Can you be fat & fit?
Discussion
So the question seems to be "what is fit?".
One of the simplest ways of measuring "fitness" is heart and lung function via heart rate recovery. You can do this in a few minutes. Measure you heart rate (for me resting bpm is about 60)- do a blast of exercise (anything) that pushes your heart rate up to about 80% of max (max calculated as 220 - age) for me this is about 150bpm, you don't need to hold it there for long. Now stop exercising and wait for 2mins, measure heart rate again. Subtract your resting heart rate from the one post exercise and 2 minute rest... You should get a number greater than 50. If it's much less than 40 your unfit, much more than 60 you're very fit.
There are plenty of people around playing professional sports who couldn't run 10km in 50 minutes, body builders, power lifters, NFL players, I suspect quite a few Rugby players, or anyone carrying lots of weight (fat or muscle). None of that means they're in danger of becoming couch potatoes or keeling over any time soon, it's just their bodies are not trained or suited to running.
I run 10km in about 50 minutes these days, I could push myself to 45mins that wouldn't be about my "fitness" as much as my bloodymindedness and how much pain I want to suffer in my knees and feet tomorrow morning, like I said before there is a mental aspect to how much you can do and for how long that plays significantly that has nothing to do with fitness.
One of the simplest ways of measuring "fitness" is heart and lung function via heart rate recovery. You can do this in a few minutes. Measure you heart rate (for me resting bpm is about 60)- do a blast of exercise (anything) that pushes your heart rate up to about 80% of max (max calculated as 220 - age) for me this is about 150bpm, you don't need to hold it there for long. Now stop exercising and wait for 2mins, measure heart rate again. Subtract your resting heart rate from the one post exercise and 2 minute rest... You should get a number greater than 50. If it's much less than 40 your unfit, much more than 60 you're very fit.
There are plenty of people around playing professional sports who couldn't run 10km in 50 minutes, body builders, power lifters, NFL players, I suspect quite a few Rugby players, or anyone carrying lots of weight (fat or muscle). None of that means they're in danger of becoming couch potatoes or keeling over any time soon, it's just their bodies are not trained or suited to running.
I run 10km in about 50 minutes these days, I could push myself to 45mins that wouldn't be about my "fitness" as much as my bloodymindedness and how much pain I want to suffer in my knees and feet tomorrow morning, like I said before there is a mental aspect to how much you can do and for how long that plays significantly that has nothing to do with fitness.
FredClogs said:
One of the simplest ways of measuring "fitness" is heart and lung function via heart rate recovery. You can do this in a few minutes. Measure you heart rate (for me resting bpm is about 60)- do a blast of exercise (anything) that pushes your heart rate up to about 80% of max (max calculated as 220 - age) for me this is about 150bpm, you don't need to hold it there for long. Now stop exercising and wait for 2mins, measure heart rate again. Subtract your resting heart rate from the one post exercise and 2 minute rest... You should get a number greater than 50. If it's much less than 40 your unfit, much more than 60 you're very fit.
That doesn't sound quite right to me, could you clarify further? I always thought that speed of recovery was a good indicator of fitness, so surely the closer you get to your resting heart rate after two minutes rest from 80% MHR the fitter you are? If in your above example your heart was still racing at 140 after two minutes, you'd personally get a result of 100 ('very fit' in your classification), but if it had dropped right down to 80 in the two minutes you'd be 'unfit'?RobM77 said:
FredClogs said:
One of the simplest ways of measuring "fitness" is heart and lung function via heart rate recovery. You can do this in a few minutes. Measure you heart rate (for me resting bpm is about 60)- do a blast of exercise (anything) that pushes your heart rate up to about 80% of max (max calculated as 220 - age) for me this is about 150bpm, you don't need to hold it there for long. Now stop exercising and wait for 2mins, measure heart rate again. Subtract your resting heart rate from the one post exercise and 2 minute rest... You should get a number greater than 50. If it's much less than 40 your unfit, much more than 60 you're very fit.
That doesn't sound quite right to me, could you clarify further? I always thought that speed of recovery was a good indicator of fitness, so surely the closer you get to your resting heart rate after two minutes rest from 80% MHR the fitter you are? If in your above example your heart was still racing at 140 after two minutes, you'd personally get a result of 100 ('very fit' in your classification), but if it had dropped right down to 80 in the two minutes you'd be 'unfit'?MC Bodge said:
Not really. Humans work within certain parameters.
You could take elite athletes as the maximum that can be achieved with good genes and full-time training.
If you then consider 'normal people':
Putting in a few hours of decent physical exercise (stamina and strength) and general activity a week (including walking/cycling to work/shops, gardening, housework etc.)and eating/drinking healthily. ie. Not just driving everywhere, boozing, eating junk and watching TV every night.
I think that 25 minutes for 5K or 50 minutes for 10K (or the swimming or cycling equivalent should be achievable for an able-bodied man (and maybe woman) of healthy weight. There may be some age correction to be considered above the age of 50.
Yes it's arbitrary, all of it is. That's why you use the term, you think' People just have different levels and expectations. That's life.You could take elite athletes as the maximum that can be achieved with good genes and full-time training.
If you then consider 'normal people':
Putting in a few hours of decent physical exercise (stamina and strength) and general activity a week (including walking/cycling to work/shops, gardening, housework etc.)and eating/drinking healthily. ie. Not just driving everywhere, boozing, eating junk and watching TV every night.
I think that 25 minutes for 5K or 50 minutes for 10K (or the swimming or cycling equivalent should be achievable for an able-bodied man (and maybe woman) of healthy weight. There may be some age correction to be considered above the age of 50.
Edited by MC Bodge on Tuesday 25th August 12:08
There's no macgic book anywhere that says humans ned to do, 'x-y-z.'
Fred Blogs said:
So the question seems to be "what is fit?".
Stephen Fry says he is fit. Fit to sit in a chair and read a book. Edited by Halb on Tuesday 25th August 12:45
FredClogs said:
RobM77 said:
FredClogs said:
One of the simplest ways of measuring "fitness" is heart and lung function via heart rate recovery. You can do this in a few minutes. Measure you heart rate (for me resting bpm is about 60)- do a blast of exercise (anything) that pushes your heart rate up to about 80% of max (max calculated as 220 - age) for me this is about 150bpm, you don't need to hold it there for long. Now stop exercising and wait for 2mins, measure heart rate again. Subtract your resting heart rate from the one post exercise and 2 minute rest... You should get a number greater than 50. If it's much less than 40 your unfit, much more than 60 you're very fit.
That doesn't sound quite right to me, could you clarify further? I always thought that speed of recovery was a good indicator of fitness, so surely the closer you get to your resting heart rate after two minutes rest from 80% MHR the fitter you are? If in your above example your heart was still racing at 140 after two minutes, you'd personally get a result of 100 ('very fit' in your classification), but if it had dropped right down to 80 in the two minutes you'd be 'unfit'?Halb said:
MC Bodge said:
Not really. Humans work within certain parameters.
You could take elite athletes as the maximum that can be achieved with good genes and full-time training.
If you then consider 'normal people':
Putting in a few hours of decent physical exercise (stamina and strength) and general activity a week (including walking/cycling to work/shops, gardening, housework etc.)and eating/drinking healthily. ie. Not just driving everywhere, boozing, eating junk and watching TV every night.
I think that 25 minutes for 5K or 50 minutes for 10K (or the swimming or cycling equivalent should be achievable for an able-bodied man (and maybe woman) of healthy weight. There may be some age correction to be considered above the age of 50.
Yes it's arbitrary, all of it is. That's why you use the term, you think' People just have different levels and expectations. That's life.You could take elite athletes as the maximum that can be achieved with good genes and full-time training.
If you then consider 'normal people':
Putting in a few hours of decent physical exercise (stamina and strength) and general activity a week (including walking/cycling to work/shops, gardening, housework etc.)and eating/drinking healthily. ie. Not just driving everywhere, boozing, eating junk and watching TV every night.
I think that 25 minutes for 5K or 50 minutes for 10K (or the swimming or cycling equivalent should be achievable for an able-bodied man (and maybe woman) of healthy weight. There may be some age correction to be considered above the age of 50.
Edited by MC Bodge on Tuesday 25th August 12:08
There's no macgic book anywhere that says humans ned to do, 'x-y-z.'
Fred Blogs said:
So the question seems to be "what is fit?".
Stephen Fry says he is fit. Fit to sit in a chair and read a book. Edited by Halb on Tuesday 25th August 12:45
RobM77 said:
This cuts to the chase of it. If you define fitness by pure cardiovascular measures, then a fat person could be fit, yes. However, that same person might not be able to achieve the basic level of sporting ability described above or similar. To be fair, even though I would regard myself as pretty fit, I very much doubt that I could run 8 minute miles carrying a 20kg suitcase, which believe it or not is the difference in weight between me, a totally normal healthy 38 year old who does a bit of sport, and the mean average man in the UK at the moment.
I'm not sure what the mean weight of a man in the UK is, but I am the same age and a fairly lean 79kg and I can comfortably manage it. I am fairly active, though.To me, "Fitness" Includes being healthy, but also being capable of doing a variety of useful physical work and activity. That is, Being unhindered by poor physical condition. It possibly does align with commando type fitness, but within the available free time.
Granted, there are some of the more difficult circus or gymnastic activities that most people could not achieve without a lot of training!
MC Bodge said:
RobM77 said:
This cuts to the chase of it. If you define fitness by pure cardiovascular measures, then a fat person could be fit, yes. However, that same person might not be able to achieve the basic level of sporting ability described above or similar. To be fair, even though I would regard myself as pretty fit, I very much doubt that I could run 8 minute miles carrying a 20kg suitcase, which believe it or not is the difference in weight between me, a totally normal healthy 38 year old who does a bit of sport, and the mean average man in the UK at the moment.
I'm not sure what the mean weight of a man in the UK is, but I am the same age and a fairly lean 79kg and I can comfortably manage it. I am fairly active, though.To me, "Fitness" Includes being healthy, but also being capable of doing a variety of useful physical work and activity. That is, Being unhindered by poor physical condition. It possibly does align with commando type fitness, but within the available free time.
Granted, there are some of the more difficult circus or gymnastic activities that most people could not achieve without a lot of training!
RobM77 said:
The mean BMI in the UK is 27 for men, so for my height that's a weight of 85kg. I can also easily run at 8min/mile pace, but I'm just not sure I could do it carrying all that extra weight as fat, with no extra muscle to compensate! I make that assumption because I do two hours of weights a week and lots of sport, so probably carry more muscle than that average 27 BMI person would. I don't know I couldn't run with that weight for a fact though as I've never been anywhere near that heavy, but I seriously doubt it, not for 10k anyway!
Ah, right. My BMI is actually about 25, although I am quite lean. When I was heavier (due to injury preventing exercise and eating too much) at about 83kg, I could still have run a sub 50min 10K. It's not quite like carting a big rucksack of weights around, although I am much quicker cycling and running up hills now.
As you allude to, if the weight is muscle (in the right places) then it can contribute to performance. Too much muscle would just be extra weight to carry, though.
Spent the weekend at Henley Rewind festival.....bunch of middle age people listening to bananarama.......my GOD....90% of people where too fat. It was staggering. Not a single guy out of thousands was minus a belly.....my other half kept saying "ok, he's ok I suppose" then he'd turn around and have a gut hanging over his belt! And the women!!!! So many butts as wide as shopping trollys....was staggering.
Tiggsy said:
Spent the weekend at Henley Rewind festival.....bunch of middle age people listening to bananarama.......my GOD....90% of people where too fat. It was staggering. Not a single guy out of thousands was minus a belly.....my other half kept saying "ok, he's ok I suppose" then he'd turn around and have a gut hanging over his belt! And the women!!!! So many butts as wide as shopping trollys....was staggering.
Whereas I spent the weekend at the British Athletics Mountain Running Challenge event in Betws-y-coed. Not a big belly or wide butt to be seen in the hundreds of people there. Choose your events wisely MC Bodge said:
RobM77 said:
The mean BMI in the UK is 27 for men, so for my height that's a weight of 85kg. I can also easily run at 8min/mile pace, but I'm just not sure I could do it carrying all that extra weight as fat, with no extra muscle to compensate! I make that assumption because I do two hours of weights a week and lots of sport, so probably carry more muscle than that average 27 BMI person would. I don't know I couldn't run with that weight for a fact though as I've never been anywhere near that heavy, but I seriously doubt it, not for 10k anyway!
Ah, right. My BMI is actually about 25, although I am quite lean. When I was heavier (due to injury preventing exercise and eating too much) at about 83kg, I could still have run a sub 50min 10K. It's not quite like carting a big rucksack of weights around, although I am much quicker cycling and running up hills now.
As you allude to, if the weight is muscle (in the right places) then it can contribute to performance. Too much muscle would just be extra weight to carry, though.
Incidentally, yes, I could quite understand someone with a BMI of 27 running an 8min/mile if they had that weight as muscle, but I seriously doubt that's the case for that mean average Brit - it'll all be fat just weighing them down.
