fat and fit?

mudcow007

is it possible to be over weight but still fit?

im currently waaay over weight but i can keep up with most of the people on my morning commute.

i know people say the old "im big boned" but when was the last time you seen a fat skeleton?

sorry pointless thread!

ndru

This is about proportion of muscles to fat. And what does it mean you're overweight? Do you have a pot belly or is it just your BMI? BMI fails when you have a lot of muscle.
Another thing is your cardiovascular and VO2 capacity - it helps of course to have lest weight to push but no one says you have to be skinny to be fit.

jds_1981

Unfortunately lots of commuters are surprisingly slow :S

asprilla

I had a body fat of 22% but could run a half marathon in 1hr45. That counts as fat and fit doesn't it?

mudcow007

yeah its that body mass thingy that gets me, im 6ft 2 and i "think" my supposedly ideal weight is about 12 - 13 stone, if i weighed that i'd look see through

i use to play rugby for school so have always been of a stocky build...

oh i dont know

Skippy2309

sounds like your carrying more muscle, just ignore BMI its a load of crap.

My BMI is 31 something - at 3% bodyfat I am still overweight on the BMI charts.



Saying that tho i know someone who is clearly overweight and very fit, body shape means nothing IMHO

Butterd2

mudcow007 wrote:

yeah its that body mass thingy that gets me, im 6ft 2 and i "think" my supposedly ideal weight is about 12 - 13 stone, if i weighed that i'd look see through

i use to play rugby for school so have always been of a stocky build...

oh i dont know

I'm an ex-rugby player and the BMI measure simply does not work, it's an approximation for the average sized person. My BMI was regularly over 30 when playing which apparently made me obese.
I had a proper health check once with all the electrodes etc and they calculated my zero fat weight at something between 13-14 stone so if I achieved my ideal "BMI" weight I'd be dead because the body needs some fat.

Gussio

Asprilla wrote:

I had a body fat of 22% but could run a half marathon in 1hr45. That counts as fat and fit doesn't it?

No, that is fat and slow

sketchley

6ft and 18 Stone 3lbs this morning. This gives me a bmi of 34.6 which makes me obese. Yet I cycle 30 miles per day at a fairly rapid pace and my resting heart rate is 52bpm. So yes you can be fat and fit.

The main reason for this is that I still paying the price for being fat and unfit, it took 36 years to get to 20stone it's not going to come crashing down quickly although I do hope to shift a bit of this year.

When I was 20stone I was diagnosed with a fatty liver, which in turn meant that I had high internal body fat around my major organs which was to say the least bad. This all showed up via liver function blood tests and biopsy confirmed it. Despite still having the high BMI by liver function test are now normal, combined with the low resting heart rate this shows that the internal fat has gone down dramtically, now I'm just carrying some extra insulation on the outside.

Also worth noting that most profession rugby players have high BMI with 25% of them being classified as obese. Yet they can run around a field for 80 mins smashing into people.

cee

mudcow007 wrote:

yeah its that body mass thingy that gets me, im 6ft 2 and i "think" my supposedly ideal weight is about 12 - 13 stone, if i weighed that i'd look see through

i use to play rugby for school so have always been of a stocky build...

oh i dont know

its doesn't work for me wither.

5'10" and move about between 12 and 13 stone...no idea what my body fat percentage is, but i did get weighed as part of a health checkup recently, where the doctor actually checked that his scales were set properly because...i "couldn't be 13 stone"....except i am.

asprilla

Gussio wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

I had a body fat of 22% but could run a half marathon in 1hr45. That counts as fat and fit doesn't it?

No, that is fat and slow

/sniffs and slinks off to the cake shop.....

gtvlusso

Hmmm - Your description seems to indicate "big and strong" as opposed to fat. I would be interested to see if you could last the distance at pace.

Comparitively; I am average/athletic build; 5ft 10" tall and have massive thighs (hence my thread on getting jeans to fit!) - Being honest, I have let the upper body go this last year, although I did have a six pack and was quite toned up, so I would say that I am currently "pudgy" and out of shape - but still have a good level of fitness.

However, I think that a combination of experience, knowing my athletic limits (over years of cycling and rowing) and being bloody minded makes me fast on my commute.

So, I would say that;

a, you probably are not fat - you are just a big strong build that will probably "shape up" very quickly if you put the work in.

b, Road experience, knowledge of your athletic capability from rugby and determination win the day over other commuters

c, Over a bigger distance with some climbs may open up any weakness in your fitness level.

I may be talking c0ck of course!

mudcow007

gtvlusso wrote:

l and have massive thighs !

thats like me! i call them my "frog legs" as i have a smallish waist but big thigh so jeans/ combats are a nightmare to get. if i buy 36" waist they fit my legs but are like a hula hoop around the waist

im not saying im skinny as i have a belly now, i blame my mrs for fattening me up

i have them scales that test your bmi, water content and all of that stuff which came back as obese. but its not like i get out of breath getting dressed or running up the stairs

Gussio

Asprilla wrote:

Gussio wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

I had a body fat of 22% but could run a half marathon in 1hr45. That counts as fat and fit doesn't it?

No, that is fat and slow

/sniffs and slinks off to the cake shop.....

Was only kiddin'

flicksta

Yo ucan be fat and fit, but not fat and healthy.

wgwarburton

mudcow007 wrote:

is it possible to be over weight but still fit?

Fit: "Healthy and strong, especially as a result of exercise"

So, yes. Provided you are not so overweight as to compromise your health.

Fit is a tricky one- One person's fit is another's out-of-shape (interesting the correlation between shape and fit, there, dontcha think?).

I wonder sometimes if the professionalism of sport and the publicity given to elite athletes doesn't act as a disincentive to ordinary folk to exercise.

It's relevant to the discussions on the Olympic legacy- does the visibility of top performers actually cause people to want to participate in sport, or is it so remote from people's lives that it doesn't have any impact on their behavior?

I posted recently about attitudes to cyclists- to the ordinary motorist a fast bike-commuter seems to be a different species, they can't imagine themselves being capable of the apparantly death-defying sprint through traffic let alone understand the desire to want to do it... How much more distant is the performance of a Mark Cavendish or Chris Hoy?

To encourage cycling we need to bridge the gap! The more cyclists there are the more safe we'll all be.... So, stop wearing lycra, helmets and so on and ride to work in normal clothes!!

Cheers,
W.

sfichele

From the above posts looks like you can be both. He's my anecdote -

I have a friend who is overweight, by his own admission, but still does a lot of sport. He's probably 3-4 stone overweight, but he still managed to do 70 km bike ride in the Peaks the other day at a reasonable speed (3:40 hours)

There's a lot of normal weight people that couldn't do a quarter of that that ride. The opposite case is true you can be normal weight and very unfit!

ste_

mudcow007 wrote:

thats like me! i call them my "frog legs" as i have a smallish waist but big thigh so jeans/ combats are a nightmare to get. if i buy 36" waist they fit my legs but are like a hula hoop around the waist

That describes me perfectly.

I played rugby when younger and swam for my town yet I'm medically 'overweight' according to my BMI and my fancy scales reckon my body-fat is circa 22%.

An average day now is commuting 20miles on the bike (averaging 18mph+ on a hilly route) and 4 miles running with a rucksack. Cycling with my club I can hold my own and even lead a few climbs over a 50+ mile route over The Downs.

Am trying to lose weight to help with the climbs but also so I'm lighter in my car (for race purposes) and so I can buy clothes that fit. I think I'm destined to always have ridiculously proportioned thighs though.

Out of interest I wonder where e.g. Chris Hoy would fit on a BMI chart. I'd wager he'd be classed as Overweight if not Obese.

Headhuunter

BMI is a good general indicator of the average Joe onthe street's fitness and level of body fat. Of course there are exceptions, particularly people who do a lot of exercise or have a high level of muscle, BMI is not a foolproof indicator of overall health, it's just a general pointer for the average guy on the street, without the need for a proper medical check up. Whenever I read about BMI there are always people jumping out of the woodwork saying "well that doesn't apply to me", when in fact for most people it is a good indicator of overall health, however many are simply in denial...

The problem is that average waist size and body mass has increased in the UK and people tend to measure themselves against others they see in the street, so that what is in fact obese in many cases, many people regard as "normal" because a much larger percentage of the population is obese these days and in many places in the UK, obese is normal/average. BMI simply seeks to redress the balance with an instantly available indicator of health which is more reliable than simply weighing yourself or comparing yourself to other people you see around you.

Butterd2

HH raises a good point on waist sizes. There is supposed to be some better "quick" measure which is about the ratio of waist to hip size, this is because fat around your waist/organs is much worse for you than on say your legs.
Can't remember what they are now but men and women are obviously quite different but I think men should be below 100%

suzyb

Waist size is getting bigger yet clothes sizes in many high street stores are not :evil:

hatbeard

I used to struggle to find any shops that stocked a 40" waist but now I'm 34" and the last time I went into a handful of shops on the hunt for a pair of jeans it seems you can quite happily buy up to 44/46" now in a lot of styles.

andy83

cee wrote:

mudcow007 wrote:

yeah its that body mass thingy that gets me, im 6ft 2 and i "think" my supposedly ideal weight is about 12 - 13 stone, if i weighed that i'd look see through

i use to play rugby for school so have always been of a stocky build...

oh i dont know

its doesn't work for me wither.

5'10" and move about between 12 and 13 stone...no idea what my body fat percentage is, but i did get weighed as part of a health checkup recently, where the doctor actually checked that his scales were set properly because...i "couldn't be 13 stone"....except i am.

Im 5'11 and 15 stone 2 but people cant believe im that weight, theu guess at 13 stone if I ask them. BMI says im obese, but someone at work weighs less than me, has a huge belly, double chin etc and also has a lower BMI, they would prob collapse trying to do exercise for a minute let alone the amount I do.

Yes im a stocky build but have actually worked hard on last 6 months getting leaner which has worked greately but I actually now weigh heavier than I did when i wasnt as lean

Stuey01

BMI is a tool that is supposed to be used to generate an average over populations. Application of BMI to an individual is nonsense and indicates ignorance as to what the tool is designed for.

From Wiki:

While the formula previously called the Quetelet Index for BMI dates to the 19th century, the new term "body mass index" for the ratio and its popularity date to a paper published in the July edition of 1972 in the Journal of Chronic Diseases by Ancel Keys, which found the BMI to be the best proxy for body fat percentage among ratios of weight and height;[3][4] the interest in measuring body fat being due to obesity becoming a discernible issue in prosperous Western societies. BMI was explicitly cited by Keys as being appropriate for population studies, and inappropriate for individual diagnosis. Nevertheless, due to its simplicity, it came to be widely used for individual diagnosis, despite its inappropriateness.

Apparently I'm obese (BMI 31). I'm certainly not as lean as I could be but nowhere near obese, the tool fails to account for my awesome beefcakeness.

Drysuitdiver

mudcow007 wrote:

yeah its that body mass thingy that gets me, im 6ft 2 and i "think" my supposedly ideal weight is about 12 - 13 stone, if i weighed that i'd look see through

i use to play rugby for school so have always been of a stocky build...

oh i dont know

am the same. 6ft 2in the Nurse practitioner advised me to aim for 15 stone. the RAF wanted me to be less than 85Kg to join and i got there but i looked very poorly.

I too played rugby in my youth and have the neck size to show for it and the power in the legs.

I find it difficult to get shirts that fit properly. retailers seem to think i need to have a 60 inch chest just because i have a 18.5 inch collar size.

waist isn't a problem.
I could always get 44 inch trousers and Jeans. Thankfully now down to a 38/40

Pep

What's the definition of fit and fat?
Without that can't really answer.

Red Rider

flicksta wrote:

You can be fat and fit, but not fat and healthy.

If your measure of 'healthy' is longevity, then it seems
some would disagree with you

All people are different. If you're happy (and you're scalping on your commute so why wouldn't you be?) then, well, whatever. Size aint the only factor.

And @ Asprilla, on the half marathon sidenote: 1hr45 is definitely respectable. Obviously only if you're a cyclist who happens to run, and you did this without training, whilst wearing jeans, running backwards and stopping for cake. Twice. Otherwise, well...

chunkytfg

FWIW,

My BMI is 37.5 so very obese( I don't like using the word morbidly!)

52'' chest and 44'' waist.

And yet I cycle 50-100 miles a week and can do 50 in one hit fairly easily.

I swim a couple of times a week doing up to 2 miles (100 lengths of 33m pool) pretty much non stop.

To look at me i'm a fatty who you'd expect to be unfit but I consider myself fit.

What would you say? Ignoring the size of me if you were told about my exercising habits would you class me as fit? If the answer is yes then yes you can be fat and fit

tailwindhome

At 177cm (5ft9) and 81.5kg (12st11) my BMI is apparently 26.0

I reckon I need to take off at least stone to be ready for some of the sportives I hope to do this year


Yes you can be relatively fat and fit, however if you weren't so fat you'd be fitter.

gtvlusso

chunkytfg wrote:

FWIW,

My BMI is 37.5 so very obese( I don't like using the word morbidly!)

52'' chest and 44'' waist.

And yet I cycle 50-100 miles a week and can do 50 in one hit fairly easily.

I swim a couple of times a week doing up to 2 miles (100 lengths of 33m pool) pretty much non stop.

To look at me i'm a fatty who you'd expect to be unfit but I consider myself fit.

What would you say? Ignoring the size of me if you were told about my exercising habits would you class me as fit? If the answer is yes then yes you can be fat and fit

Please don't take this the wrong way....but that does not add up - that kinda mileage and exercise, yet maintaining a 44" waist and being fit?!

At what average speed could you do 50 miles in a hit? Or over the 100 miles a week? I suspect 90% of the populace could do 50 miles.....it may take them all day, but they can do it! I can do 50 miles with relative ease and average over 20mph - I can average 20 + mph up to about 70 miles, over that and I drop pace by about 2 mph over each 10 miles.

Again, with swimming - I swim twice a week and completely knacker myself at a fair old pace. Playing squash, I can barely walk after 40 mins. Yet, I see allot of people doing allot of lengths of a pool, but very slowly, i.e. not working or burning off the calories as such.

Not changing my diet, I eat fairly healthily anyway and don't drink allot, and doing 100 miles a week on the bike commuting, a bit of rowing and swimmming took near 2 stone off me in no time at all. But I made sure that each exercise "session" counted.

I did cycle briefly with some old retired boys who were up for big mileage jaunts, considered themselves fit - however, they took all day to do 70 miles...so, I dropped it as I wanted to get it done with more pace and less cake stops.

So, can you quantify the actual effort and work you are doing?

flicksta

Red Rider wrote:

flicksta wrote:

You can be fat and fit, but not fat and healthy.

If your measure of 'healthy' is longevity, then it seems
some would disagree with you

All people are different. If you're happy (and you're scalping on your commute so why wouldn't you be?) then, well, whatever. Size aint the only factor.

And @ Asprilla, on the half marathon sidenote: 1hr45 is definitely respectable. Obviously only if you're a cyclist who happens to run, and you did this without training, whilst wearing jeans, running backwards and stopping for cake. Twice. Otherwise, well...

Well, sort of. The article talks about people who are obese in old age living longer than those who are thin. You have to make it to old age in the first place.