Opinions? Somewhat "fat" is OK?
juanwilly1
Posts: 26 Member
People can be 'fat but fit' and should focus on exercise rather than dieting for a longer life, experts say!
Researchers have found that "a weight-centric approach to obesity treatment and prevention has been largely ineffective" and that people should concentrate on exercise not dieting when it comes to cutting the risk of dying early.
They said "a weight-centric approach to obesity treatment and prevention has been largely ineffective", adding: "Moreover, repeated weight loss efforts may contribute to weight gain, and is undoubtedly associated with the high prevalence of weight cycling (yo-yo dieting), which is associated with significant health risks."
They pointed to studies suggesting that exercise was better for a longer life than just losing weight.
"But shifting the focus away from weight loss as the primary goal, and instead focusing on increasing physical activity to improve cardiorespiratory fitness, may be prudent for treating obesity-related health conditions," they said.
Researchers have found that "a weight-centric approach to obesity treatment and prevention has been largely ineffective" and that people should concentrate on exercise not dieting when it comes to cutting the risk of dying early.
They said "a weight-centric approach to obesity treatment and prevention has been largely ineffective", adding: "Moreover, repeated weight loss efforts may contribute to weight gain, and is undoubtedly associated with the high prevalence of weight cycling (yo-yo dieting), which is associated with significant health risks."
They pointed to studies suggesting that exercise was better for a longer life than just losing weight.
"But shifting the focus away from weight loss as the primary goal, and instead focusing on increasing physical activity to improve cardiorespiratory fitness, may be prudent for treating obesity-related health conditions," they said.
1
Replies
-
Okay.
Who are, "they?"
Anyone can claim anything they like.
Somewhat fat but fit *may* be better than fat and not fit, but excess weight is still a risk and in fact could make sports injuries more likely.14 -
cmriverside wrote: »Okay.
Who are, "they?"
Anyone can claim anything they like.
Somewhat fat but fit *may* be better than fat and not fit, but excess weight is still a risk and in fact could make sports injuries more likely.
Exactly. Not to mention that extra weight can contribute to diabetes and high blood pressure. If you've ever been significantly overweight then you know that it can simply make you more tired to carry around the extra weight every day.5 -
This suggests there is nothing imprudent about exercise but points out that it is not always feasible for the very obese to exercise effectively.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2811477/
The British Heart Foundation has suggested there is no such thing as "fat but fit":
https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/news/behind-the-headlines/weight-and-heart-risk
Personally, exercise was the key to my weight loss. Not the doing of the exercise - the weight loss was managed by diet. But the enjoyment of the exercise and the desire to do more of it and achieve my goals. Ultimately it comes down to individual motivations, though. I used not to live a healthy lifestyle and I became overweight because I didn't care enough to change my behaviour. Now I do care enough. But I had to find that within myself and even if a doctor had looked me in the eye and said "you must do XYZ and stop ABC" I don't think that would have given me the will to do it.
4 -
I feel as if this is the type of conversation that could be vastly more productive if we grounded it in what these researchers had actually looked at and what conclusions they drew from it. Are they referring to people who are "significantly overweight" or "over obese" or are they talking about people who are twenty pounds over "normal BMI" but are consistently active? There's a huge difference there.14
-
juanwilly1 wrote: »People can be 'fat but fit' and should focus on exercise rather than dieting for a longer life, experts say!
Researchers have found that "a weight-centric approach to obesity treatment and prevention has been largely ineffective" and that people should concentrate on exercise not dieting when it comes to cutting the risk of dying early.
They said "a weight-centric approach to obesity treatment and prevention has been largely ineffective", adding: "Moreover, repeated weight loss efforts may contribute to weight gain, and is undoubtedly associated with the high prevalence of weight cycling (yo-yo dieting), which is associated with significant health risks."
They pointed to studies suggesting that exercise was better for a longer life than just losing weight.
"But shifting the focus away from weight loss as the primary goal, and instead focusing on increasing physical activity to improve cardiorespiratory fitness, may be prudent for treating obesity-related health conditions," they said.
This thought(s) is very dependent on how obese or overly fat a person can be and has many variables.
There comes a point that the pros outweigh the cons for those on the extreme side of obesity.
Also evidence and guidelines suggest that we resistance train, perform cardio, maintain a lower body fat, etc...all to lower risk of disease, improve quality of life, and extend life. This is the standard minimally. I wouldn't advice people to ignore fat loss because of a yo-yo dieting. In fact these good habits when followed under proper load management is very effective tool to help adhere to fat loss long term.
