[a fool in paradise]

Wonder if he's classified as obese in both pics.

[Minn]

A two step plan guaranteed to melt off the fat.

1. Get on your bike
2. Ride

[End Times Sentinel]

I’d be comfortable using the phrase benign obesity to describe my own 283 lb. 5’ 3” situation.

[albie]

Glandular? = sorry.
Eat too much? = eat less. exercise. lose weight.

[exist]

Hmmm there are probably people on the margins. Or people that are technically overweight but actually healthy for that individual person. But by and large, most people who are technically obese are fat pigs.

I myself stuff my face while watching TV and that made me gain a ton of weight. So I said screw it and started exercising like crazy. And now I stare at myself naked all the time.

But the bad part is my work has been suffering. Not calling clients back, ignoring emails. Too tired with all the exercising.

[KarlInOhio]

One problem with the BMI is that it is based on the square of the height rather than the third power. Pick the average height for a person and the "proper" weight and say that is some ideal BMI. Someone who is 10% taller than that average height would be 10% wider side to side and 10% thicker front to back to keep the same proportions. He would be 33% bigger overall, thus if his density is the same would be 33% heavier than the ideal average height person. However to keep the same BMI he's only allowed to be 21% heavier. To keep the same BMI, taller people have to start looking like bean poles.

[Varda]

" the healthy obese have less visceral fat "

Role of a critical visceral adipose tissue threshold (CVATT) in metabolic syndrome: implications for controlling dietary carbohydrates: a review

"Exceeding the CVATT may result in a number of metabolic disturbances such as insulin resistance to glucose uptake by cells. Metabolic profiles of patients with visceral obesity may substantially improve after only modest weight loss. This could reflect a significant reduction in the amount of VAT relative to peripheral or subcutaneous fat depots, thereby maintaining VAT below the CVATT. The CVATT may be unique for each individual. This may help explain the phenomena of apparently lean individuals with metabolic syndrome, the so-called metabolically normal weight (MONW), as well as the obese with normal metabolic profiles, i.e., metabolically normal obese (MNO), and those who are "fit and fat."

[mysterio]

The concept of "benign obesity" has been known for more than 20 years.

I have known a few heavy smokers who have lived past age 80. But they were the exceptions. Most of the time, if you smoke, it's likely going to kill you or seriously contribute to your poor health in old age. Same thing with obesity. And though someone might be "healthy" obese now, the additional weight is at the very least going to mess with their joints, making exercise more difficult in old age; leading to less exercise; leading to poor health.

I am the biggest wimp in the world and I kicked obesity. I wouldn't take a pound of it back.

[R. Scott]

There was a time when “obese” meant “really fat”. No longer. Now it means “not skinny”.

[Red6]

Why they are right IMHO.

Near all these “studies” on health and behavior have a hard time when it comes to causality or correlation. More people who are thin exercises, might eat healthier foods, etc. and weight and a high BMI might simply be a manifestation of unhealthy choices, but not the problem itself. What about someone that's heavier but exercises and eats well?

In the end, your quality and quantity of life will be determined more-so by genetics (excluding acts of God, crime or war) than anything else. You can drink bourbon and smoke cigars and make it to 100 as George Burns; or you can run marathons, not smoke or drink and fall over dead at 52 as Jim Fixx did of a massive heart attack.

What all this nonsense really boils down to is a few basic concepts. (1) We can't accept the idea of some sort of biological determinism. (2) We like to over simplify things and cook them down to some over simplistic idea, focusing on some singular variable. (3)People are lazy, so are many doctors and health care providers. This is the easy answer for everything. (4)We are an EXTREMELY trendy society where butter is healthy one day and vilinized the next. (5)Money talks, even in a socialist society, and those that use tobacco, consume alcohol, or engage in some other behavior or indulgences are seen as a cash cow. Insurance providers love smokers.

When you have a health issue and a doctor states it's because of smoking, being over weight, etc., I would go find another doctor. In most cases I would think it to be the easy answer that requires little thought, money, or any other effort. Real world example. My wife is a bit over weight, but by no means morbidly obese. She had hip problems and for years doctors told her that she needed to loose weight. The simple answer. We eventually found a real doctor who upon further investigation found she had a deformed hip joint, and ended up repairing the problem. Think about this though. Literally three US Army doctors looked at her, some X-rays were taken once (No MRI or CAT scan) and the answer more or less was always “It's your fault, loose some weight.”

These so called “risk factors” are all to often the lazy and simple answer, IMHO.

[SunkenCiv]

See, good news *is* news.

[SunkenCiv]

[Hyzenthlay]

That’s not surprising. Personally, I’ve qualified as ‘dangerously underweight’ for most of my life, and despite eating most everything in sight and getting lots of exercise and doing weightlifting to try and build muscle mass, gaining weight was almost impossible. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to me that there would be people in the opposite situation, who have a high BMI and can diet and exercise and be healthy all they want, but can’t lose weight for whatever reason. Not to mention that muscle mass weighs more than fat, so almost all professional athletes, even ones who aren’t bodybuilders or football players, fall into the ‘overweight/obese’ category.