Home   |   Contact   |   Help

Get Our Newsletter
Sign up for our free newsletter to get training tips and stay up to date on Catalyst Athletics, and get a FREE issue of the Performance Menu journal.

Go Back   Catalyst Athletics Forums > Training > Fitness, Strength & CrossFit

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-25-2008, 10:45 AM   #1
Ben Fury
Member
 
Ben Fury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 64
Default No such thing as fat but healthy

Even a tiny bit of flab raises heart failure risk

Compared with lean active men, the hazard ratios were
1.19 (95% CI, 0.94 to 1.51), lean inactive
1.49 (95% CI, 1.30 to 1.71), overweight active
1.78 (95% CI, 1.43 to 2.23), overweight inactive
2.68 (95% CI, 2.08 to 3.45), obese active
3.93 (95% CI, 2.60 to 5.96) , obese inactive.

We didn't need a crystal ball to guess this would be the discovery:

If you're fat, clean up your diet and lose the weight.
If you're a layabout, get off your lazy ass and go exercise.
And if that's a fat lazy ass... you REALLY better clean up your diet and go exercise.

This puts the death knell to the "I'm overweight but I'm healthy 'cause I'm active" nonsense. Bullfeathers!

Time to stop kidding ourselves, folks. Overweight is NEVER healthy. Even the lean lazy as a slug types were healthier than the overweight actives.
__________________
Be well,
Ben Fury, CFT, CMT
Bettercise
http://www.bettercise.com/

“People who do not eat butterflies will wear their clothes the wrong way, and people who wear their clothes the wrong way are inviting lemmings inside.”
~Muzhduk the Ugli the Third~
Ben Fury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2008, 11:06 AM   #2
Dave Van Skike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: PNW
Posts: 1,738
Default

they didn't study gen pop. they studied doctors.

they didn't study bodyfat..they used BMI only

it was all self reported from annual questionaires.

I think Reuters is imparting a bit of topspin..
__________________
Practical Strength
Dave Van Skike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2008, 11:56 AM   #3
Ben Fury
Member
 
Ben Fury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 64
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Van Skike View Post
they didn't study gen pop. they studied doctors.
Looks like they polled a fairly typical bunch of middle aged office workers to me. Might be a little Caucasian skewed. Might be a little upper income skewed. That might weaken the population-wide applicability a bit perhaps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Van Skike View Post
they didn't study bodyfat..they used BMI only
BMI works pretty well on non-athletes. I would prefer bodyfat if I could get it of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Van Skike View Post
it was all self reported from annual questionaires.
Wouldn't have been an economically feasible study any other way. CHF is a major diagnosis, I don't think anybody is lying about developing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Van Skike View Post
I think Reuters is imparting a bit of topspin..
I wouldn't know. I skipped the article and went straight for the Abstract of the paper:
Body Mass Index and Vigorous Physical Activity and the Risk of Heart Failure Among Men

The data show a very obvious trend. The fatter you are, the more likely you are to get congestive heart failure (CHF). Exercise mitigates some of the risk but leanness trumps activity at each and every level.

Pretty clear take home message:
1. Get and stay lean.
2. For added protection, get fit too.
3. Don't kid ourselves if we're fat and active. Our risk factors are still WAY elevated. The chub MUST go or we're upping our risk of creating widows and orphans!!!
__________________
Be well,
Ben Fury, CFT, CMT
Bettercise
http://www.bettercise.com/

“People who do not eat butterflies will wear their clothes the wrong way, and people who wear their clothes the wrong way are inviting lemmings inside.”
~Muzhduk the Ugli the Third~
Ben Fury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2008, 12:02 PM   #4
Ben Fury
Member
 
Ben Fury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 64
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Van Skike View Post
they didn't study gen pop. they studied doctors.
Looks like they polled a fairly typical bunch of middle aged office workers to me. Might be a little Caucasian skewed. Might be a little upper income skewed. That might weaken the population-wide applicability a bit perhaps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Van Skike View Post
they didn't study bodyfat..they used BMI only
BMI works pretty well on non-athletes. I would prefer bodyfat if I could get it of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Van Skike View Post
it was all self reported from annual questionaires.
Wouldn't have been an economically feasible study any other way. CHF is a major diagnosis, I don't think anybody is lying about developing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Van Skike View Post
I think Reuters is imparting a bit of topspin..
I wouldn't know. I skipped the article and went straight for the Abstract of the paper:
Body Mass Index and Vigorous Physical Activity and the Risk of Heart Failure Among Men

The data show a very obvious trend. The fatter you are, the more likely you are to get congestive heart failure (CHF). Exercise mitigates some of the risk but leanness trumps activity at each and every level.

Pretty clear take home message:
1. Get and stay lean.
2. For added protection, get fit too.
3. Don't kid ourselves if we're fat and active. Our risk factors are still WAY elevated. The chub MUST go or we're upping our risk of creating widows and orphans!!!
__________________
Be well,
Ben Fury, CFT, CMT
Bettercise
http://www.bettercise.com/

“People who do not eat butterflies will wear their clothes the wrong way, and people who wear their clothes the wrong way are inviting lemmings inside.”
~Muzhduk the Ugli the Third~
Ben Fury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2008, 12:04 PM   #5
Dave Van Skike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: PNW
Posts: 1,738
Default

we must have read different studies, the abstract i read was a little bit lighter on hyperbole.
__________________
Practical Strength
Dave Van Skike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2008, 01:31 PM   #6
Ben Fury
Member
 
Ben Fury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 64
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Van Skike View Post
we must have read different studies, the abstract i read was a little bit lighter on hyperbole.
LOL! Sorry about the hyperbole, Dave! Journalism training, "If it bleeds, it leads." mentality was driven into me well and early.

As one fine editor said, (minus the cursing) "Don't tell them what it means. Our readers don't care what it means! Our readers care what it means TO THEM!!! Now go write OUR READERS into your story. Wait, cancel that "your story." THAT'S the problem, it's YOUR STORY. It's no longer YOUR STORY. It's OUR READER'S STORY. Now go rewrite it that way!!!"

Nothing like getting pointedly screamed at a little to make you write snappier prose.

<<<>>>

Still, the risk factor rise in that study with increased BMI and reduced activity IS pretty compelling, eh?
__________________
Be well,
Ben Fury, CFT, CMT
Bettercise
http://www.bettercise.com/

“People who do not eat butterflies will wear their clothes the wrong way, and people who wear their clothes the wrong way are inviting lemmings inside.”
~Muzhduk the Ugli the Third~
Ben Fury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2008, 01:37 PM   #7
Dave Van Skike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: PNW
Posts: 1,738
Default

it makes me think more about the opposite population: big, athletic and muscular. there may be some practical reasons why human males can't seem to get lean and big (over 220) without "help" ... the body just ain't evolved for that and doesn't want to get there.

but then again, nobody said being awesome was healthy.
__________________
Practical Strength
Dave Van Skike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2008, 03:00 PM   #8
Ben Fury
Member
 
Ben Fury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 64
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Van Skike View Post
it makes me think more about the opposite population: big, athletic and muscular. there may be some practical reasons why human males can't seem to get lean and big (over 220) without "help" ... the body just ain't evolved for that and doesn't want to get there.

but then again, nobody said being awesome was healthy.
Yeah, I hear you on that one. As a natural ecto, I'm never going to be 220+ unless I'm FAT.

I've noticed that the injury patterns of the lower weight class guys vs the supers are rather different. I generally get pretty quick results with the smaller guys. The supers are a challenge. Big tight muscles that have been slammed with ultra high abuse levels are not easy to fix. Still, we help where and how we can.

No static work on supers, that's for sure. He can move that big old meat hook or horses hoof himself! Even with them helping, an hour working on a tight super is harder than two days of working on normals.
__________________
Be well,
Ben Fury, CFT, CMT
Bettercise
http://www.bettercise.com/

“People who do not eat butterflies will wear their clothes the wrong way, and people who wear their clothes the wrong way are inviting lemmings inside.”
~Muzhduk the Ugli the Third~
Ben Fury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2008, 09:47 PM   #9
Arien Malec
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,035
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Fury View Post
Still, the risk factor rise in that study with increased BMI and reduced activity IS pretty compelling, eh?
The problem with this study is that high BMI in men is correlated with central adiposity. We don't know if this study is measuring the negative health effects of overweight, of central adiposity, or of some primary dysfunction that causes both.

I believe a number of recent studies have shown the abdominal to hip ratio being a better predictor of CV events than BMI. If true, fat can be healthy, at least if the fat is subcutaneous.
Arien Malec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2008, 10:34 PM   #10
Ben Fury
Member
 
Ben Fury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 64
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arien Malec View Post
...fat can be healthy, at least if the fat is subcutaneous.
Interesting. Got a reference on that?
__________________
Be well,
Ben Fury, CFT, CMT
Bettercise
http://www.bettercise.com/

“People who do not eat butterflies will wear their clothes the wrong way, and people who wear their clothes the wrong way are inviting lemmings inside.”
~Muzhduk the Ugli the Third~
Ben Fury is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 3
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Subscribe to our Newsletter


Receive emails with training tips, news updates, events info, sale notifications and more.
ASK GREG

Submit your question to be answered by Greg Everett in the Performance Menu or on the website

Submit Your Question
WEIGHTLIFTING TEAM

Catalyst Athletics is a USA Weightlifting team of competitive Olympic-style weightlifters with multiple national team medals.

Read More
Olympic Weightlifting Book
Catalyst Athletics
Contact Us
About
Help
Newsletter
Products & Services
Gym
Store
Seminars
Weightlifting Team
Performance Menu
Magazine Home
Subscriber Login
Issues
Articles
Workouts
About the Program
Workout Archives
Exercise Demos
Text Only
Instructional Content
Exercise Demos
Video Gallery
Free Articles
Free Recipes
Resources
Recommended Books & DVDs
Olympic Weightlifting Guide
Discussion Forum
Weight Conversion Calculator