fat and fit?

Stuey01

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

I would say you are "active", not unfit but not fit either. A sedentry person couldn't do what you are, but it is not out of the ordinary for an averagely active person.

Cycling and swimming it's possible to grind out big distances without a lot of exertion or intensity. Distance alone does not mean a great deal.
When you swim are you bimbling along breaststroking or front crawl at a decent pace?

Based on what you describe I am fitter than you, but I wouldn't consider myself particularly fit.

chunkytfg

gtvlusso wrote:

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?

Fair play. I dont mind a bit of criticism or scepticism.

for the record this is my last 50 mile ride.

inished Cycle with Cyclemeter, on a new route, time 52:10, 13.61 miles, see http://j.mp/fu1G8Y, 15.65 average.

Finished Cycle with Cyclemeter, on a new route, time 1:17:32, 20.02 miles, see http://j.mp/hEH1VT, 15.50 average.

Finished Cycle with Cyclemeter, on a new route, time 1:09:48, 16.77 miles, see http://j.mp/hl2Kqv, 14.42 average.

it's in 3 parts as it is the trip to richmond park then reset, 3 laps and reset and then home a slightly longer way.

overall it works out at 3hours 19 mins to do 50.5 miles @ a little over 15mph average.

Not quick by your standards but not exactly taking me all day either!

my pool swim works out at about 40 min per mile.

THe only reason I am this size is that I eat tons of food and most of it is far from good for me. I'm lazy when it comes to cooking and found myself with a well paid job and bored so used to live off takeaways.

My weight is now coming down due to finally realising the error of my ways and eating sensibly.

I would predict keeping the same level of effort for rides as my weight comes down will mean speeds will come up either that or i'll have a better endurance to be able to go further

motdoc

You can do an awful lot of exercise and stay fat. You just need to eat too much.

In terms of survival:
Risk of cancer goes up with eating too much (especially meat and processed food) and bieng fat and is slightly deceased by exercise.
In tems of cadiovascular disease and stroke fitness beats fatness. In the medical journals the consensus is changing, to the view that thin sedentaries are probably at more risk than overweight active people (although this obviously depends on how overweight you are).
BMIs aren't hugely reliable but unless you do a lot of weights or a load bearing job you want less than 30.
In terms of longevity the ideal bmi is 26-27, i.e. mildly overweight (andy schleck bmi 18.8 Magnus Backstedt: 25.2).

Cheers

PS I wouldn't wan't Andy Schlecks spine his bone density is probably horrible.

gtvlusso

chunkytfg wrote:

gtvlusso wrote:

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?

Fair play. I dont mind a bit of criticism or scepticism.

for the record this is my last 50 mile ride.

inished Cycle with Cyclemeter, on a new route, time 52:10, 13.61 miles, see http://j.mp/fu1G8Y, 15.65 average.

Finished Cycle with Cyclemeter, on a new route, time 1:17:32, 20.02 miles, see http://j.mp/hEH1VT, 15.50 average.

Finished Cycle with Cyclemeter, on a new route, time 1:09:48, 16.77 miles, see http://j.mp/hl2Kqv, 14.42 average.

it's in 3 parts as it is the trip to richmond park then reset, 3 laps and reset and then home a slightly longer way.

overall it works out at 3hours 19 mins to do 50.5 miles @ a little over 15mph average.

Not quick by your standards but not exactly taking me all day either!

my pool swim works out at about 40 min per mile.

THe only reason I am this size is that I eat tons of food and most of it is far from good for me. I'm lazy when it comes to cooking and found myself with a well paid job and bored so used to live off takeaways.

My weight is now coming down due to finally realising the error of my ways and eating sensibly.

I would predict keeping the same level of effort for rides as my weight comes down will mean speeds will come up either that or i'll have a better endurance to be able to go further

Ah - I getcha now! As you slim down, you are gonna be in damn good shape!

jedster

You can do an awful lot of exercise and stay fat. You just need to eat too much.

This is really isn't it? Eating too much doesn't destroy your CV fitness. SO obviously you can be fit and fat. I'm 5'9 and about 79kg, resting heart rate in the 40s. I'd describe myself as fit and a bit flabby to be honest.

J

lost_in_thought

motdoc wrote:

You can do an awful lot of exercise and stay fat. You just need to eat too much.

In terms of survival:
Risk of cancer goes up with eating too much (especially meat and processed food) and bieng fat and is slightly deceased by exercise.
In tems of cadiovascular disease and stroke fitness beats fatness. In the medical journals the consensus is changing, to the view that thin sedentaries are probably at more risk than overweight active people (although this obviously depends on how overweight you are).
BMIs aren't hugely reliable but unless you do a lot of weights or a load bearing job you want less than 30.
In terms of longevity the ideal bmi is 26-27, i.e. mildly overweight (andy schleck bmi 18.8 Magnus Backstedt: 25.2).

Cheers

PS I wouldn't wan't Andy Schlecks spine his bone density is probably horrible.

That's very interesting!

On the 'eating too much increases cancer risk' point, do you mean eating too much, and it being junk (by which I mean processed/ready meals/stuff we know is bad for us like bacon and cheese) or by eating too much fullstop?

And why do you think the BMI at 'a bit overweight' is the ideal? Or is that just statistics?

Sorry if that seems a bit of a grilling (haha) - I'm curious!

P_Tucker

Jesus wept. The answer to the question is clearly yes - Dario Pieri would regularly show up at early season training camps weighing over 100kg, and he was a pro cyclist FFS.

Next question - is it possible to be short AND tired at the same time?

lost_in_thought

P_Tucker wrote:

Jesus wept. The answer to the question is clearly yes - Dario Pieri would regularly show up at early season training camps weighing over 100kg, and he was a pro cyclist FFS.

Next question - is it possible to be short AND tired at the same time?

No, the air is clearly thinner at higher altitude therefore meaning taller people tire easier and shorties never get tired.

NOOB.

:P

P_Tucker

lost_in_thought wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

Jesus wept. The answer to the question is clearly yes - Dario Pieri would regularly show up at early season training camps weighing over 100kg, and he was a pro cyclist FFS.

Next question - is it possible to be short AND tired at the same time?

No, the air is clearly thinner at higher altitude therefore meaning taller people tire easier and shorties never get tired.

NOOB.

:P

Thanks. Next question - can you be rich AND on the telephone?

wgwarburton

motdoc wrote:

You can do an awful lot of exercise and stay fat. You just need to eat too much.

...or have the wrong genes?

...In terms of longevity the ideal bmi is 26-27, i.e. mildly overweight ....

That makes sense to me- it seems "healthier" to have some reserves, insulation etc as long as you're not too fatty. Being thin isn't traditionally associated with being healthy, though admittedly that view may be skewed by historically poor nutrition...

So, is there a suggestion that the current guidelines are too low?

Cheers,
W.

suzyb

motdoc wrote:

You can do an awful lot of exercise and stay fat. You just need to eat too much.

In terms of survival:
Risk of cancer goes up with eating too much (especially meat and processed food) and bieng fat and is slightly deceased by exercise..

I'm screwed :?

lost_in_thought

P_Tucker wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

Jesus wept. The answer to the question is clearly yes - Dario Pieri would regularly show up at early season training camps weighing over 100kg, and he was a pro cyclist FFS.

Next question - is it possible to be short AND tired at the same time?

No, the air is clearly thinner at higher altitude therefore meaning taller people tire easier and shorties never get tired.

NOOB.

:P

Thanks. Next question - can you be rich AND on the telephone?

No. Rich people have secretaries to deal with that nonsense for them, so if you are on the telephone, you are not rich.

Do I have to explain everything around here?

Ginjafro

It may be possible to be "fat & fit" but I think its better not to be fat. However, never under-estimate anyone who is overweight. I've witnessed a fair few of our "big boned" brothers and sisters thrashing skinny whippets on and off the road.

senoj

Im over weight,but can climb with the best of them,although not on a bike. I can do an eight pedlar wheelie,and do none handed(although not at the same time)

wheezee

Ginjafro wrote:

It may be possible to be "fat & fit" but I think its better not to be fat. However, never under-estimate anyone who is overweight. I've witnessed a fair few of our "big boned" brothers and sisters thrashing skinny whippets on and off the road.

Too right. A slim physique is not necessarily a sign of fitness. I look slim and fit on the outside, but it's a chronic bowel condition on the inside that keeps me that way.

iPete

When I finish an Ironman, then I'll call myself fit :twisted:

rhext

lost_in_thought wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

Jesus wept. The answer to the question is clearly yes - Dario Pieri would regularly show up at early season training camps weighing over 100kg, and he was a pro cyclist FFS.

Next question - is it possible to be short AND tired at the same time?

No, the air is clearly thinner at higher altitude therefore meaning taller people tire easier and shorties never get tired.

NOOB.

:P

Thanks. Next question - can you be rich AND on the telephone?

No. Rich people have secretaries to deal with that nonsense for them, so if you are on the telephone, you are not rich.

Do I have to explain everything around here?

Can't you ask your secretary to explain things - save you the trouble?

lost_in_thought

rhext wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

Jesus wept. The answer to the question is clearly yes - Dario Pieri would regularly show up at early season training camps weighing over 100kg, and he was a pro cyclist FFS.

Next question - is it possible to be short AND tired at the same time?

No, the air is clearly thinner at higher altitude therefore meaning taller people tire easier and shorties never get tired.

NOOB.

:P

Thanks. Next question - can you be rich AND on the telephone?

No. Rich people have secretaries to deal with that nonsense for them, so if you are on the telephone, you are not rich.

Do I have to explain everything around here?

Can't you ask your secretary to explain things - save you the trouble?

I'm so rich my secretary would have her secretary deal with it.

motdoc

Basically risk of various cancers (particularly bowel) are increased by 1) adiposity i.e. too many calories and 2) processed foods and red meats You can't really eat too many carrots as far as I know...although perhaps david dickinson could prove otherwise. Thats what I mean when I say over eating.

Adipose tissue releases various pro inflammatories which may be related to cancer (there is no doubt that increased adiposity increases cancer risk, how it does it is still in doubt, the above theory may well be wrong).

The bmi of 26-27 was taken from age at death stats. Basically if you're too thin paticularly as you age you may become frail and generally your bone mineral density is lower than your bigger friends, hip fractures being a contributor to early mortality more that I'd have thought. Too fat and you get more cancer and cardiovascular disease (due to bp, artheroscleosis and maybe those pro inflammatory doo dads that may promote cancers). These were fairly old stats though. Interestingly the recent paper about aspirin preventing cancer plays into the pro-inflammatory/cancer theory as the postulated mechanism of action is that aspirin decreases chronic inflammation and thereby cancer.

lost_in_thought

@motdoc

Seriously interesting stuff!

When you say 'adipose tissue', you mean fat, right? Or not?

Clever Pun

wheezee wrote:

Ginjafro wrote:

It may be possible to be "fat & fit" but I think its better not to be fat. However, never under-estimate anyone who is overweight. I've witnessed a fair few of our "big boned" brothers and sisters thrashing skinny whippets on and off the road.

Too right. A slim physique is not necessarily a sign of fitness. I look slim and fit on the outside, but it's a chronic bowel condition on the inside that keeps me that way.

shouldn't you change your username to P...

ah you get it

rjsterry

wheezee wrote:

Ginjafro wrote:

It may be possible to be "fat & fit" but I think its better not to be fat. However, never under-estimate anyone who is overweight. I've witnessed a fair few of our "big boned" brothers and sisters thrashing skinny whippets on and off the road.

Too right. A slim physique is not necessarily a sign of fitness. I look slim and fit on the outside, but it's a chronic bowel condition on the inside that keeps me that way.

Quite. My current BMI is 20.66 and I would describe myself as fit and healthy in the general sense. I've not really changed weight (or height :roll:) in quite a while, but I've noticed a significant drop off in my average speed since Christmas - maybe 15% slower on my 14 mile commute. Presumably that means I'm less fit than I was, or maybe it shows what a vague and subjective term 'fit' is.

suzyb

motdoc wrote:

Basically risk of various cancers (particularly bowel) are increased by 1) adiposity i.e. too many calories and 2) processed foods and red meats You can't really eat too many carrots as far as I know...although perhaps david dickinson could prove otherwise. Thats what I mean when I say over eating.

Adipose tissue releases various pro inflammatories which may be related to cancer (there is no doubt that increased adiposity increases cancer risk, how it does it is still in doubt, the above theory may well be wrong).

The bmi of 26-27 was taken from age at death stats. Basically if you're too thin paticularly as you age you may become frail and generally your bone mineral density is lower than your bigger friends, hip fractures being a contributor to early mortality more that I'd have thought. Too fat and you get more cancer and cardiovascular disease (due to bp, artheroscleosis and maybe those pro inflammatory doo dads that may promote cancers). These were fairly old stats though. Interestingly the recent paper about aspirin preventing cancer plays into the pro-inflammatory/cancer theory as the postulated mechanism of action is that aspirin decreases chronic inflammation and thereby cancer.

IIRC stats show it is less well off areas that have the largest concentration of overweight/obese people. In which case you'll need to stop using words like adiposity cause we're all too stupid to know what that means

secretsam

Bu99er, I'm just plain old fat

5'9" and c.13 stone

I need to tone up a lot. Added to all that fun, I'm asthmatic...

But I've tried in the past and just end up chunky again

Skinny people p155 me off

Next time I see one, I'm going to sit on them. If I can catch them, mind...

jonginge

*cycles away swiftly*

stuaff

JonGinge wrote:

*cycles away swiftly*

+1. OK, rather less swiftly

Zachariah

motdoc wrote:

The bmi of 26-27 was taken from age at death stats. Basically if you're too thin paticularly as you age you may become frail and generally your bone mineral density is lower than your bigger friends, hip fractures being a contributor to early mortality more that I'd have thought.

How does that compare with the Calorie Restriction diet? That looks like the best bet so far for a guaranteed few extra years.

motdoc

In english
Adiposity = Fatness (as others have pointed out you can be technically obese by BMI but merely muscular and not neccesarily fat). Obesity via fatness.
Adipose tissue = Fat

Dictionary stuck in throat :oops: still can't spell but urge to use polysyllabic verbiage overwhelming

jonginge

motdoc wrote:

In english
Adiposity = Fatness (as others have pointed out you can be technically obese by BMI but merely muscular and not neccesarily fat). Obesity via fatness.
Adipose tissue = Fat

Dictionary stuck in throat :oops: still can't spell but urge to use polysyllabic verbiage overwhelming

Oh, FFS, just spit it out :P

wheezee

SecretSam wrote:

Bu99er, I'm just plain old fat

5'9" and c.13 stone

I need to tone up a lot. Added to all that fun, I'm asthmatic...

But I've tried in the past and just end up chunky again

Skinny people p155 me off

Next time I see one, I'm going to sit on them. If I can catch them, mind...

Please don't do that. I'm asthmatic as well (hence the username). Jeez, I'm a wreck. Just a different sort of wreck.