The one thing I do find annoying about the above figures is that despite being a normal weight I now have to buy most of my clothes in France 15 years ago I was a UK 'medium', then clothes gradually got bigger as that mean average BMI increased and I passed below a UK 'small' in most shops about 5 years ago. It's not all bad though, if there was a zombie apocalypse we'd be able to stay out of the way quite easily.
Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 26th August 10:35
RobM77 said:
It's not all bad though, if there was a zombie apocalypse we'd be able to stay out of the way quite easily.
I obviously watch too much film and TV, because I often think of this when I'm running, sometimes to get a bit of a sprint on at the end of my run I'll conjure up some sort of scenario with an earthquake/volcano/Zombies.
I'm 38 FFS.
RobM77 said:
The one thing I do find annoying about the above figures is that despite being a normal weight I now have to buy most of my clothes in France 15 years ago I was a UK 'medium', then clothes gradually got bigger as that mean average BMI increased and I passed below a UK 'small' in most shops about 5 years ago. It's not all bad though, if there was a zombie apocalypse we'd be able to stay out of the way quite easily.
This.Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 26th August 10:35
Like you, I struggle with some brands in the UK like Ted Baker where their small is still at least one size too big. Places like H&M or Gap do extra-small, which helps, but the items aren't as readily available in all stores.
I've just come back from Thailand and it was refreshing to be a medium over there!
Cybertronian said:
RobM77 said:
The one thing I do find annoying about the above figures is that despite being a normal weight I now have to buy most of my clothes in France 15 years ago I was a UK 'medium', then clothes gradually got bigger as that mean average BMI increased and I passed below a UK 'small' in most shops about 5 years ago. It's not all bad though, if there was a zombie apocalypse we'd be able to stay out of the way quite easily.
This.Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 26th August 10:35
Like you, I struggle with some brands in the UK like Ted Baker where their small is still at least one size too big. Places like H&M or Gap do extra-small, which helps, but the items aren't as readily available in all stores.
I've just come back from Thailand and it was refreshing to be a medium over there!
Cybertronian said:
RobM77 said:
The one thing I do find annoying about the above figures is that despite being a normal weight I now have to buy most of my clothes in France 15 years ago I was a UK 'medium', then clothes gradually got bigger as that mean average BMI increased and I passed below a UK 'small' in most shops about 5 years ago. It's not all bad though, if there was a zombie apocalypse we'd be able to stay out of the way quite easily.
This.Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 26th August 10:35
Like you, I struggle with some brands in the UK like Ted Baker where their small is still at least one size too big. Places like H&M or Gap do extra-small, which helps, but the items aren't as readily available in all stores.
I've just come back from Thailand and it was refreshing to be a medium over there!
The other issue with sizing is where people are putting the weight on, so the shape of clothes and this particularly annoys me with shirts, as I like to look smart if I'm wearing one. I find that anything that fits me in the chest is enormous in the waistline. Next's slimfit range are ok, although annoyingly they assume a tiny rib cage as well, but the selection abroad is indeed just so much better.
Another thing is that buying something that includes your height and needs to fit well (wetsuits, drysuits, motor racing suits etc) is almost impossible, because an SX/S person is supposed to be about 5'4"! For wetsuits I now have them altered to fit, which is surprisingly affordable, but sadly nomex motor racing suits are coming in at almost a grand for made to measure (that's Stand 21's cheapest), and that's just too expensive.
The even stranger thing is that measured sizes are changing. I've got a photo on my phone of a new pair of 30" waist jeans from Next lying on a 32" from a few years ago and the 30" ones are bigger... I realise that we wear jeans on our hips, so the measured size is just a guide, but even so..
Tiggsy said:
Spent the weekend at Henley Rewind festival.....bunch of middle age people listening to bananarama.......my GOD....90% of people where too fat. It was staggering. Not a single guy out of thousands was minus a belly.....my other half kept saying "ok, he's ok I suppose" then he'd turn around and have a gut hanging over his belt! And the women!!!! So many butts as wide as shopping trollys....was staggering.
This mirrors my own experience of attending (non-activity) events and even just encounter in the public. People, even from their late 20s onwards, are fat. Men and women of my age (late 30s) appear to be mostly overweight.Within my group of friends, a generally active bunch, most are lean, fit and able to do things.
Clothes are annoying. As has been said, the typical clothes are shaped for fat people, not men with narrow waists and larger chests and legs/glutes . Trousers are particularly difficult. "Modern fit" seems to involve no quad muscles or glutes. American ones actually seem to fit me best.
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff