach Rip (or any of the other strength coaches for that matter) as the role model for "fit but fat" maybe first clear it with them and then make sure your lifts are in line with what they push and pull.
It is well-known that these sort of guys deliberately add bulk to move more weight and that they don't cut because it would affect their leverages and how much they lift.
Again, it is a matter of what is important to them and how they define "fit".
If someone else of Coach Rip's age and body fat percentage can do what he does and you wish to call that "fit but fat" then have fun. And maybe don't call Rip "fat" to his face.1 -
@NorthCascades
Agreed, VO2max is one way to measure fitness. But what about strength? Flexibility?
There are many other attributes, right?
@stanmann571
If you want to consider Coach Rippetoe to be "fit but fat" at age 61 when he probably still deadlifts, squats, benches, etc. more than both of us put together then that is your prerogative. Last I heard he still does 20 rep pull-ups at that size. We have not defined what his body fat percentage is either.
I did not say Coach Rip wasn't carrying extra body fat anyway.
I was referencing his quote on strength being important in contrast to something like VO2max, per @NorthCascades
If someone wants to use Coach Rip (or any of the other strength coaches for that matter) as the role model for "fit but fat" maybe first clear it with then and then make sure your lifts are in line with what they push and pull.
It is well-known that these sort of guys deliberately add bulk to move more weight and that they don't cut because it would affect their leverages and how much they lift.
Again, it is a matter of what is important to them and how they define "fit".
If someone else of Coach Rip's age and body fat percentage can do what he does and you wish to call that "fit but fat" then have fun. And maybe don't call Rip "fat" to his face.
That's called moving the goalposts.2 -
Not at all. It is pointing to where the goalposts might be and telling you to feel free to go there.stanmann571 wrote: »That's called moving the goalposts.
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.
0 -
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. Literally no semi-thoughtful person would discuss lifting amounts without taking bodyweight into consideration.Until everyone agrees on what "fit" means it is just a word.
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.
5 -
Gymnastic ability isn't as important on a battle field as carrying a wounded squat mate to safety.xmichaelyx wrote: »
I never said there were not great athletes in any sport, but when *I* define fitness that is some of my criteria.
0 -
Not at all. It is pointing to where the goalposts might be and telling you to feel free to go there.stanmann571 wrote: »That's called moving the goalposts.
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't2 -
I agree with you there.stanmann571 wrote: »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
0 -
@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.2 -
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.1 -
Except that the guardian article cites the Sweden article.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 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.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.
2 -
Gymnastic ability isn't as important on a battle field as carrying a wounded squat mate to safety.xmichaelyx wrote: »
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?4 -
stanmann571 wrote: »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/1 -
stevencloser wrote: »
Gymnastic ability isn't as important on a battle field as carrying a wounded squat mate to safety.xmichaelyx wrote: »
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.
1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Gymnastic ability isn't as important on a battle field as carrying a wounded squat mate to safety.xmichaelyx wrote: »
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.
Remember, people can be fit to purposes that have nothing to do with what we would recognize as "fitness."2 -
Maybe, maybe not.NorthCascades wrote: »It's true that a VO2max score may not be very flattering to these individuals.
Guys around this size have also blown up hot water bottles like balloons until they popped...
But yeah, probably not...
0 -
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”.0 -
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.0 -
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.0
-
This content has been removed.
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions