assume there are 2 people. Both have the same genes and the same diet. One is 260 lbs, morbidly obese and very fat but does 6 hours of cardiovascular exercise a week and lifts weights, but cannot lose weight. another person is 180 lbs, low bodyfat, but never exercises. Which one will be more healthy and why?
I don’t think it’s a valid question. An hour a day of cardio and the weightlifting should stop the person from being morbidly obese. That person may be fat, but there’s gonna be a lot of muscle.
In order for these two people with identical genes to be so different, diet is going to have to explain the difference. The 260 pounder is probably basically living on fettucine alfredo, while the 180 pounder is eating a minimal healthy diet.
Strain on the heart is strain on the heart and I would guess the 260 pounder is working on some major cholesterol and arterial blockages despite his exercise.
So, I’d give the life expectancy and overrall health nod to the skinny guy.
Of course if I was looking for somebody to help me move my piano or be my offensive lineman, I’d call the big guy.
Which brings me to an interesting memory. I saw a show on the health channel about the issue of retired NFL linemen.
They don’t tend to live very long.
Skinny guy’s healthier.
Well, lets look at rikishi (sumo “wrestlers”).
Despite their gargantuan size, they train for four to five hours per day, and are supple enough to do the splits. There is a large amount of muscle under that fat (if you ever saw Wakanohana in action, you’d know what I mean, BOY does he have legs!).
BUT even after losing weight after retirement many of them have permanent joint damage in their legs, high blood pressure and/or diabetes. And their average life expectancy is 65 years, which is roughly ten years below the average for your regular Japanese guy.
I got that info from here
No cite for skinny guys, though.
I know I’ve seen research showing that a person who is overweight but exercises regularly and eats right will be healthier than a person who is thin but doesn’t do those things.
Unfortunately, I can’t remember where I saw it.
I can say, though, that I’m overweight and exercise, and I get a kick out of seeing the adorable skinny women in their spandex get on a weight machine after me and adjust the weights way, way down. Nyah nyah, I say to myself.
As far as I’ve read, being out of shape is worse than being fat.
Being skinny and out of shape would be better than morbidly obese by far. Being a bit heavy to borderline obese and healthy would be better than skinny and underweight.
Life expectancy really has nothing to do with healthiness. Some smokers drinkers, high blood pressure indivuduals are centurians. Healthiness just increases quality of life, not quantity. (for the most part)
Indeed Scylla hits it. These two genetic twins can’t be both eating the same and have one who excecises be obese and the other not excercising and be thin.
Who do I think is healthier, an individual with a high body mass index, even a high percentage body fat, who excercises an hour a day at 65% or more of maximal heart rate, eats lots of whole grain foods, fruits, veggies and moderate amounts of lean protein sources, or the thin individual who eats crap and sits around?
No doubt the heavy one is healthier and will likely live longer with better quality of life … other than experiencing the prejudice our society has against people of bulk. Fat is often a sign of poorer health, but moreso because it is often associated with poor excecise habits and lousy eating habits. But some people are meant to be heavy. Trying to please the scale rather than focusing on lifestyle is counterproductive.
Go take a quick look at Jan Ulrich in this years Tour de France.
Jan is a big strong German guy. I’ve met him a number of times - albeit a decade ago or more. He’s the same height as myself at 184cm - which is 6’1".
And he’s a strong well built man. Tradtitionally, he’s actually had a bit of a problem with his weight in pro cycling - insofar as you won’t come across a more magnificent natural talent than Jan Ulrich - even Lance Armstrong concedes this - but a few years back he started enjoying the good life a bit too much. A few too many beers, a few too many hot dogs, and not enough commitment to the cause. In doing so, he’d show up for the Grand Tours carrying an extra 4 kilograms that his opposition didn’t have to carry. His body fat percentage was probably 10% instead of being 6-7%. And he suffered, obviously.
But this year, he’s right down monster lean. Veins all over him. He gave up the booze, and he really focused on his career. And he dropped down to lighter than he’s ever been in his entire racing career. So what does this say? It says that if you’re guaranteed of burning off what you eat, you can actually dip below your genetic body fat minimum - although it should be noted that you’ll instantly bounce back to your minimum the moment you drop off the super calorie expenditure.
It has to be said, however, that only a miniscule percentage of human beings are genetically pre programmed to be defined as “morbidly obese” - which is defined as 50% body fat or higher.
By far the majority of overweight people, by far, far, FAR the majority - are overweight because their calorie intake overwhelms their calorie expenditure. The fact that you NEVER see a fat Tour de France rider is proof of this.
I know, I know… a shitload of overweight people make a shitload of excuses about why they are the way they are - but the bottom line is that if you’re guaranteed of burning it off, you won’t gain weight.
Also, the general consensus is this - all things being equal - a human being who goes through life placing their metabolism under a slight degree of stress - that is, always slight under eating in comparison to calorie burnoff - tends to live far longer than high body fat persons.
Certainly, your typical South East Asian in the Vietnam and Laos region is testimony to this trend. Very sparse diets - oodles of all the things which are good for you - and little high fat intake. Those guys live for yonks. It’s quite common to meet a Thai woman for example who is in her 50’s and she looks 20 years younger.
Indeed, science is investigating the idea that restricting your calories can truely increase your longevity.
FWIW:
I weigh somewhere between 255 and 265, depending on the day, the meal I ate earlier, and my current state of hydration. I do a pretty good amount of exercise (biked about 1.5 hours today, 2 hours yesterday, ran about 3.5 miles on Thursday). Don’t lift nearly enough (haven’t lifted in about 4 months), but when the weather starts to go downhill again you can bet I’ll be back in there. I play semi-pro football (full pads, full contact, 11-on-11, hitting people football. Yes, I play O-line).
My diet is not the best (I’m a single guy, what can I say), but I try to eat something reasonably healthy as much as I can. I also try to limit my portions to a managable amount.
I seem to be in a constant battle with my weight. Ideally, I’d like to weigh around 250, but I haven’t been able to get there yet. I weighed close to 300 in my college ball days, but after that final season got over I went on a major diet and lost about 40 pounds, which is where I’ve stayed ever since.
Am I in the greatest shape? Probably not. But I’m doing the best I can, and hopefully that’s enough.
Boo Boo,
Certainly fat people are fat because they have taken in more than they use up. But the fact that professional cyclists are thin doesn’t prove anything other than that successful cyclists tend to have low body fat. Duh. A fat cyclist doesn’t go so fast. And sure, even someone who has a set point to the heavy side can lose the fat if they limit calories enough while excercising vigorously everyday. Not many can maintain that level of caloric restriction and activity long-term though.
Also, where do you get your definition of morbidly obese? Currently, for better or worse, “overweight” and “obese” are presently defined by Body Mass Index. See http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762241.html for a good table. Not included in thaty particular link is the critera for “morbid obesity” which is considered a BMI of 40 or 35 if there are extant serious helath consequences of the obesity. Previous definitions had included being 50% over ideal body weight. The BMI index is a poor definition to use but it has the advantage of being fairly simple. It is poor because it is not a measure of body fat: a low muscle mass/relatively high body fat individual may have a normal BMI and a muscular short limbed broad shouldered man may have a high BMI yet a body fat percentage of less than 10. But like it or not, that is the current definition. Morbid obesity is, without doubt, a serious health risk. Few people are morbidly obese while regularly excercising with moderate intensity and eating a reasonable caloric intake of healthy proportions. But lots of people will maintain being “overweight” while excercising and eating right. And they should just toss out the scale. They are lots healthier than someone with an ideal BMI eating crap and vegging out.
I assume that issue would come up. I will rephrase the statement.
Both have the same genetic predispositions to diabetes, hypertension, heart disease and other diseases associated with unhealhiness.
You can’t assume that.
My mother has been skinny all her life, yet her cholesterol is off the charts when untreated, and “down” to about 380/400 when heavily dosed with statins. Even a vegetarian, no fat diet will not bring it down. I have a near-vegetarian sister who works out at least an hour a day, is thin, and has the same problem. It’s genetic, you see - their bodies don’t handle cholesterol properly.
On the other hand, there are some very overweight people who don’t have the “hardening of the arteries” problem and never will.
The Body Mass Index is a poor indication. Most olympic athletes would be classified as “overweight”, despite their low overall bodyfat percentages. In order to drop below “overweight” on that scale I’d have to lose 25 lbs - but I already have a 28 inch waist. Losing 25 lbs would make me look anorexic. There’s no way it would be healthy - unless I lost a lot of the heavy muscle mass that drives my weight up into the “unacceptable” zone and I refuse to do that.
There are limits in both directions, but I think someone 20 or even 50 lbs heavier than ideal from a diet that, while healthy, has a slight portion control issues, who, nonetheless, is active on a daily basis is MUCH healthier than someone of “normal” weight who’s major exercise is using the remote to change the channel on the TV, and who subsists on a diet of beer and cheese doodles.
Yes I can. We are talking about two genetically identical people. One works out regularly and is fat, the other does not and is skinny.
I have no other explanation positing the laws of thermodynamics than that the fat one is eating more and more poorly than the skinny one.
It is logical to assume that the one who eats so poorly will have that reflected in higher cholesterol compared to the one who does not.
It is also logical to assume that the one carrying 60 extra pounds will need to circulate blood to that extra mass.
I understand. The OP is talking about genetically identical people with different habits, not your mother.
True enough, again though, the heavier poorer eating person of two genetically identical people is likely to have their higher risk factors reflected in their blood chemistry.
This is an interesting off topic conundrum. If you are an exceptionally large person your heart must still serve that mass whether it is fat or muscle.
How many really old basketball players do you know?
How many 90 year old 250 pound men do you know?
The bad news is that it’s just not fat. Big people tend not to live as long as smaller folk.
Being out of shape doesn’t neccesarily make you more likely to develop health problems but being obese/over weight does
per the Surgeon General:
Premature Death
An estimated 300,000 deaths per year may be attributable to obesity.
The risk of death rises with increasing weight. Even moderate weight excess (10 to 20 pounds for a person of average height) increases the risk of death, particularly among adults aged 30 to 64 years. Individuals who are obese (BMI > 30) have a 50 to 100% increased risk of premature death from all causes, compared to individuals with a healthy weight.
Heart Disease
The incidence of heart disease (heart attack, congestive heart failure, sudden cardiac death, angina or chest pain, and abnormal heart rhythm) is increased in persons who are overweight or obese (BMI > 25). High blood pressure is twice as common in adults who are obese than in those who are at a healthy weight. Obesity is associated with elevated triglycerides (blood fat) and decreased HDL cholesterol (“good cholesterol”).
Diabetes
A weight gain of 11 to 18 pounds increases a person’s risk of developing type 2 diabetes to twice that of individuals who have not gained weight. Over 80% of people with diabetes are overweight or obese.
Cancer
Overweight and obesity are associated with an increased risk for some types of cancer including endometrial (cancer of the lining of the uterus), colon, gall bladder, prostate, kidney, and postmenopausal breast cancer. Women gaining more than 20 pounds from age 18 to midlife double their risk of postmenopausal breast cancer, compared to women whose weight remains stable.
Breathing Problems
Sleep apnea (interrupted breathing while sleeping) is more common in obese persons. Obesity is associated with a higher prevalence of asthma.
Arthritis
For every 2-pound increase in weight, the risk of developing arthritis is increased by 9 to 13%. Symptoms of arthritis can improve with weight loss.
Reproductive Complications
Complications of pregnancy. Obesity during pregnancy is associated with increased risk of death in both the baby and the mother and increases the risk of maternal high blood pressure by 10 times. In addition to many other complications, women who are obese during pregnancy are more likely to have gestational diabetes and problems with labor and delivery. Infants born to women who are obese during pregnancy are more likely to be high birthweight and, therefore, may face a higher rate of Cesarean section delivery and low blood sugar (which can be associated with brain damage and seizures).
Obesity during pregnancy is associated with an increased risk of birth defects, particularly neural tube defects, such as spina bifida. Obesity in premenopausal women is associated with irregular menstrual cycles and infertility.
Additional Health Consequences
Overweight and obesity are associated with increased risks of gall bladder disease, incontinence, increased surgical risk, and depression. Obesity can affect the quality of life through limited mobility and decreased physical endurance as well as through social, academic, and job discrimination.
Read the OP again - they are eating the same diet To my mind, that means portion control problems.
It is possible, for instance, to become overweight on a strictly vegetarian diet. If one of these two hypothetical people eats 4 times what the other does (say, 1200 calories vs. 4800 calories) the one who eats more WILL gain weight and may well be unable to lose it at that rate of consumption.
The overweight twin could also be suffering from some disorder that interferes with metabolism or taking medication for something of the sort.
Or, conversely, the lower weight twin could be suffering from a disorder where, although they consume large amounts of food, their body can’t absorb it. This could occur through disease or accident.
Assuming identical genes AND identical diet it’s either portion size or a medical situation that would result in such disparate sizes.
Again, you are assuming that the heavier individual has a poorer diet. That is not the case stated. Let me quote for you, with emphasis added:
If it’s a matter of portion control, the heavier one may, indeed, be less healthy. If it’s a matter of disease or disorder driving down the weight of the smaller one (which might also account for the lack of excercise) then the smaller one may be the least healthy.
I agree, blood chemistry is likely to reflect extra weight, but not always. I used the example of my mother to show that one could be of normal weight and apparently quite healthy yet have very significant risk factors (mother has also had a half dozen heart attacks, multiple bypass operations, and a stroke - she LOOKS healthy enough she gets harassed for using a handicap placard with the car, but she really is disabled). On the flip side, my father has always been a little on the heavy side (and not getting thinner!) yet his blood chemistry is spectacularly good - overall cholesteral 110 despite his 3 eggs a day and fondness for meat products, very good high/low density ratio, and so forth. Drives mom nuts.)
So while in general being overweight or obese is not good, the weight alone is not the sole determining factor here. As a start, I’d have to ask how tall these people are. 260 lbs on a 5 foot tall person IS horrible. If the person is 6 foot tall, however, it’s not nearly as bad a situation.
And certainly someone who IS overweight and yet can perform some regular exercise is going to be healthier than someone of equal weight and girth who doesn’t exercise. Could they be overweight and “fit” in the sense of having good lipid profile and blood pressure? Yes. Would they be even better off losing the extra weight? Almost certainly.
As I mentioned, you need to know more than just the raw weight
I would disagree on that point. One of the problems of the elderly is a lack of strength and balance which can lead to falls and injuries. Exercise improves both. Being out of shape might not lead to disease but it, too, has some health risks.
First quibble I have is how they define “healthy weight”.
Virtually ALL professional athletes and Olympic athletes (is there even a distinction anymore?) with the exception of “women” gymnasts would be overweight by the raw BMI number. This is at odds with observation of these individuals.
I am 5’3" and 145-150 lbs (it does varying a little). That’s a BMI of around 26. I’d have to drop into the 130’s to be “normal weight”. Yet I’m a 34-28-38. I’d look sick if I dropped 20 lbs! My cholesterol is 110-115. The high/low ratios are where they’re supposed to be. My blood pressure is 110/75. My blood sugar is right in the middle of the normal range (and yes, I’ve had a fasting test and glucose challenge as well as a urine test). I’m two years shy of 40 so you can’t explain this as youth. This is not the profile of an unhealthy person.
The athletes are healthy because that “extra” weight is muscle, not fat, and they exercise a lot. I’m healthy because I exercise, too, and I try to eat right. And perhaps I have some good genes assisting me. That’s why a reputable site discussing the BMI will caution that there are exceptions to the rule. Someone on the low end of the “overweight” range may be healthy IF they work out more/have more muscle mass than an average person of their height. It’s not 25 - you’re healthy/26 - >BAM!< you’re a tub of lard and you’ll die young.
OK, but you’re quoting statistics and averages here. I’m at BMI 26 and don’t have high blood pressure, elevated triglycerides, or decreased HDL. BMI alone does not determine health, it’s just one indication. My mother has a BMI of 24 yet she has severe heart disease and a horrific lipid profile.
Despite my whole family tending towards being “overweight” by BMI definition I have no blood relative with diabetes of any sort. We’re all hovering around 25-27 BMI with no apparent problems. My father’s father lived to be 98. My father’s mother lived into her mid-80’s despite being clearly overweight (300 lbs on a 5 foot frame) but never had cholesterol problems or diabetes. My mother’s mother lived into her mid-80’s. Her father, however - always commented upon for being skinny - died at 45 of the same heart problems she suffers from (they didn’t have bypass surgery or statins in those days)
So I live in a family where, by the BMI, we should be riddled with diabetics and dropping dead young. Well, we do have heart disease - but it’s genetic in origin, not connected to diet, weight, or exercise level. That’s well over a hundred people defying the rules of the BMI. And no diabetes. None.
Maybe the problem is that a lot of folks who ARE above BMI 25 don’t exercise. My family keeps moving. Are we heavy because we have more mucsle mass than average? Is there some other factor at work?
Mind you, we are NOT talking about a family of folks up around BMI 30 or 40. We’re just over the “overweight” line. I question if that border between “normal” and “overweight” is really in the right place because of the experience of my family and myself.
Well, OK, but, again, in my family I have had exactly two blood relatives who have ever had cancer - one has been in remission for 50 years and the other, who contracted leukemia in his late 80’s, had a rather significant risk factor - heavy exposure to radiation during his WWII service in the Pacific.
Yes, I can see a weight gain as a problem - clearly the person is either eating more than they should, or not moving around enough - but my weight has been stable since high school. I’m not going to muck with that situation for a mere 20 lb weight loss and risk setting off a yo-yo pattern. The only exception was two years of severe underemployment where I dropped down to 135 because I literally couldn’t afford to eat enough. I have pictures from then. I look hideous. Nice folks would approach me and tell me their daughter had struggled with anorexia, too.
By the way - again defying expectations - my asthma improved when I gained weight back into the 140’s. Why? Because poverty is also a severe risk factor for poor health. With better employment my diet improved, I could get regular medical treatment when I needed it, and overall I was less stressed and more healthy. I could also take care of the roach problem in my living quarters and stop washing dogs for cash - exposure to both roach dust and animal hair/dander both being arguably just as bad for asthmatics as a few extra pounds. Maybe more so. Of course, there are limits - if I ballooned up to 300 lbs I have no doubt my asthma would be kicking my butt on a regular basis.
It’s just that what appears to be MY normal, healthy weight is set at BMI 26. I see this in a lot of my relatives. So I have to question just how useful that number is. It’s like saying my mom is healthy because her blood pressure is and has always been 120/80 (which is true). She isn’t healthy. She’s an oddball, yes, but people with her form of heart disease often are of normal weight (by BMI definitions), with normal blood pressure and no diabetes. And there are thousands of people with her disorder. If they think they’re healthy because of their “normal” BMI’s they’re only fooling themselves.
I’m not saying we should just stop caring, but to my mind “health” is clearly more than just a BMI number. A lot of overweight folks get that way because they simply don’t exercise enough - that’s why they’re gaining weight - and thus are less fit. However, there are also substantial numbers of people who fit the “overweight” description BUT in appearance, blood pressure, blood chemistry, and other factors are clearly healthy and fit - usually because we exercise. The extra weight is muscle, not fat. As long as you’re not using steroids you’re not going to put on so much muscle you’ll fall into the “obese” range or screw up your cardiovascular system due to requirements to pump a lot of blood through a lot of extra mass.
I saw it last time I went to a new GYN - she came into the room reading the papers I’d filled out in the waiting room, muttering “I’m concerned about your weight --” looked up at me, shrugged, and said “nevermind - you don’t have a problem. Exercise a lot?”
So… to get back to the OP situation. Yes, at first glance it’s tempting to say the heavier person is less healthy, but given how much they work out I have to question that. Without other information I just don’t know - as I said, if they’re 6 foot tall and a heavy athletic sort 260 lbs might not be a problem and it’s “Mr. Skinny” who’s the sickly one. Again, I emphasize it’s the exercise factor that’s throwing me off here - without that I would have said, yes, probably “Tubbo” is the sickly one. Even so, that qualifier would have been in there.
Broomstick:
As I mentioned in my first reply to the Op, I don’t think the question is valid as stated. I read same diet to mean same foods, same portions. Change the portions and it’s not the same diet.
Or, if they are on exactly the same diet - food choices, portions, everything - then there is something seriously wrong with the lighter of the pair, some malabsorption syndrome of some sort, in which case he’d be the less healthy.
I also saw a show on professional wrestlers, and retired wrestlers dont live very long either.