I do agree we shouldn't just lose weight, we should implement many good habits which are ignored by many for the reasons stated above.
Is it okay to be "somewhat fat"? Let's define what that is to individuals and not a broad brush that is covering everyone.
6 -
I imagine that I probably fall into this category. I'm 39, I've weighed as much as 240 lbs (not pregnant, anyway) and as low as 180 which, arguably probably would still put me in this category, even though that's my ideal weight (personally, I liked how I looked and felt at that weight). Currently I'm about 217ish.
I'm healthy - quite, actually. I have a sedentary job, but outside of that, i'm very active at home (i''m on my feet and moving until about 45 minutes before I go to bed) and workout 5-6 days a week. My blood sugar is good. My blood pressure is great, and even on the low end of great. I do not feel tired and slovenly and gross - I did at 240, but I do not currently. I lift weight, I run, I do a lot of Les Mills classes. I don't get out of breath going up stairs or anything. i have many friends who either are or were overweight and not active and they all talk about being so tired and exhausted at the end of the day and on weekends, so much so that it keeps them from living life. I don't ever feel like that. My joints and back dont hurt - i don't notice the aches and pains that a lot of people seem to have as they get near 40.
I'm sure that there's an argument to be made that eventually those things will happen to me at some point, but I suspect that argument can be made for a lot of people. My work friend down the hall, for example, is in very good shape...but has high cholesterol and blood pressure.
I surely think you can be fat and fit. I also don't think that being fat allows me to be as healthy as I could be - surely I COULD be healthier. But that doesn't mean I'm not fit and healthy like this.
That being said -re: the original post. Those excerpts in quotations are great points. Focusing on being "fat" never once made me feel better about myself. what it normally does is throw me into a cycle of emotional eating and crying. I surely have needed "mirror checks" before - I surely have had to recognize that i NEEDED to lose weight, and that was a starting point. But anytime I've ever actually been successful it was by understanding myself as capable of whatever it is that I wanted to do and whatever goal I actually set. Paying attention to the non-weight benefits of exercise is leaps and bounds ore healthy and helpful for me to focus on and it's what keeps me going back to do more of it.
4 -
barefootbridgey wrote: »I imagine that I probably fall into this category. I'm 39, I've weighed as much as 240 lbs (not pregnant, anyway) and as low as 180 which, arguably probably would still put me in this category, even though that's my ideal weight (personally, I liked how I looked and felt at that weight). Currently I'm about 217ish.
I'm healthy - quite, actually. I have a sedentary job, but outside of that, i'm very active at home (i''m on my feet and moving until about 45 minutes before I go to bed) and workout 5-6 days a week. My blood sugar is good. My blood pressure is great, and even on the low end of great. I do not feel tired and slovenly and gross - I did at 240, but I do not currently. I lift weight, I run, I do a lot of Les Mills classes. I don't get out of breath going up stairs or anything. i have many friends who either are or were overweight and not active and they all talk about being so tired and exhausted at the end of the day and on weekends, so much so that it keeps them from living life. I don't ever feel like that. My joints and back dont hurt - i don't notice the aches and pains that a lot of people seem to have as they get near 40.
I'm sure that there's an argument to be made that eventually those things will happen to me at some point, but I suspect that argument can be made for a lot of people. My work friend down the hall, for example, is in very good shape...but has high cholesterol and blood pressure.
I surely think you can be fat and fit. I also don't think that being fat allows me to be as healthy as I could be - surely I COULD be healthier. But that doesn't mean I'm not fit and healthy like this.
That being said -re: the original post. Those excerpts in quotations are great points. Focusing on being "fat" never once made me feel better about myself. what it normally does is throw me into a cycle of emotional eating and crying. I surely have needed "mirror checks" before - I surely have had to recognize that i NEEDED to lose weight, and that was a starting point. But anytime I've ever actually been successful it was by understanding myself as capable of whatever it is that I wanted to do and whatever goal I actually set. Paying attention to the non-weight benefits of exercise is leaps and bounds ore healthy and helpful for me to focus on and it's what keeps me going back to do more of it.
this is the biggest part for me.
I am certainly healthier now at a bmi of roughly 21 than at a bmi of 30. I feel better too.
But focusing on FAT LOSS or weight loss as a primary goal never worked for me, either. I like a whole cake better than I like looking good.
What I don't like a whole cake more than is ALL THE STUFF I CAN DO and how I FEEL now.
People are different. I think a lot of people who are trying to weigh the instant gratification of eating as much of whatever they want, against the both delayed and superficial gratification of how they look in the mirror, is a losing game.
The balance changes when you weigh eating what you want but in smaller quantities against eventually looking better but also allowing you to do things you love more easily and feeling better.
7 -
Didn't work that way for me.
I was that semi-mythical pretty fit fat person: Low resting heart rate, good endurance, decent strength, race pace good enough for some age-group place medals in regional events. I was training pretty hard most days, for years - over a decade, in fact. I was just over the line into class 1 obese BMI, 183 pounds at 5'5".
I was vegetarian, had been for many decades, eating lots of veggies, fruits, whole grains, adequate protein.
I was 59 by then, had high cholesterol/triglycerides, borderline high blood pressure. Not healthy, despite a good exercise routine, healthy foods. Also, I was severely hypothyroid, menopausal, old - metabolic doom?
Over a bit less than a year, I counted calories, ate pretty much the same foods (different portion sizes, proportions, frequencies), did pretty much the same exercise routine, lost from obese to a BMI in the lower 20s - 120-something pounds, healthy weight. I've been at a healthy weight for 5+ years since.
Even before reaching goal weight, in fact around half way there, my blood lipids and blood pressure were solidly in the normal range. Despite the thyroid condition, I'd learned that I need to eat *more* calories than average for my age and size.
I'm not saying my experience would be universal: We're all individuals. But my experience makes me skeptical that the claims in the OP are universal either.8 -
Having read the source, thanks for that a couple of posts up, that is a terrible article. No data, with vague conclusions.
I think the basic premise was it's better to be exercising than yo-yo'ing up and down through dieting alone and without exercising. Which I suppose is a fair point, but would seem to only apply to a narrow subset of people.5 -
Sky news...6
-
I've been 175 and not active, and I've been 175 and active - and let me tell you those are two very different me's - especially at 5'4. When "weight loss" just means some random number on a chart I don't think it's always conducive to a healthy way of life - I see lots of "skinny fat" people. When I was lifting and doing hot yoga all the time, and at 175 - I looked and felt amazing! (trying to get back there now, lol) but it also encouraged me to try and eat better because - yeah, really hard to put your forehead on your knee when there are layers of fat in the way... and food has a tendency to morph into something that gives you energy (not a cure for boredom, a bad day, etc.)
There are always issues when you take a blanket statement and try to make it apply to everyone... especially if you are going to do an either/or take. In my opinion, both are important and they go hand in hand, but I think that trying to be active really helps reinforce trying to do other things to make yourself healthier... where often a sole focus on "weight" doesn't so much, and can actually lead you down several unhealthy paths... just my .026 -
Regardless of the source, I could see the approach being another tool in the tool belt to fight weight issues depending on the individual. Using it as a blanket statement to remain overweight, that would be the issue IMO - being overweight has a plethora of health issues associated with it, so someone saying they are "fit" while still carrying significant fat could be very problematic.
That issue aside however, for someone working with overweight individuals, it could be another tool to consider - but it's about approach, not end results...
I'll just use myself as an example here:
I am HORRIBLE about losing weight if I am trying to do it by primarily focusing on diet. If, however, I am primarily focused on fitness and working out, I find it a lot easier to get my diet to follow. Therefore, focusing on fitness first does help me lose weight a LOT more effectively than just focusing on food.
Some of it is the mental shift from "I can't eat x, can barely taste z, and c is a straight up no-no" to "because I did y, I can now eat x, and z, and maybe even a little bit of c."
0 -
I think we'd have to define "somewhat fat". I would consider myself right now to be "somewhat fat" with the 20 Lbs I put on during COVID lockdowns. I'm around 20% BF right now. In maintenance I'm around 15%. Aesthetically I prefer leaner, but from a health standpoint (I'm active and exercise regularly either way) it has had no meaningful impact.4
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »I think we'd have to define "somewhat fat". I would consider myself right now to be "somewhat fat" with the 20 Lbs I put on during COVID lockdowns. I'm around 20% BF right now. In maintenance I'm around 15%. Aesthetically I prefer leaner, but from a health standpoint (I'm active and exercise regularly either way) it has had no meaningful impact.
Apparently the author doesn't believe it is just "somewhat fat." Glenn Gaesser "has been a strong proponent of “health at every size” for the past 25 years."
https://chs.asu.edu/glenn-gaesser5 -
juanwilly1 wrote: »People can be 'fat but fit' and should focus on exercise rather than dieting for a longer life, experts say!
Researchers have found that "a weight-centric approach to obesity treatment and prevention has been largely ineffective" and that people should concentrate on exercise not dieting when it comes to cutting the risk of dying early.
They said "a weight-centric approach to obesity treatment and prevention has been largely ineffective", adding: "Moreover, repeated weight loss efforts may contribute to weight gain, and is undoubtedly associated with the high prevalence of weight cycling (yo-yo dieting), which is associated with significant health risks."
They pointed to studies suggesting that exercise was better for a longer life than just losing weight.
"But shifting the focus away from weight loss as the primary goal, and instead focusing on increasing physical activity to improve cardiorespiratory fitness, may be prudent for treating obesity-related health conditions," they said.
I think emphasizing and prioritizing the benefits of exercise (even low-impact exercise) and eating a varied, moderately healthy diet is probably going to go a lot further for most overweight folks than constantly reminding them that they are fat or "ugly" by society's fickle standards. It doesn't seem to work for most people and instead tends to make their mental health plummet unless they really have that spiteful streak that allows them to do things just to piss off their detractors (we admittedly do not all have this trait, sadly).
Focusing only on weight leads a lot of people to feeling like they are "less than" because they aren't at the goal they should be.. or the goal they think they ought to be based on arbitrary things like people's opinions or the whims of mental health on a day-to-day basis. Taking the focus off of weight and appearance and putting it more on the benefits of exercise and how it can make a person feel during/afterward is probably going to do more for keeping people engaged, especially if you can make that exercise not seem like exercise (like taking a fitness class, swimming freestyle, playing a game with friends or colleagues or even going on a long walk in the evenings).
I'd be interested in seeing long term studies of a focus on health in overweight individuals that didn't focus mostly on weight or appearance and more about their endurance, enjoyment and longevity, but I'm sure that would take several years at the soonest, probably decades at the latest.
Personally, I fall into the fat but relatively healthy category (I don't categorize myself as fit). I get blood work panels yearly and go in for a physical at the same time. I've been overweight my entire life (now in my mid-30s), but my blood work always comes back just fine and my physical numbers are always in the green. I attribute most of that more to long walks (even though I've been around 205 for a decade now.. which makes me obese at my height and age) and the fact that due to having a GI condition, I have to be a tad mindful of what and how much of certain things I can eat, but.. I still overeat which is why I'm here.. fighting the good fight and logging calories. As we do.3 -
This is one of those things I have mixed feelings on. Because yes you can be overweight (significantly so, even), and have 'perfect' health metrics across the board- except for that number on the scale. I'm on that spectrum, myself.
And having those metrics, despite what the scale says, is a fantastic thing.
However, that does not negate or remove the fact that increased weight, not speaking of vanity pounds, or possibly 20-30 extra pounds (though that might be getting borderline, I don't know where the cut off would be exactly), puts a person at increased risk for any number of health issues including cardiovascular disease or heart attacks and diabetes- even with no previous issues or warning. That is simple fact.
7 -
callsitlikeiseeit wrote: »This is one of those things I have mixed feelings on. Because yes you can be overweight (significantly so, even), and have 'perfect' health metrics across the board- except for that number on the scale. I'm on that spectrum, myself.
And having those metrics, despite what the scale says, is a fantastic thing.
However, that does not negate or remove the fact that increased weight, not speaking of vanity pounds, or possibly 20-30 extra pounds (though that might be getting borderline, I don't know where the cut off would be exactly), puts a person at increased risk for any number of health issues including cardiovascular disease or heart attacks and diabetes- even with no previous issues or warning. That is simple fact.
What we also don't know (or at least I don't know if there have been any studies) is whether there are cumulative effects of obesity. Younger people with obesity are, I suspect, living with a health time bomb.
Anecdotally, my father in law was obese and in rude health for many years until he died suddenly of pancreatic cancer in his early 70s. My husband is morbidly obese (has been for years) and all of his health metrics were totally fine for years. Until one day they weren't. And now the unhelpful habits are deeply ingrained in him and nothing will change. He would maybe exercise more but his knees won't permit it these days.
I was thinking about this thread again today because the study was reported in our mainstream press. I wonder who funded the study. Because it is a total gift to the fitness industry. They for years have peddled the myth that you can lose significant amounts of weight by going to the gym. People are beginning to rumble that. But now they can say "Meh. Lose weight or don't. But you need to be fit, whatever. So come to the gym." I have no axe to grind with gyms as I (now) love exercise. But it seems to me that very few big studies are not funded by someone with some sort of vested interest.
3 -
I think part of the problem here is a general human tendency to want to put things in a "good" box or a "bad" box, when the reality of goodness/badness is multi-dimensional. Things can be good or bad at one and the same time, in different ways, and how good or bad a thing is in one respect is on a sliding scale, not an absolute one.
So, is it better for health to be active rather than inactive? Almost certainly, absent complicating factors.
Same is true for being a healthy weight, vs. underweight or overweight (to any material extent).
On top of that, there is some evidence that yo-yo-ing weight may be a bad thing in itself. Worse than staying overweight? I'm guessing that probably depends on *how* overweight, and how often/big the weight swings, whether the weight swings and regains were done with good or poor nutrition, while active in either extreme or continuously through life (and what the nature of the activity was), and other factors.
There's almost no way to sensibly discuss, in generic terms, whether it's OK to be overweight if active vs. healthy weight and inactive, or how yo-yo risk balances off against the overweight but active condition. How overweight? How active? With what nutrition? With what yo-yo frequency or number of repetitions? With what genetics? With what lifestyle in other respects (occupational risks, unavoidable chronic health conditions, recreational drug/alcohol use, environmental risks like living in a polluted or clean area, etc.)?
Speaking only for myself, I'm absolutely convinced that it was better for my health to be class 1 obese and very active than it was to be equally overweight and inactive, since I test-drove each of those cases for multiple years. (But being active wasn't *enough*, in my case - I needed to lose weight to be reasonably healthy in objective terms.) I also think I gained certain advantages from not having yo-yo-ed in weight for decades, in the way some of my friends have done: I suspect weight loss was a little easier in that scenario (whether psychologically or physically, I dunno).
I think it's probably the most OK, for most people without special circumstances, to be at a healthy weight and active. *How* OK it is to be less of one or the other, but not both . . . that's a really messy question, and at least somewhat situational.
Cynically, I know some people IRL who'd find the ideas in the OP a relief, a self-justification, maybe even an excuse. FWIW, I've known very few very active seriously overweight people, even though I was one myself. (I'm not claiming to be the only one, just that I don't think it's super common.) And I know a few overweight people who think they're active, whose definition of "active" is biased by their social context including very few, maybe no, truly active people.
It's complicated.6 -
SnifterPug wrote: »callsitlikeiseeit wrote: »This is one of those things I have mixed feelings on. Because yes you can be overweight (significantly so, even), and have 'perfect' health metrics across the board- except for that number on the scale. I'm on that spectrum, myself.
And having those metrics, despite what the scale says, is a fantastic thing.
However, that does not negate or remove the fact that increased weight, not speaking of vanity pounds, or possibly 20-30 extra pounds (though that might be getting borderline, I don't know where the cut off would be exactly), puts a person at increased risk for any number of health issues including cardiovascular disease or heart attacks and diabetes- even with no previous issues or warning. That is simple fact.
What we also don't know (or at least I don't know if there have been any studies) is whether there are cumulative effects of obesity. Younger people with obesity are, I suspect, living with a health time bomb.
Anecdotally, my father in law was obese and in rude health for many years until he died suddenly of pancreatic cancer in his early 70s. My husband is morbidly obese (has been for years) and all of his health metrics were totally fine for years. Until one day they weren't. And now the unhelpful habits are deeply ingrained in him and nothing will change. He would maybe exercise more but his knees won't permit it these days.
I was thinking about this thread again today because the study was reported in our mainstream press. I wonder who funded the study. Because it is a total gift to the fitness industry. They for years have peddled the myth that you can lose significant amounts of weight by going to the gym. People are beginning to rumble that. But now they can say "Meh. Lose weight or don't. But you need to be fit, whatever. So come to the gym." I have no axe to grind with gyms as I (now) love exercise. But it seems to me that very few big studies are not funded by someone with some sort of vested interest.
I was thinking this exact same thing and your phrase "Younger people with obesity are, I suspect, living with a health time bomb" encapsulates it perfectly.
I was also thinking specifically of knee issues, having been plagued with that myself for the last 12 years.6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 909 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions