11 ms·

Overweight and healthy is a big fat lie, obesity study finds

199 points by elorant 6y ago

david_allison 6y ago
Source: Joint association of physical activity and body mass index with cardiovascular risk: a nationwide population-based cross-sectional study https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjpc/zwaa151 https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjpc/zwaa151
- bagacrap 6y ago
  right off the bat I'm suspicious of the methodology, since it seems that active obese people are more likely to develop high cholesterol than less active obese people (doesn't pass the sniff test). More importantly, I don't think the "active" category is sufficiently discerning, ie it's a pretty low bar to exercise 150 minutes in a week. I know several hardcore endurance athletes who are likely overweight if not obese, who exercise obsessively and achieve those weekly exercise figures every day. If anyone was "fat but fit" it would be them, but this study doesn't measure that kind of person.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- twelvechairs 6y ago
  This should be the top link not a paywalled times article. The chart below is pretty clear as to their findings if anyone wants the summary. https://academic.oup.com/view-large/figure/225496940/zwaa151f1.tif https://academic.oup.com/view-large/figure/225496940/zwaa151...
graeme 6y ago
I got curious about this once and looked up the life expectancy of sumo wrestlers. It anyone is “fit but fat” it would be them. They have very high bmi’s, ~35. But they’re just barely obese by body fat, about 26%. Result is a life expectancy of 60-65, more than ten years shorter than the Japanese male. “ The negative health effects of the sumo lifestyle can become apparent later in life. Sumo wrestlers have a life expectancy between 60 and 65, more than 10 years shorter than the average Japanese male, as the diet and sport take a toll on the wrestler's body. Many develop type 2 diabetes or high blood pressure, and they are prone to heart attacks due to the enormous amount of body mass and fat that they accumulate. The excessive intake of alcohol can lead to liver problems and the stress on their joints due to their excess weight can cause arthritis. Recently, the standards of weight gain are becoming less strict, in an effort to improve the overall health of the wrestlers.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumo Source on bmi: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10195655/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10195655/ Note: wiki’s own quote is not well sourced, but there were some paper noting short lifespan. This is the main one cited, but it is in japanese. If anyone wants to track down the actual life expectancy, let me know. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jjh1946/50/3/50_3_730/_article/-char/ja/ https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jjh1946/50/3/50_3_730/_... This one in English discusses bmi as a risk factor for sumo but doesn’t give an age: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3761530/#!po=50.0000 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3761530/#!po=50...
- mrfusion 6y ago
  I’m confused how they have 26% body fat. That’s not all that much. Are you saying they are mostly muscle?
  - nvr219 6y ago
    Yep.
  - bagacrap 6y ago
    yeah it's surprising. But keep in mind they weigh at least twice a normal man, so they have about 4x the total fat of a healthy adult male (12% being close to what I consider ideal).
    - nkozyra 6y ago
      12% isn't really a sustainable bf% for most people.
  - bazooka_penguin 6y ago
    It's still overweight. For men the mid to high 10s is considered healthy.
    - thesz 6y ago
      The normal fat percentage range for men is 15..20%. 26% is overweight but not much. I once pulled up 27 times having 27-28% of fat being 38 years old, weighting 115 kg, which is about as much as I pulled up at my 18yo with 72 kg of body weight and god knows fat percentage (I had sixpack at the time, so it is 10% or less). 3% of fat is death low (thanks to Nazis to find that). To keep anything less than 10% for prolonged time takes very calculated effort or young age and high activity. It is very hard to go lower than 15% for normal men.
- mrfusion 6y ago
  As a corralary has anyone researched the longevity of bodybuilders? You’d think entering old age with a large surplus of muscle could be beneficial.
mk81 6y ago
Didn't need a study to know this
- sergiotapia 6y ago
  The loons that say "healthy at any size" beg to differ unfortunately. It's just a coping mechanism.
- callamdelaney 6y ago
  Indeed, this is stating the obvious. If you are an active fat person, you are still a fat person - which is the important point.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- xibalba 6y ago
  Unfortunately, we do. There is a movement dubbed HAES which purports "health at any size".
  - SamoyedFurFluff 6y ago
    Please correct me but I always thought HAES meant “you can choose healthy choices no matter your size”, presumably because past a certain point fat people might be like ‘fuck it no point in trying to be better’.
    - tshaddox 6y ago
      That’s one of those things that I’ve been hearing about for a decade or longer, but literally only from people refuting it and apparently claiming it’s a mainstream view that desperately needs to be refuted.
      - xibalba 6y ago
        [1] has quite a good overview of the HAES movement. It is real. [1] httpss://www.medicaldaily.com/health-every-size-obesity-weight-loss-science-383008
jmercouris 6y ago
Is anyone possibly surprised by this?
- neartheplain 6y ago
  Unfortunately, yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_at_Every_Size https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_at_Every_Size
- cosmodisk 6y ago
  Probably not,but more often than not, there's a bizzare trend to normalise it. Fat becomes plus size, Obese becomes big bones and etc. I've gone bananas with my weight and to be honest it's pretty scary how normalised it is. Nobody really tells you that you are fat and it's time to drop some.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - stjohnswarts 6y ago
    No there is a movement to increase tolerance so fat people aren't treated like pariahs which is perfectly legitimate pursuit. What is the societal value of acting like a fat person is less valuable than you are? Like it or not it is pretty normal in the USA and a lot of western countries and people need to learn to be tolerant rather than feeling superior because they're at a healthier weight. It can hurt a person as much as racism, ageism, or any number of other improper and unfounded isms.
  - aaomidi 6y ago
    > Nobody really tells you that you are fat and it's time to drop some. Literally everyone does. I don't know what world you live in. If you're obese its the ONLY thing you hear your doctor say. This has caused hundreds of missed diagnosis for serious issues because it's just "lose some weight". Thanks. I'm trying. It's not working. And now you've missed an issue that's going to end up being life threatening for me.
    - 6y ago
throwoutttt 6y ago
Wrong. It is the stigmatisation of plus sized people's leads to unequal health outcomes
29athrowaway 6y ago
When I went to see "Body worlds", and saw the comparison between an obese person and a non-obese person, you can tell immediately how unhealthy being obese is.
deeviant 6y ago
Anybody have an actual link to the study? The article is pay-walled.
- chronial 6y ago
  Here's a non-paywalled article https://www.escardio.org/The-ESC/Press-Office/Press-releases/Being-fat-linked-with-worse-heart-health-even-in-people-who-exercise https://www.escardio.org/The-ESC/Press-Office/Press-releases... and it has a link to the study: https://academic.oup.com/eurjpc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/eurjpc/zwaa151/6105192 https://academic.oup.com/eurjpc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/...
- 5555624 6y ago
  You can bypass the Times paywall by adding a '/' to the end of the url
perardi 6y ago
Does anyone have a link to the actual study? Whatever study they’re referencing is behind the story’s paywall. I ask because newspaper summaries of nutrition and exercise research studies are, to put it generously, utter horseshit.
hntrader 6y ago
I prefer to refer to it as metabolic syndrome rather than obesity (even though they're not strictly identical) just to reinforce the point that it's going to likely lead to early mortality if left untreated.
- o_p 6y ago
  Thats incorrect because theres no problem with their metabolism at all, you are eating too much and your body stores it as fat, working as intended.
  - graeme 6y ago
    Metabolic syndrome is the medical name of a disease. It doesn’t mean “slow metabolism”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_syndrome
  - cuddlybacon 6y ago
    That's actually not working as intended. There is a part of the brain that is supposed to monitor body fat percentage and suppress hunger and encourage physical activity in order to get body fat to lower again. This book[0] goes through how the metabolic system works, how it is supposed to self regulate, and how it can miss-regulate. It also talks about what it is about our food since the late 1970's that has changed to cause this to happen more frequently. [0] https://www.amazon.ca/Hungry-Brain-Outsmarting-Instincts-Overeat/dp/1250081203/ https://www.amazon.ca/Hungry-Brain-Outsmarting-Instincts-Ove... EDIT: I want to add a bit. This book goes through how the metabolic system of humans is supposed to work, and it can get technical at times. It also goes over the specific traits that certain foods have that can be problematic, which gives enough info to make a self-improved diet. It backs up everything it can with specific citations of scientific experiments.
  - dna_polymerase 6y ago
    The only thing incorrect here is your degenerate comment. Google insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome before rubbing your stupidity into everyone's faces.
- 6y ago
strken 6y ago
Anyone got a link to the specific study in question? The author has 775 publications on researchgate and I haven't a clue which one this article is referring to.
- chronial 6y ago
  I think it's this one: https://academic.oup.com/eurjpc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/eurjpc/zwaa151/6105192 https://academic.oup.com/eurjpc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/...
geofft 6y ago
Here's a (non-paywalled) press release from the journal: https://www.escardio.org/The-ESC/Press-Office/Press-releases/Being-fat-linked-with-worse-heart-health-even-in-people-who-exercise https://www.escardio.org/The-ESC/Press-Office/Press-releases... > The researchers investigated the associations between each BMI and activity group and the three risk factors. At all BMI levels, any activity (whether it met the WHO minimum or not) was linked with a lower likelihood of diabetes, high blood pressure or high cholesterol compared to no exercise at all. Dr. Lucia said: “This tells us that everyone, irrespective of their body weight, should be physically active to safeguard their health.” > However, overweight and obese participants were at greater cardiovascular risk than their peers with normal weight, irrespective of activity levels. As an example, compared to inactive normal weight individuals, active obese people were approximately twice as likely to have high cholesterol, four times more likely to have diabetes, and five times more likely to have high blood pressure. Dr. Lucia said: “Exercise does not seem to compensate for the negative effects of excess weight. This finding was also observed overall in both men and women when they were analysed separately.” > He concluded: “Fighting obesity and inactivity is equally important; it should be a joint battle. Weight loss should remain a primary target for health policies together with promoting active lifestyles.” I don't totally follow the establishment of causation here - in particular, it would seem to me like the arrow of causation is likely to go from diabetes to inability to lose weight, instead of vice versa? That is, equally active people with diabetes probably weigh more than people without, and the underlying cause is not their weight, it's their diabetes. So the conclusion in the press release that they should lose weight to get rid of their diabetes doesn't obviously make sense to me.
dathinab 6y ago
I find it problematic how they turn overweight != healthy into chubby != healthy. Sure we all know (I think) that over- (or worse under-wight) is not health. But a obsession with forcefully trying to gain a specific wight can easily be much less health then being slightly overweight.
- NikolaeVarius 6y ago
  I fail to see how in any world underweight is worse unless its a baby. This is coping, losing weight to a target healthy weight is always good,
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    For many healthy people, losing weight to reach a government ideal of 'healthy' means dropping useful muscle mass. Which is not good.
    - NikolaeVarius 6y ago
      What. 90% of people do not have any musculature worth talking about. Where are your sources? For 99% of people losing weight will be the problem
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        The Army Sergeant Major of the British Army is 'overweight', for example. (He's done interviews about it.) That's obviously nonsense and he doesn't need to lose any weight at all. The idea of 'overweight' is meaningless.
        ZephyrBlu 6y ago
        Is he jacked, or fat? If he's jacked, then yes of course he doesn't need to lose weight. That is a tiny proportion of the population though.
sigmaprimus 6y ago
I guess not enough people are smoking these days, and we can't criticize drug users as they are all victims of circumstance, so the next logical and socially acceptable targets to shame are the obese. Just curious, are "Yo Mamas so fat" jokes still OK these days or are they considered misogynistic? So hard to keep up with the SJW rules of who is still OK to pick on.
- AussieWog93 6y ago
  Mate, for your own mental well-being, please get off social media and go outside.
  - sigmaprimus 6y ago
    Wish I could. Lockdowns and all ya know? Not to mention the Rona kills fatties like me. :(
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  You really shouldn't pick on anyone, live your life and don't be an asshole. That's a pretty good rule to live by as a first principal. It's pretty simple.
- switchbak 6y ago
  Smells a little trollish to me, but I'll bite. The HAES (Health at every size) movement that has been gaining in popularity states that people with a marked excess of body fat can still be considered just as healthy as someone with a normal range of body fat (particularly if they're active). That assertion is fairly shocking to people familiar with the studies on the subject. This study focused specifically on quantifying the measurable health differences between these groups, specifically factoring in activity level. It shows a strong correlation of excess body fat and worse health outcomes. Even among obese people that are active. This is strong data to directly counter the claims of the HAES proponents. I would think the progressive /"sjw" (as you say) mindset would be to embrace the HAES model, but you're suggesting they're picking on overweight people? That doesn't make sense to me. My opinion is that we should be honest about the real danger obesity presents (even with exercise), and have that inform our approaches to treatment. I see no value in shaming or picking on people though, those are orthogonal issues.
aaomidi 6y ago
Honestly this is more of a systemic failure than an individual failure. It's extremely hard to eat and live healthy. It's getting harder every day. Why are low sugar alternatives to basic snacks (e.g. Keto friendly) like 3-10x more expensive? Why does EVERYTHING have sugar in it? Why don't we have cheap and healthy fast food that seems to be common in so many other countries? We could solve this problem if we actually subsidized and demanded better food standards. If we helped people make the right choices. But hey, we decided that fat is the enemy and everyone should have hundreds of grams of carbs per day. When I lived in Iran it was so much easier to maintain a proper weight. After moving to the US it's become extremely difficult. I'm still the same person. But what's available to me has changed immensely.
- atom_arranger 6y ago
  Sometimes the amount of sugar is also completely unnecessary. Heinz sells ketchup without added sugar and it tastes almost exactly the same as normal, or even slightly better, half the calories though.
  - aaomidi 6y ago
    Yep. And also usually more expensive. I can't understand, I'm paying more for less. I didn't belive this before but we need a sugar tax. We also need to have strict dietary guidelines on how much sugar is acceptable per gram of food.
    - staticautomatic 6y ago
      You’re probably paying more for the same weight or volume comprised of ingredients more expensive than sugar.
    - NegativeLatency 6y ago
      I know you’re being facetious but on top of the marketing appeal: Less sugar means more tomato?
      - 6y ago
ogre_codes 6y ago
The conclusion of the actual study doesn't exactly align with the title here. The title gives the impression being active is pointless which isn't true. > “Fighting obesity and inactivity is equally important; it should be a joint battle. Weight loss should remain a primary target for health policies together with promoting active lifestyles.” For a lot of people, increasing activity is something they can manage even when weight loss is a struggle. Obviously being skinny and active is the ideal, but being heavy and active is vastly better than being heavy and sedentary.
- graeme 6y ago
  Check out this slide. Shows a big step change in health at every increase in weight level, regardless of activity: https://academic.oup.com/view-large/figure/225496940/zwaa151f1.tif https://academic.oup.com/view-large/figure/225496940/zwaa151... The title seems accurate. If you’re overweight and active, you’re less healthy than normal weight and sedentary, on average. Most people would find this surprising. The title doesn’t mention activity, so I would not say it gives the impression that “being active is pointless”.
  - ZephyrBlu 6y ago
    > Most people would find this surprising Really? I don't understand how people would come to the conclusion of fat + active > normal + sedentary unless they're willfully ignorant.
    - graeme 6y ago
      I could be wrong on the most, but there has been a heavy push towards arguing for fitness rather than weight loss. The healthy at any size movement is a centerpiece: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_at_Every_Size https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_at_Every_Size It’s possible the movement is simply loud however and most people think weight matters more than activity. Can’t be sure. I should have edited that to “many”.
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    The title doesn't mention activity, but the actual study does. That's my point here. > I would not say it gives the impression that “being active is pointless”. If the only way to be healthy is to be skinny, what is the point of being active at all? Being healthy is a sliding scale, not an on/ off toggle. Being active and overweight is significantly better than being sedentary and overweight. Being skinny is an even bigger jump.
thick 6y ago
There are very few overweight people past the age of 80. Anyone telling you otherwise is trying to sell you a bridge. Agenda pushers and idiots who parrot for free what others are selling them are responsible for the “body shaming” nonsense. Cut back on the ice cream and hit the rack. Your body will thank you, even if your politically minded “friends” don’t.
- notacoward 6y ago
  > There are very few overweight people past the age of 80. How much of that selection is due to voluntary lifestyle choices, how much is due to genetics or other involuntary factors? The answer has a pretty big influence on how appropriate it is to look down your nose at others for not fitting your ideal.
RA_Fisher 6y ago
One counter example can be diabetes. Healthy insulin usage often causes weight gain, and withholding it the opposite. It’s a human growth hormone. So it’s entirely possible that one could mistake a thin person suffering from diabulemia for being healthy, and an “overweight” diabetic as unhealthy.
outime 6y ago
I don’t think anybody really believed such thing except a loud minority, mainly thanks to social networks and journalists wanting to gain eyeballs with provocative headlines so people get mad at absurd stuff and come back for more. The formula worked and keeps working very well.
terrycody 6y ago
Sry guys, please anyone telling me how to bypass the paywall? Or any link to a full version of this article?
explodingman 6y ago
Non-paywalled link to summary of article: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/overweight-and-healthy-is-a-big-fat-lie-obesity-study-finds-pqc3bzjz7 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/overweight-and-healthy-is... In the study, the bottom group by activity contains 63% of the population, while the bottom group by obesity contains only 18% of the population. So shifting from bottom to middle by obesity is a bigger move than shifting from bottom to middle by activity level. Not sure the author is comparing apples with apples here. In reality, we need to be aware of what lifestyle changes we can sustainably make given our particular circumstances, whatever the whole-population results might look like. To quote the author, “Fighting obesity and inactivity is equally important; it should be a joint battle. Weight loss should remain a primary target for health policies together with promoting active lifestyles".
sradman 6y ago
The press release [1] for the paper Joint association of physical activity and body mass index with cardiovascular risk: a nationwide population-based cross-sectional study [2]: > We retrieved information from medical examinations on the prevalence of diabetes (medicated or glycaemia > 125 mg/dL), hypercholesterolaemia (medicated or total blood cholesterol ≥ 240 mg/dL), and hypertension (medicated or systolic/diastolic blood pressure ≥ 140/90 mmHg). > Data from 527 662 participants [32% female; age (mean ± SD): 42.3 ± 9.4 years; BMI: 26.2 ± 4.3 kg/m2] were analysed. About 42%, 41%, and 18% of the participants had normal weight, overweight, or obesity, respectively; 63.5%, 12.3%, and 24.2% were inactive, insufficiently active, and regularly active; and 30%, 15%, and 3% had hypercholesterolaemia, hypertension, and diabetes. Being either regularly or insufficiently active conferred protection compared to inactivity against all the studied risk factors within each BMI category, which was evident in a PA dose-response manner for diabetes and hypertension (Figure 1). However, regular/insufficient PA did not compensate for the negative effects of overweight/obesity, as individuals with overweight/obesity were at greater CVD risk than their peers with normal weight, irrespective of PA levels. The headline is inappropriate and I'm not convinced the study is as useful as it could be. Though large, the study only demonstrates that being overweight or obese is linked to high cholesterol, diabetes, and high blood pressure; all risks for cardio vascular disease (CVD). I'd prefer more direct measures of CVD like the Ankle-Brachial Index (ABI). Regardless, the data has to explain the U-Shaped BMI mortality curve [4] and it does not. There are also well established mortality tables [5] for blood pressure based on age and gender; 140/90 is not reflective of risk. [1] https://www.escardio.org/The-ESC/Press-Office/Press-releases/Being-fat-linked-with-worse-heart-health-even-in-people-who-exercise https://www.escardio.org/The-ESC/Press-Office/Press-releases... [2] https://academic.oup.com/eurjpc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/eurjpc/zwaa151/6105192 https://academic.oup.com/eurjpc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankle–brachial_pressure_index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankle–brachial_pressure_index [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity#Mortality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity#Mortality [5] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673699070518?casa_token=lSR4TCGfhE4AAAAA:DTw9D3o5i4WHkWpiVlJEPpJISfTrcGqFGdmtbWcVhF8kJHCMEejDTJdvCIetm9otE864hVsMbJM https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014067369...
refracture 6y ago
And it always has to come down to either fat shaming or fat acceptance.. It's like we can't have an honest dialogue about abusive relationships with food (be it using food as a coping mechanism for other things going on in their lives or straight up addiction), or the fact people are never taught nutrition, instead just 'winging' it. You can't do that in the US. There's so much food you can buy and eat for cheap that will leave you starving despite being at a caloric surplus.
boatsie 6y ago
The numbers for obesity in the US and even the world are shocking, and it feels like we are doing almost nothing. Even if you believe we aren’t doing enough to combat COVID, we seem to be doing much less to battle the obesity epidemic.
DC1350 6y ago
To those who say BMI is misleading, consider that athletes of average height weigh around 150-160lbs when they have a lot of muscle and very low body fat. If an average man didn’t work out at all (no muscle) and had low body fat, he would probably weigh around 130lbs. A 5’10” 180lbs man that lifts weights regularly could easily lose 30lbs of fat, so the typical 180lb sedentary office worker is actually enormous. The idea that BMI doesnt count is almost always just a coping strategy.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

199 points by elorant 6y ago

Source: Joint association of physical activity and body mass index with cardiovascular risk: a nationwide population-based cross-sectional study https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjpc/zwaa151 https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjpc/zwaa151

bagacrap 6y ago
right off the bat I'm suspicious of the methodology, since it seems that active obese people are more likely to develop high cholesterol than less active obese people (doesn't pass the sniff test). More importantly, I don't think the "active" category is sufficiently discerning, ie it's a pretty low bar to exercise 150 minutes in a week. I know several hardcore endurance athletes who are likely overweight if not obese, who exercise obsessively and achieve those weekly exercise figures every day. If anyone was "fat but fit" it would be them, but this study doesn't measure that kind of person.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
twelvechairs 6y ago
This should be the top link not a paywalled times article. The chart below is pretty clear as to their findings if anyone wants the summary. https://academic.oup.com/view-large/figure/225496940/zwaa151f1.tif https://academic.oup.com/view-large/figure/225496940/zwaa151...

graeme 6y ago

I got curious about this once and looked up the life expectancy of sumo wrestlers. It anyone is “fit but fat” it would be them. They have very high bmi’s, ~35. But they’re just barely obese by body fat, about 26%. Result is a life expectancy of 60-65, more than ten years shorter than the Japanese male. “ The negative health effects of the sumo lifestyle can become apparent later in life. Sumo wrestlers have a life expectancy between 60 and 65, more than 10 years shorter than the average Japanese male, as the diet and sport take a toll on the wrestler's body. Many develop type 2 diabetes or high blood pressure, and they are prone to heart attacks due to the enormous amount of body mass and fat that they accumulate. The excessive intake of alcohol can lead to liver problems and the stress on their joints due to their excess weight can cause arthritis. Recently, the standards of weight gain are becoming less strict, in an effort to improve the overall health of the wrestlers.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumo Source on bmi: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10195655/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10195655/ Note: wiki’s own quote is not well sourced, but there were some paper noting short lifespan. This is the main one cited, but it is in japanese. If anyone wants to track down the actual life expectancy, let me know. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jjh1946/50/3/50_3_730/_article/-char/ja/ https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jjh1946/50/3/50_3_730/_... This one in English discusses bmi as a risk factor for sumo but doesn’t give an age: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3761530/#!po=50.0000 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3761530/#!po=50...

mrfusion 6y ago
I’m confused how they have 26% body fat. That’s not all that much. Are you saying they are mostly muscle?
- nvr219 6y ago
  Yep.
- bagacrap 6y ago
  yeah it's surprising. But keep in mind they weigh at least twice a normal man, so they have about 4x the total fat of a healthy adult male (12% being close to what I consider ideal).
  - nkozyra 6y ago
    12% isn't really a sustainable bf% for most people.
- bazooka_penguin 6y ago
  It's still overweight. For men the mid to high 10s is considered healthy.
  - thesz 6y ago
    The normal fat percentage range for men is 15..20%. 26% is overweight but not much. I once pulled up 27 times having 27-28% of fat being 38 years old, weighting 115 kg, which is about as much as I pulled up at my 18yo with 72 kg of body weight and god knows fat percentage (I had sixpack at the time, so it is 10% or less). 3% of fat is death low (thanks to Nazis to find that). To keep anything less than 10% for prolonged time takes very calculated effort or young age and high activity. It is very hard to go lower than 15% for normal men.
mrfusion 6y ago
As a corralary has anyone researched the longevity of bodybuilders? You’d think entering old age with a large surplus of muscle could be beneficial.

mk81 6y ago

Didn't need a study to know this

sergiotapia 6y ago
The loons that say "healthy at any size" beg to differ unfortunately. It's just a coping mechanism.
callamdelaney 6y ago
Indeed, this is stating the obvious. If you are an active fat person, you are still a fat person - which is the important point.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
xibalba 6y ago
Unfortunately, we do. There is a movement dubbed HAES which purports "health at any size".
- SamoyedFurFluff 6y ago
  Please correct me but I always thought HAES meant “you can choose healthy choices no matter your size”, presumably because past a certain point fat people might be like ‘fuck it no point in trying to be better’.
  - tshaddox 6y ago
    That’s one of those things that I’ve been hearing about for a decade or longer, but literally only from people refuting it and apparently claiming it’s a mainstream view that desperately needs to be refuted.
    - xibalba 6y ago
      [1] has quite a good overview of the HAES movement. It is real. [1] httpss://www.medicaldaily.com/health-every-size-obesity-weight-loss-science-383008

jmercouris 6y ago

Is anyone possibly surprised by this?

neartheplain 6y ago
Unfortunately, yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_at_Every_Size https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_at_Every_Size
cosmodisk 6y ago
Probably not,but more often than not, there's a bizzare trend to normalise it. Fat becomes plus size, Obese becomes big bones and etc. I've gone bananas with my weight and to be honest it's pretty scary how normalised it is. Nobody really tells you that you are fat and it's time to drop some.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  No there is a movement to increase tolerance so fat people aren't treated like pariahs which is perfectly legitimate pursuit. What is the societal value of acting like a fat person is less valuable than you are? Like it or not it is pretty normal in the USA and a lot of western countries and people need to learn to be tolerant rather than feeling superior because they're at a healthier weight. It can hurt a person as much as racism, ageism, or any number of other improper and unfounded isms.
- aaomidi 6y ago
  > Nobody really tells you that you are fat and it's time to drop some. Literally everyone does. I don't know what world you live in. If you're obese its the ONLY thing you hear your doctor say. This has caused hundreds of missed diagnosis for serious issues because it's just "lose some weight". Thanks. I'm trying. It's not working. And now you've missed an issue that's going to end up being life threatening for me.
  - 6y ago

throwoutttt 6y ago

Wrong. It is the stigmatisation of plus sized people's leads to unequal health outcomes

29athrowaway 6y ago

When I went to see "Body worlds", and saw the comparison between an obese person and a non-obese person, you can tell immediately how unhealthy being obese is.

deeviant 6y ago

Anybody have an actual link to the study? The article is pay-walled.

chronial 6y ago
Here's a non-paywalled article https://www.escardio.org/The-ESC/Press-Office/Press-releases/Being-fat-linked-with-worse-heart-health-even-in-people-who-exercise https://www.escardio.org/The-ESC/Press-Office/Press-releases... and it has a link to the study: https://academic.oup.com/eurjpc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/eurjpc/zwaa151/6105192 https://academic.oup.com/eurjpc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/...
5555624 6y ago
You can bypass the Times paywall by adding a '/' to the end of the url

perardi 6y ago

Does anyone have a link to the actual study? Whatever study they’re referencing is behind the story’s paywall. I ask because newspaper summaries of nutrition and exercise research studies are, to put it generously, utter horseshit.

hntrader 6y ago

I prefer to refer to it as metabolic syndrome rather than obesity (even though they're not strictly identical) just to reinforce the point that it's going to likely lead to early mortality if left untreated.

o_p 6y ago
Thats incorrect because theres no problem with their metabolism at all, you are eating too much and your body stores it as fat, working as intended.
- graeme 6y ago
  Metabolic syndrome is the medical name of a disease. It doesn’t mean “slow metabolism”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_syndrome
- cuddlybacon 6y ago
  That's actually not working as intended. There is a part of the brain that is supposed to monitor body fat percentage and suppress hunger and encourage physical activity in order to get body fat to lower again. This book[0] goes through how the metabolic system works, how it is supposed to self regulate, and how it can miss-regulate. It also talks about what it is about our food since the late 1970's that has changed to cause this to happen more frequently. [0] https://www.amazon.ca/Hungry-Brain-Outsmarting-Instincts-Overeat/dp/1250081203/ https://www.amazon.ca/Hungry-Brain-Outsmarting-Instincts-Ove... EDIT: I want to add a bit. This book goes through how the metabolic system of humans is supposed to work, and it can get technical at times. It also goes over the specific traits that certain foods have that can be problematic, which gives enough info to make a self-improved diet. It backs up everything it can with specific citations of scientific experiments.
- dna_polymerase 6y ago
  The only thing incorrect here is your degenerate comment. Google insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome before rubbing your stupidity into everyone's faces.
6y ago

strken 6y ago

Anyone got a link to the specific study in question? The author has 775 publications on researchgate and I haven't a clue which one this article is referring to.

chronial 6y ago
I think it's this one: https://academic.oup.com/eurjpc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/eurjpc/zwaa151/6105192 https://academic.oup.com/eurjpc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/...

geofft 6y ago

Here's a (non-paywalled) press release from the journal: https://www.escardio.org/The-ESC/Press-Office/Press-releases/Being-fat-linked-with-worse-heart-health-even-in-people-who-exercise https://www.escardio.org/The-ESC/Press-Office/Press-releases... > The researchers investigated the associations between each BMI and activity group and the three risk factors. At all BMI levels, any activity (whether it met the WHO minimum or not) was linked with a lower likelihood of diabetes, high blood pressure or high cholesterol compared to no exercise at all. Dr. Lucia said: “This tells us that everyone, irrespective of their body weight, should be physically active to safeguard their health.” > However, overweight and obese participants were at greater cardiovascular risk than their peers with normal weight, irrespective of activity levels. As an example, compared to inactive normal weight individuals, active obese people were approximately twice as likely to have high cholesterol, four times more likely to have diabetes, and five times more likely to have high blood pressure. Dr. Lucia said: “Exercise does not seem to compensate for the negative effects of excess weight. This finding was also observed overall in both men and women when they were analysed separately.” > He concluded: “Fighting obesity and inactivity is equally important; it should be a joint battle. Weight loss should remain a primary target for health policies together with promoting active lifestyles.” I don't totally follow the establishment of causation here - in particular, it would seem to me like the arrow of causation is likely to go from diabetes to inability to lose weight, instead of vice versa? That is, equally active people with diabetes probably weigh more than people without, and the underlying cause is not their weight, it's their diabetes. So the conclusion in the press release that they should lose weight to get rid of their diabetes doesn't obviously make sense to me.

dathinab 6y ago

I find it problematic how they turn overweight != healthy into chubby != healthy. Sure we all know (I think) that over- (or worse under-wight) is not health. But a obsession with forcefully trying to gain a specific wight can easily be much less health then being slightly overweight.

NikolaeVarius 6y ago
I fail to see how in any world underweight is worse unless its a baby. This is coping, losing weight to a target healthy weight is always good,
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  For many healthy people, losing weight to reach a government ideal of 'healthy' means dropping useful muscle mass. Which is not good.
  - NikolaeVarius 6y ago
    What. 90% of people do not have any musculature worth talking about. Where are your sources? For 99% of people losing weight will be the problem
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      The Army Sergeant Major of the British Army is 'overweight', for example. (He's done interviews about it.) That's obviously nonsense and he doesn't need to lose any weight at all. The idea of 'overweight' is meaningless.
      - ZephyrBlu 6y ago
        Is he jacked, or fat? If he's jacked, then yes of course he doesn't need to lose weight. That is a tiny proportion of the population though.

sigmaprimus 6y ago

I guess not enough people are smoking these days, and we can't criticize drug users as they are all victims of circumstance, so the next logical and socially acceptable targets to shame are the obese. Just curious, are "Yo Mamas so fat" jokes still OK these days or are they considered misogynistic? So hard to keep up with the SJW rules of who is still OK to pick on.

AussieWog93 6y ago
Mate, for your own mental well-being, please get off social media and go outside.
- sigmaprimus 6y ago
  Wish I could. Lockdowns and all ya know? Not to mention the Rona kills fatties like me. :(
stjohnswarts 6y ago
You really shouldn't pick on anyone, live your life and don't be an asshole. That's a pretty good rule to live by as a first principal. It's pretty simple.
switchbak 6y ago
Smells a little trollish to me, but I'll bite. The HAES (Health at every size) movement that has been gaining in popularity states that people with a marked excess of body fat can still be considered just as healthy as someone with a normal range of body fat (particularly if they're active). That assertion is fairly shocking to people familiar with the studies on the subject. This study focused specifically on quantifying the measurable health differences between these groups, specifically factoring in activity level. It shows a strong correlation of excess body fat and worse health outcomes. Even among obese people that are active. This is strong data to directly counter the claims of the HAES proponents. I would think the progressive /"sjw" (as you say) mindset would be to embrace the HAES model, but you're suggesting they're picking on overweight people? That doesn't make sense to me. My opinion is that we should be honest about the real danger obesity presents (even with exercise), and have that inform our approaches to treatment. I see no value in shaming or picking on people though, those are orthogonal issues.

aaomidi 6y ago

Honestly this is more of a systemic failure than an individual failure. It's extremely hard to eat and live healthy. It's getting harder every day. Why are low sugar alternatives to basic snacks (e.g. Keto friendly) like 3-10x more expensive? Why does EVERYTHING have sugar in it? Why don't we have cheap and healthy fast food that seems to be common in so many other countries? We could solve this problem if we actually subsidized and demanded better food standards. If we helped people make the right choices. But hey, we decided that fat is the enemy and everyone should have hundreds of grams of carbs per day. When I lived in Iran it was so much easier to maintain a proper weight. After moving to the US it's become extremely difficult. I'm still the same person. But what's available to me has changed immensely.

atom_arranger 6y ago
Sometimes the amount of sugar is also completely unnecessary. Heinz sells ketchup without added sugar and it tastes almost exactly the same as normal, or even slightly better, half the calories though.
- aaomidi 6y ago
  Yep. And also usually more expensive. I can't understand, I'm paying more for less. I didn't belive this before but we need a sugar tax. We also need to have strict dietary guidelines on how much sugar is acceptable per gram of food.
  - staticautomatic 6y ago
    You’re probably paying more for the same weight or volume comprised of ingredients more expensive than sugar.
  - NegativeLatency 6y ago
    I know you’re being facetious but on top of the marketing appeal: Less sugar means more tomato?
    - 6y ago

ogre_codes 6y ago

The conclusion of the actual study doesn't exactly align with the title here. The title gives the impression being active is pointless which isn't true. > “Fighting obesity and inactivity is equally important; it should be a joint battle. Weight loss should remain a primary target for health policies together with promoting active lifestyles.” For a lot of people, increasing activity is something they can manage even when weight loss is a struggle. Obviously being skinny and active is the ideal, but being heavy and active is vastly better than being heavy and sedentary.

graeme 6y ago
Check out this slide. Shows a big step change in health at every increase in weight level, regardless of activity: https://academic.oup.com/view-large/figure/225496940/zwaa151f1.tif https://academic.oup.com/view-large/figure/225496940/zwaa151... The title seems accurate. If you’re overweight and active, you’re less healthy than normal weight and sedentary, on average. Most people would find this surprising. The title doesn’t mention activity, so I would not say it gives the impression that “being active is pointless”.
- ZephyrBlu 6y ago
  > Most people would find this surprising Really? I don't understand how people would come to the conclusion of fat + active > normal + sedentary unless they're willfully ignorant.
  - graeme 6y ago
    I could be wrong on the most, but there has been a heavy push towards arguing for fitness rather than weight loss. The healthy at any size movement is a centerpiece: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_at_Every_Size https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_at_Every_Size It’s possible the movement is simply loud however and most people think weight matters more than activity. Can’t be sure. I should have edited that to “many”.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  The title doesn't mention activity, but the actual study does. That's my point here. > I would not say it gives the impression that “being active is pointless”. If the only way to be healthy is to be skinny, what is the point of being active at all? Being healthy is a sliding scale, not an on/ off toggle. Being active and overweight is significantly better than being sedentary and overweight. Being skinny is an even bigger jump.

thick 6y ago

There are very few overweight people past the age of 80. Anyone telling you otherwise is trying to sell you a bridge. Agenda pushers and idiots who parrot for free what others are selling them are responsible for the “body shaming” nonsense. Cut back on the ice cream and hit the rack. Your body will thank you, even if your politically minded “friends” don’t.

notacoward 6y ago
> There are very few overweight people past the age of 80. How much of that selection is due to voluntary lifestyle choices, how much is due to genetics or other involuntary factors? The answer has a pretty big influence on how appropriate it is to look down your nose at others for not fitting your ideal.

RA_Fisher 6y ago

One counter example can be diabetes. Healthy insulin usage often causes weight gain, and withholding it the opposite. It’s a human growth hormone. So it’s entirely possible that one could mistake a thin person suffering from diabulemia for being healthy, and an “overweight” diabetic as unhealthy.

outime 6y ago

I don’t think anybody really believed such thing except a loud minority, mainly thanks to social networks and journalists wanting to gain eyeballs with provocative headlines so people get mad at absurd stuff and come back for more. The formula worked and keeps working very well.

terrycody 6y ago

Sry guys, please anyone telling me how to bypass the paywall? Or any link to a full version of this article?

explodingman 6y ago

Non-paywalled link to summary of article: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/overweight-and-healthy-is-a-big-fat-lie-obesity-study-finds-pqc3bzjz7 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/overweight-and-healthy-is... In the study, the bottom group by activity contains 63% of the population, while the bottom group by obesity contains only 18% of the population. So shifting from bottom to middle by obesity is a bigger move than shifting from bottom to middle by activity level. Not sure the author is comparing apples with apples here. In reality, we need to be aware of what lifestyle changes we can sustainably make given our particular circumstances, whatever the whole-population results might look like. To quote the author, “Fighting obesity and inactivity is equally important; it should be a joint battle. Weight loss should remain a primary target for health policies together with promoting active lifestyles".

sradman 6y ago

The press release [1] for the paper Joint association of physical activity and body mass index with cardiovascular risk: a nationwide population-based cross-sectional study [2]: > We retrieved information from medical examinations on the prevalence of diabetes (medicated or glycaemia > 125 mg/dL), hypercholesterolaemia (medicated or total blood cholesterol ≥ 240 mg/dL), and hypertension (medicated or systolic/diastolic blood pressure ≥ 140/90 mmHg). > Data from 527 662 participants [32% female; age (mean ± SD): 42.3 ± 9.4 years; BMI: 26.2 ± 4.3 kg/m2] were analysed. About 42%, 41%, and 18% of the participants had normal weight, overweight, or obesity, respectively; 63.5%, 12.3%, and 24.2% were inactive, insufficiently active, and regularly active; and 30%, 15%, and 3% had hypercholesterolaemia, hypertension, and diabetes. Being either regularly or insufficiently active conferred protection compared to inactivity against all the studied risk factors within each BMI category, which was evident in a PA dose-response manner for diabetes and hypertension (Figure 1). However, regular/insufficient PA did not compensate for the negative effects of overweight/obesity, as individuals with overweight/obesity were at greater CVD risk than their peers with normal weight, irrespective of PA levels. The headline is inappropriate and I'm not convinced the study is as useful as it could be. Though large, the study only demonstrates that being overweight or obese is linked to high cholesterol, diabetes, and high blood pressure; all risks for cardio vascular disease (CVD). I'd prefer more direct measures of CVD like the Ankle-Brachial Index (ABI). Regardless, the data has to explain the U-Shaped BMI mortality curve [4] and it does not. There are also well established mortality tables [5] for blood pressure based on age and gender; 140/90 is not reflective of risk. [1] https://www.escardio.org/The-ESC/Press-Office/Press-releases/Being-fat-linked-with-worse-heart-health-even-in-people-who-exercise https://www.escardio.org/The-ESC/Press-Office/Press-releases... [2] https://academic.oup.com/eurjpc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/eurjpc/zwaa151/6105192 https://academic.oup.com/eurjpc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankle–brachial_pressure_index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankle–brachial_pressure_index [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity#Mortality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity#Mortality [5] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673699070518?casa_token=lSR4TCGfhE4AAAAA:DTw9D3o5i4WHkWpiVlJEPpJISfTrcGqFGdmtbWcVhF8kJHCMEejDTJdvCIetm9otE864hVsMbJM https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014067369...

refracture 6y ago

And it always has to come down to either fat shaming or fat acceptance.. It's like we can't have an honest dialogue about abusive relationships with food (be it using food as a coping mechanism for other things going on in their lives or straight up addiction), or the fact people are never taught nutrition, instead just 'winging' it. You can't do that in the US. There's so much food you can buy and eat for cheap that will leave you starving despite being at a caloric surplus.

boatsie 6y ago

The numbers for obesity in the US and even the world are shocking, and it feels like we are doing almost nothing. Even if you believe we aren’t doing enough to combat COVID, we seem to be doing much less to battle the obesity epidemic.

DC1350 6y ago

To those who say BMI is misleading, consider that athletes of average height weigh around 150-160lbs when they have a lot of muscle and very low body fat. If an average man didn’t work out at all (no muscle) and had low body fat, he would probably weigh around 130lbs. A 5’10” 180lbs man that lifts weights regularly could easily lose 30lbs of fat, so the typical 180lb sedentary office worker is actually enormous. The idea that BMI doesnt count is almost always just a coping strategy.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]