No such thing as 'fat but fit', major study finds. - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;52240760]Well honestly to check that there's nothing wrong with your heart it's better to get an ECHO done on a onetime basis if you haven't already to check all parameters, especially the size of your heart, quality of your heartbeat, and an ECG to rule out electrical abnormalities.[/QUOTE] All done when I had my motorcycle accident 4 years ago and they were ruling out internal damage, though I do think it's worth getting one done now anyway. The most I have to contend with is being diabolically close to diabetes because of family history (dad's got it and hypertension, so fun) but that's about it - apart from a slightly bad knee, fit as a fiddle but could stand to lose a few pounds.

Shocking news: Putting greater strain on your cardiovascular system will make your cardiovascular system conk out earlier than otherwise. I'm a very live and let live person, but it's important for people to be aware of the risks they take with any given lifestyle. I'm on the average side of average, weight-wise, but I live a pretty sedentary lifestyle. That doesn't bother me because I'm still doing what I enjoy and I'm not fussed about living forever, but I still make sure to have exercise and not eat total junk because I like the sound of at least living for a while.

So Trump isn't Healthy then. What a liar.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;52240330]That man is certainly strong, but that can't be healthy... There has to be a heart problem hiding in there somewhere.[/QUOTE] It's possible, but if there was I'd wager it to be more correlated to bad familial genetics than simply bulking the fuck up. Increased body size does put greater strain on the heart, but depending on whether or not you have a hefty plate of exercise to go with it to strengthen your cardiovascular system is another story entirely. I'd say he's about as unhealthy as your average dude, which to say, not very. Being a very lean and dry bodybuilder is much worse for your health.

And this is why I think the "fat acceptance" movement is bullshit. Being obese is a strain on the healthcare system. I need to exercise more so that I don't end up in that kind of situation.

[QUOTE=Doozle;52240669]Don't a lot of strongmen die quite young?[/QUOTE] (anabolic steroids might have something to do with the increased risk) shouldn't obesity come down to fat % rather than plain bodyweight? BMI is argued for here due to ease of use and the good representation of health risk at a population level. the article also mentions weightlifters as an exception to the rule (probably only an extremely miniscule fraction of the people involved in the study, and heck, of people overall, are elite weightlifters).

A lot of the strongmen are actually in terrible "shape" when they are getting into competitive form. They're strong, but their blood pressure is ridiculous, their triglycerides are through the roof, and their cardio in general is abysmal. Edie hall was eating ~10,000 calories a day. The diet he was on was absurd. The fat content was sickening.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;52240682]Can be due to any number of reasons such as cardiac stress, steroid abuse and its side effects, a bad diet, even simply pushing yourself too hard can lead to an early death among athletes like that.[/QUOTE] If I'm not mistaken, there is no testing in strongman contests, so it's a free for all.

The study is a croc of shit. This is how they did it. [quote]The issue has been controversial. Obesity is usually measured by body mass index (BMI) – a ratio of weight against height. It is generally agreed to be imperfect because athletes and very fit people with dense muscle can have the same BMI as somebody who is obese. The scientists examined electronic health records from 1995 to 2015 in the Health Improvement Network – a large UK general practice database. 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 [highlight]according to their BMI[/highlight] 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”. 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.[/quote] They basically got a bunch of ACTUALLY FIT people (low amount of fat, high amount of muscle, people who live healthy lifestyles) and ACTUALLY OBESE people (high amount of fat, low amount of muscle, people who live unhealthy lifestyles but have no REGISTERED problems), and studied them and generalized the fuck out of it. It's the same thing as me going "HEY BLUE HAS SOME SHADES OF GREEN IT, I NEED TO PROVE THIS" and bringing in BLUE COLORED objects and CYAN COLORED objects, researching those objects and going "YEAH BLUE OBJECTS HAVE A HIGH CHANCE OF HAVING SHADES OF GREEN OF IT". [quote]Dr Rishi Caleyachetty, who led the study, said it was true that weightlifters could be healthy and yet have a BMI that suggested they were obese. [highlight]“I understand that argument. BMI is crude … but it is the only measure we have in the clinic to get a proxy for body fat. It is not realistic [to use anything else] in a GP setting or in the normal hospital clinic. We have to rely on BMI measurements, however crude they may be,”[/highlight] he said.[/quote] The study was a hoax used to justify a flawed system of measuring obesity; BMI. I really wish people would've read the article and realised how messed up their study is.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52242387]The study is a croc of shit. This is how they did it. They basically got a bunch of ACTUALLY FIT people (low amount of fat, high amount of muscle, people who live healthy lifestyles) and ACTUALLY OBESE people (high amount of fat, low amount of muscle, people who live unhealthy lifestyles but have no REGISTERED problems), and studied them and generalized the fuck out of it. It's the same thing as me going "HEY BLUE HAS SOME SHADES OF GREEN IT, I NEED TO PROVE THIS" and bringing in BLUE COLORED objects and CYAN COLORED objects, researching those objects and going "YEAH BLUE OBJECTS HAVE A HIGH CHANCE OF HAVING SHADES OF GREEN OF IT". The study was a hoax used to justify a flawed system of measuring obesity; BMI. I really wish people would've read the article and realised how messed up their study is.[/QUOTE] I read it and I honestly don't see the issue. You have a high BMI either because you lift incredibly much or because you're fat. And if you lift a lot you're probably going to push the health issues for the high BMI category down. The only other result is that lifting is extremely freaking bad for you and it outshadows being fat in terms of negative health, and I sincerely doubt that. Think before you criticize.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52242486]Unless the majority of the UK consists of professional weightlifters, I don't think that would invalidate the study.[/QUOTE] No, the methods do. The study's results are accurate to the nearest percent but that's only because of the lack of exceptions to that rule. While [I]generally[/I] BMI-defined obese people are actually obese, that isn't true and that's what matters but... The study itself has good intentions because it wants people to start losing weight and living healthy lifestyles, even if it means being dishonest. [quote]Caleyachetty said: “The priority of health professionals should be to promote and facilitate weight loss among obese persons, regardless of the presence or absence of metabolic abnormalities. “At the population level, so-called metabolically healthy obesity is not a harmless condition and perhaps it is better not to use this term to describe an obese person, regardless of how many metabolic complications they have.”[/quote] [editline]17th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=jiggu;52242566]I read it and I honestly don't see the issue. You have a high BMI either because you lift incredibly much or because you're fat. And if you lift a lot you're probably going to push the health issues for the high BMI category down. The only other result is that lifting is extremely freaking bad for you and it outshadows being fat in terms of negative health, and I sincerely doubt that. Think before you criticize.[/QUOTE] "Think before you criticize?" You're justifying the study because as a lifter you're going to get heart problems regardless of obesity. While it is true that people who are physically active on an athletic level have a higher risk of heart problems, it's really dangerous to say that the study is fine just because the results are true. The results are only half of the study. The method of which you got that information is just as important as the results because it helps the medical community work on prevention.

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;52240399]Hey maybe they are those scandinavian guys with dense bones and huge musculature. I would say, from my completely non expert view, that they are fine up until some age after which the muscles start becoming weaker and therefore aren't strong enough to support all their weight so the bones, disks, ligaments start getting fucked up. And that's when you start taking supplements and doing 5 3 1 without cardio, I guess? [editline]17th May 2017[/editline] Yeap. It's muscle, a lot, with a layer of fat on top. Guess you can't take the luxury of cutting when you are DL'ing 350kg EDIT: What I find funny and that nobody mentions (Mostly) when people discuss the paleo diet or stuff like that, is that, in most pictures, wall paintings and recreations, in the past there was an ABSOLUTE lack of fat people being representend. In fact, if I'm not wrong, people in power who didn't handle manual tasks were the ones who started appearing fat. And they were the ones who only suffered from glut, as they ate too much protein. So somewhere down the line either we fucked up our diet or we stopped doing exercise or both. It can't be the pseudoDarwin theory which goes "But fat people now were given a chance to reproduce!" as if there could be enough genetic change in the span of 400 years ffs.[/QUOTE] Paleo is still bullshit, early hominids were eating the exact same shit the Paleo diet forbids.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52242584]No, the methods do. The study's results are accurate to the nearest percent but that's only because of the lack of exceptions to that rule. While [I]generally[/I] BMI-defined obese people are actually obese, that isn't true and that's what matters but... The study itself has good intentions because it wants people to start losing weight and living healthy lifestyles, even if it means being dishonest. [editline]17th May 2017[/editline] "Think before you criticize?" You're justifying the study because as a lifter you're going to get heart problems regardless of obesity. While it is true that people who are physically active on an athletic level have a higher risk of heart problems, it's really dangerous to say that the study is fine just because the results are true. The results are only half of the study. [B]The method of which you got that information is just as important as the results because it helps the medical community work on prevention.[/B][/QUOTE] Yes, and BMI is an OK-way of measuring how fat people are. It's not perfect but it's alright. When you throw the entire study and its results in the garbage bin because it used a not 100% perfect measurement then you're no better.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;52240682]Can be due to any number of reasons such as cardiac stress, steroid abuse and its side effects, a bad diet, even simply pushing yourself too hard can lead to an early death among athletes like that.[/QUOTE] Unsurprisingly, pushing yourself beyond limits that would kill a normal person is not very healthy.

[QUOTE=jiggu;52242690]Yes, and BMI is an OK-way of measuring how fat people are. It's not perfect but it's alright. When you throw the entire study and its results in the garbage bin because it used a not 100% perfect measurement then you're no better.[/QUOTE] Studies shouldn't be conducted with broken tools. I'm not asking for perfection, I'm asking for a tool that isn't described by wikipedia as "an attempt to quantify the amount of tissue mass" [editline]17th May 2017[/editline] And for clarification I'm not throwing the entire study of the bin. I mean I'm going to be fully honest and say that I was initially because I thought "No such thing as 'fat but fit'" was what the study was claiming, but none of those words were attributed to the study or anyone for that matter upon my 3rd reading of the article. Knowing how I've had problems with The Guardian in the past when it came to the scientific study and editorializing the shit out of the results, I bet somewhere in the study it mentioned BMI's flaws. The Guardian, of course, does not link to the study (only of another one involving physical fitness) so I can't say for sure. I'll fully admit I'm a hypocrite for coming to a conclusion without the proper evidence (the study itself, not some retelling) and that my anger is misplaced. If the study itself mentioned the flaws of BMI and how this data does not apply to anomalies such as bodybuilders then the study isn't garbage, if it doesn't then it's a pretty bad study. [editline]5[/editline] Apparently the finding of the study isn't available for anyone yet. All the information that was mentioned was gained from this conference.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52242387]The study is a croc of shit. This is how they did it. They basically got a bunch of ACTUALLY FIT people (low amount of fat, high amount of muscle, people who live healthy lifestyles) and ACTUALLY OBESE people (high amount of fat, low amount of muscle, people who live unhealthy lifestyles but have no REGISTERED problems), and studied them and generalized the fuck out of it. It's the same thing as me going "HEY BLUE HAS SOME SHADES OF GREEN IT, I NEED TO PROVE THIS" and bringing in BLUE COLORED objects and CYAN COLORED objects, researching those objects and going "YEAH BLUE OBJECTS HAVE A HIGH CHANCE OF HAVING SHADES OF GREEN OF IT". The study was a hoax used to justify a flawed system of measuring obesity; BMI. I really wish people would've read the article and realised how messed up their study is.[/QUOTE] BMI is flawed, but it isn't useless. Most people who have high BMIs aren't athletes or whatever, they're fat - and if you know that being fit lessens the risk of heart disease, you can pretty safely assume that it isn't those people who are messing up your data set. BMI's used because it's convenient and gets it close enough to right.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;52243682]BMI is flawed, but it isn't useless. Most people who have high BMIs aren't athletes or whatever, they're fat - and if you know that being fit lessens the risk of heart disease, you can pretty safely assume that it isn't those people who are messing up your data set. BMI's used because it's convenient and gets it close enough to right.[/QUOTE] Yes BMI is flawed and has its uses mainly as an inexpensive and easy way for a person to know that they are most likely not living a healthy lifestyle. It shouldn't be used as anything past a rule of thumb, and it definitely shouldn't be in a scientific study. Using BMI as a measurement of health can cause problems in health insurance premiums as well as develop an assumption that weight correlates to health when in a lot of cases it doesn't. [quote]The study, published in the International Journal of Obesity, analysed the link between BMI and several health markers, including blood pressure and glucose, cholesterol and triglyceride levels, using data from the most recent National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. It showed almost half of Americans who are labelled 'overweight' by virtue of their BMIs (47.4 percent, or 34.4 million people) are healthy, as are 19.8 million who are considered 'obese'.[/quote] [quote]The analysis also found more than 30 per cent of those with BMIs in the 'normal' range, about 20.7 million people, are actually unhealthy based on their other health data. And more than two million people who are considered 'very obese' by virtue of having a BMI of 35 or above are actually healthy. That is about one in seven (15 percent) Americans who come into this category.[/quote] [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/12141716/BMI-wrongly-branding-people-as-unhealthy-new-research-reveals.html[/url] Perhaps I expect too much from the scientific community but I expect studies about something as serious as heart disease to not use a highly debated form of measurement. Here's that research's short. [quote]The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has proposed rules allowing employers to penalize employees up to 30% of health insurance costs if they fail to meet ‘health’ criteria, such as reaching a specified body mass index (BMI). Our objective was to examine cardiometabolic health misclassifications given standard BMI categories. Participants (N=40 420) were individuals aged 18+ in the nationally representative 2005–2012 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Using the blood pressure, triglyceride, cholesterol, glucose, insulin resistance and C-reactive protein data, population frequencies/percentages of metabolically healthy versus unhealthy individuals were stratified by BMI. Nearly half of overweight individuals, 29% of obese individuals and even 16% of obesity type 2/3 individuals were metabolically healthy. Moreover, over 30% of normal weight individuals were cardiometabolically unhealthy. There was no significant race-by-BMI interaction, but there was a significant gender-by-BMI interaction, F(4,64)=3.812, P=0.008. Using BMI categories as the main indicator of health, an estimated 74 936 678 US adults are misclassified as cardiometabolically unhealthy or cardiometabolically healthy. Policymakers should consider the unintended consequences of relying solely on BMI, and researchers should seek to improve diagnostic tools related to weight and cardiometabolic health.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;52242665]Paleo is still bullshit, early hominids were eating the exact same shit the Paleo diet forbids.[/QUOTE] This is not a valid argument. They also died early, and got a lot of various diseases. Some of those diseases might've flourished due to their diet. Without further explanation, your argument provides no insight, and therefore no value.

[QUOTE=mastersrp;52244366]This is not a valid argument. They also died early, and got a lot of various diseases. Some of those diseases might've flourished due to their diet. Without further explanation, your argument provides no insight, and therefore no value.[/QUOTE] Let's rephrase, paleo is a flintstones inspired larp diet and is not supported by professionals

[QUOTE=Falchion;52244562]Let's rephrase, paleo is a flintstones inspired larp diet and is not supported by professionals[/QUOTE] Paleo is a fad diet, like any other fad diet it works not because they're doing anything different but because hypocaloric diets make you lose weight. You can eat anything you want, so long as the amount of calories you use (which you can increase through exercise) are less than the ones you eat, you will use your fat reserves and thus lose weight. The obesity epidemic is not caused by genetics, or due to the difficulty of dieting, it's 100% from societal perceptions towards food and exercise. Roflburger the study you linked is using a very very narrow definition of "healthy" without compensating for age, but I can guarantee you that obese people have significantly increased risk of developing a myriad of diseases and conditions unrelated to metabolic markers.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52243930]Yes BMI is flawed and has its uses mainly as an inexpensive and easy way for a person to know that they are most likely not living a healthy lifestyle. It shouldn't be used as anything past a rule of thumb, and it definitely shouldn't be in a scientific study. Using BMI as a measurement of health can cause problems in health insurance premiums as well as develop an assumption that weight correlates to health when in a lot of cases it doesn't. [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/12141716/BMI-wrongly-branding-people-as-unhealthy-new-research-reveals.html[/url] Perhaps I expect too much from the scientific community but I expect studies about something as serious as heart disease to not use a highly debated form of measurement. Here's that research's short.[/QUOTE] You're talking about BMI as a measure of health - which it isn't - but honestly I don't see what that has to do with the article? As far as I can tell, they split people up according to BMI, and looked at how many of those who were metabolically healthy at the start of the run developed cardiovascular disease. Turns out, according to them, that even if you don't have the typical predictors for cardiovascular disease, having a high BMI puts you at higher risk. And the research you quoted pretty clearly shows that higher BMIs are associated with being metabolically unhealthy - 30% of those in the normal category were metabolically unhealthy, 50% in the 25-30 group, 70% of those who were obese and even more of those who were type 2 or 3 (whatever that means in terms of BMI). What this new research shows (even though it doesn't seem like it has been published yet), is that even being metabolically healthy, BMI is still a predictor for cardiovascular disease. I honestly have a hard time understanding exactly what you're criticising? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the research that has been done as well, but yeah.

People just don't understand how unnatural and unhealthy it is for us to get [I]fat[/I] Obesity in cats and other pets can be fatal - why would it not be just as dangerous to humans

As a guy who is trying to quit food addiction and who has met several former fat dudes in his life. I really don't understand in what type of world do you guys live where there are "fat acceptance" movements. - You struggle to find clothing. Everytime you go into a store you need to try a lot of clothing because out of 10 t-shirts and pants, only 2 or 1 of them will fit you. - You get tired a lot faster and sweat a lot, doesn't help the weather is naturally warm as fuck through most of the year. - Mexican culture revolves about making fun of others flaws, so you pretty much get used to be called fat all time by almost every single person you see. - Skinny-looking guys are the latest craze, so you will get rejected and receive "bad looks" a lot more. Knew plenty of guys who were rejected in horrible ways just because they were slightly chubby. - Fat people never catch a break when it comes to eating with other people who are not fat. If two people are eating the same amount of food and one of them happens to be fat, people will pay attention and mock the fat person, even if they're having a completely normal meal. Same goes when they go to the gym or decide to eat healthy. When fat people here start doing exercise or changing their diet habits, they also need to prepare themselves psychologically or see a therapist because mexicans have a culture of holding people back and it's hard to break away from them. i.e if the chubby guy of the group wants to do exercise, their friends or even entire families start to criticize them or mock them just for attempting to help themselves. I've seen this happening a lot to many people I know and it's really sad how there can be a society so utterly toxic that people pretty much have to ignore their families and friends if they want to overcome their problems. Meeting several people who went through the process of losing weight and changing their habits, as well as trying to change my own habits really changed my perspective on people. Being fat is indeed, unhealthy, but we should know better ways of helping people beyond "fat acceptance movements" or mocking them or ridiculing them in public. I believe people should just see being fat as another health disease, if you can support the person to overcome their problems, go ahead, but if you can't say anything constructive or supportive, then don't get in their way or hold them back as many people here do. It goes without saying that Mexico ranks the 1st place in obesity, last I checked.

[QUOTE=Sgt. Nikolai;52244943]- You get tired a lot faster and sweat a lot, doesn't help the weather is naturally warm as fuck through most of the year.[/QUOTE] how does this have anything to do with your other points or fat acceptance at all lmao and man it's hella hard to find clothes that fit well if you're very thin with wide shoulders too most clothes are made for average people, that's just how it is

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52242387]The study is a croc of shit. This is how they did it. They basically got a bunch of ACTUALLY FIT people (low amount of fat, high amount of muscle, people who live healthy lifestyles) and ACTUALLY OBESE people (high amount of fat, low amount of muscle, people who live unhealthy lifestyles but have no REGISTERED problems), and studied them and generalized the fuck out of it. It's the same thing as me going "HEY BLUE HAS SOME SHADES OF GREEN IT, I NEED TO PROVE THIS" and bringing in BLUE COLORED objects and CYAN COLORED objects, researching those objects and going "YEAH BLUE OBJECTS HAVE A HIGH CHANCE OF HAVING SHADES OF GREEN OF IT". The study was a hoax used to justify a flawed system of measuring obesity; BMI. I really wish people would've read the article and realised how messed up their study is.[/QUOTE] This is actually sad.