Fat and Fit?

No Snacks, no sweets, no seconds. Except on Days that start with S. Too simple for you? Simple is why it works. Look here for questions, introductions, support, success stories.

Moderators: Soprano, automatedeating

Post Reply
User avatar
Over43
Posts: 1850
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:15 pm
Location: The Mountains

Fat and Fit?

Post by Over43 » Tue Jul 19, 2011 6:49 pm

I had been mulling this over in my mellon when I read Marcie's post concerning wellness.

Fitness doesn't necessarily equal wellness, but generally fit people are healthier than unfit people (JAMA). My body size is getting smaller, as determined by the way my clothes are fitting, but my weight hasn't budged a pound. What I am trying to get at is, as my exercise has increased since Memorial Day, my weight hasn't changed, but I am definitely more fit as compared to the Cooper Aerobics points charts.

Today I skipped 500 skips without resting (I did flub a couple of times though), jogged 1 1/2 miles in 20:03, and then pounded the heavy bag for 6 rounds, plus a 15 minute sauna. This is infinitely better then where I was a month and a half ago.

So I am thinking, yes, I can be 185 pounds at 5' 9" (which is overweight), but fairly fit for a 47 year old.
Bacon is the gateway meat. - Anthony Bourdain
You pale in comparison to Fox Mulder. - The Smoking Man

I made myself be hungry, then I would get hungrier. - Frank Zane Mr. Olympia '77, '78, '79

GregMcD
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 4:46 pm
Location: Shawinigan, Quebec

Post by GregMcD » Tue Jul 19, 2011 7:14 pm

Congratulations on your improved fitness. Muscle is denser than fat. In other words, a pound of muscle is smaller (takes up less space) than a pound of fat. So if you are gaining muscle mass (which it sounds like you are), your weight can easily stay constant while you get slimmer. Keep up the good work!

Marcie
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 5:43 pm

Post by Marcie » Tue Jul 19, 2011 8:31 pm

It's perfectly possible to be fat and fit. Size *can* be a symptom of health problems--hormonal, lifestyle-related, or otherwise--but that's not universal. Google "health at any size."

The idea that less weight automatically and universally equals better health is a pretty blatant fallacy.

oolala53
Posts: 10069
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 1:46 am
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Post by oolala53 » Tue Jul 19, 2011 11:22 pm

Since we are not usually concerned with the scale here, I haven't talked about it a lot, but I went to a dance camp last week where I danced for several hours more than I would have every day, ate very similarly to what I would have at home (all green N days) and had one of the tamest weekends I've had S-wise in quite awhile before I got there. I didn't lose anything and have actually gone back up a bit so that I might have to change my signature line again. My clothes aren't any looser, either. h, well.

Fit heavy people definitely have health advantages over thin sedentary people. My ex-boss was thin her whole life. She was not fit. She also smoked and drank-- and died this summer at age 60 from cirrohsis of the liver. I'm not saying she's proof, but I think she is an example of what is known.

It's unfortunate that fit heavy people don't get much credit; you can't see their fitness unless they are actually working out.
Count plates, not calories. 11 years "during"
Age 69
BMI Jan/10-30.8
1/12-26.8 3/13-24.9 +/- 8-lb. 3 yrs
9/17 22.8 (flux) 3/18 22.2
2 yrs flux 6/20 22
1/21-23

There is no S better than Vanilla No S (mods now as a senior citizen)

Post Reply