Can you be fat & fit?

[DukeDickson]

Interested to hear the opinions of the knowledgeable people here.

Not me, but curious as to whether it is possible to be genuinely large (as in 300lbs+ large) and be capable of any reasonable endurance? Not thinking of big blokes moving heavy weights, more around day in, day out, more like a half marathon+ a day or 50 mile bike ride (as examples). Day in, day out, without showing the obvious effects .

I don't believe so, but happy to be educated otherwise.

[DukeDickson]

ewenm said:

If you're doing that day-in-day-out I'd imagine you'd need to eat vast quantities to maintain the weight.

Of course this comes down to what does "fit" mean?

My reasonable guesstimate is somewhere in the 6-7k cals a day range, which, as about 2/3rds of the infamous Phelps diet, is a lot.

By fit, I mean capable of doing somewhere around the equivalent (if possibly less stressful) of a 70.3 day in, day out, without appreciable effect, either in terms of physical impact (injuries, down time and the like) or anything like the expected weight loss and/or muscle gain.

I'm not thinking of rugby players with a bit of padding, more 180 ish lbs person carrying something like 100 lbs+ of wobble.


Having been 280 myself & now in the 180s, I know the stress it causes on the body, plus I have other doubts (general and specific to my query).

Edited by DukeDickson on Saturday 8th August 02:32

[DukeDickson]

CubanPete said:

Friend of a friend, 50 year old lady, not sure what she weighs, but certainly not slim, competes competitively in sportives, triathlon, and full ironman!

There are indeed some less than picture model people who do that kind of thing, but could they and she do it day after day while carrying 50-60kg? Come rain or shine?

I suspect that even those at the higher end of Ironman finishers would find that hard to do over extended periods.

[DukeDickson]

jonah35 said:

throt said:

You can still have good stamina at the same time as being over weight. Over weight and "fit", thats a different story. imo.

Agree.

A big bloke may be able to jog far but his heart and joints won't like it.

The joints and other elements will creak way before 'far' in my experience.

I guess I'm thinking RM/SAS yomp or whatever they're known as or equivalent (so half Ironman kind of thing), day after day, with no ill effects or physical change, come rain, monsoon or shine.


My own computer says hello Bob Hope, let alone no, but there could be the odd freak out there, possibly?

[DukeDickson]

shouldbworking said:

I used to train with a bloke who was fat and fit.

He dropped from about 18st to 12.5, which as he wasn't tall still left him quite stocky, and with a fair bit of excess skin from his more indulgent days.

He ran a mile and a half in ~9:30, and could smash out nearly 100 pressups / sits in 2 mins, as well as being lethal when it came to sparring.

For balance, I've met a hell of a lot of fat people who claimed to be fit but weren't.

That's was fat but sort of short-term fit though, rather than was lard, still lard etc.

I know a short bloke who is pretty round and has done a 50+ mile bike ride recently - could he do it 7 days a week over a period of months, plus not look any different, doubt it very much.


I guess I sound like I'm determined not to be convinced, but not quite the case. Just that I'm aware of someone who is apparently lots of all wobble claiming to do rather a lot of exercise (like 70-80 or more miles a day on a bike kind of levels, or, calorie wise, around a marathon a day) with no weight loss, ill effects or anything else.
Having been a fatso, don't buy it at all, even allowing for my less than wonderful inherent ability on this front.

Unless a genetic freak, every angle that comes to mind says no way.

[DukeDickson]

Halb said:

DukeDickson said:

Interested to hear the opinions of the knowledgeable people here.

Not me, but curious as to whether it is possible to be genuinely large (as in 300lbs+ large) and be capable of any reasonable endurance? Not thinking of big blokes moving heavy weights, more around day in, day out, more like a half marathon+ a day or 50 mile bike ride (as examples). Day in, day out, without showing the obvious effects .

I don't believe so, but happy to be educated otherwise.

Doable. Though the endurance won't be as good as the skinny runts. Heaviest I ran the Manchester 10k at was 20 and a half stone, 287lbs. I ran it in 61 mins. I reckon I'd be in the top ten finishers of people over 20 stone.
Ran it this year in 51 at 17stone. A lot faster obviously, but 60 mins isn't bad for close to 300.

Did you look something ike this though?




Plus, could you do it every day for several months without issue or weight loss? No rest day, in 80 degree heat or lashing down?


I know there are portly people who can run, bike etc good distances, but the every day thing, with no changes to physical condition, is the key to me.


I wasn't and even now am not a shining example of fitness, but being a lardy 280lbs played merry hell with my body and I would have been in a box had I attempted it. Or, seriously skinnier.

[DukeDickson]

Halb said:

DukeDickson said:

Did you look something ike this though?

Plus, could you do it every day for several months without issue or weight loss? No rest day, in 80 degree heat or lashing down?
I know there are portly people who can run, bike etc good distances, but the every day thing, with no changes to physical condition, is the key to me.
I wasn't and even now am not a shining example of fitness, but being a lardy 280lbs played merry hell with my body and I would have been in a box had I attempted it. Or, seriously skinnier.

I did not, is that you? I wish you well on your regime, whatever it is. I believe NatAsp has the best post somewhere above on adaptation. That first proposition is the same for anyone, regardless of weight/size.
I could have stayed that size with diet. I was also combining heavy weights with running with food, so mass was big, even with running training.
Adaptation, if you had out the hours in to train for a large event, then adaptation would take place, the mass thing would also be related to diet.

Tiggsy said:

For everyone happy their the only 17st + runner/biker/whatever.....go find some old people, see how many of them are 17 stone + !!!
And the height thing is missleading too - I'm 6ft6 and have been 22stone.....and can assure you, although I could run a 5k at that weight - it was grim and tore my body up. Now under 16 stone and still a bit more to go to get BF/abbs I'm happy to put on a beach!

Indeed, it was hard, very hard...but then if you run an event to try and be competitive, it always shall be. When I run the Manchester 10k it is always difficult, likewise the parkrun, because I'm competitive and like to beat times. I'm just not am born runner, not light on my feet, but I like to run, so I always end up with a face like a beetroot losing gallons of liquid. But I wanted the beach bod, so I sorted it.
I have to say though, I never wanna run over 17ish again though, it is just so hard... D:

No, that's not me & although I used to be that kind of physical specimen , albeit 280lbs rather than more than that, I'm now @ 100 less. Still far too flabby, but understand why, even if I don't like it.


I used that to make the point that I'm not talking about big, reasonably healthy people with a bit of insulation, but people carrying something like 40-50 kg of extra. Can someone like that do some reasonably serious levels of movement (calorific equivalent of a marathon) day after day after day, without any ill effects, body change or weight loss? Doubt it somehow.

It is the whole thing - the physical impact, the effort required not to change shape, the time involved and so on. On the fuel front, what I have in mind is somewhere around 2/3rds of that renound lard arse Michael Phelps but still making the effort to be well over 30% bf, rather than single figures.

[DukeDickson]

okgo said:

Bear in mind that most peoples definition of fit is a FAR cry from what is actually fit.

Or, flipping it a bit, how quick would Chris Froome be if he was a 20+ a day man, Usain if he had a love of pie and a pint or several, or Mo Farah if he had to run in a 50kg fat suit?


You're absolutely right, but there are a lot of factors that contribute to being 'actually fit'.

[DukeDickson]

RobM77 said:

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.

Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 26th August 10:35

This.

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!

I'm glad I'm not the only one!

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..

Definitely not the only one! I swear it was easier to buy clothes when I was 260lbs+ than it is now (and it wasn't easy then).
Not quite the same issues, but can I find some things? More likely to find the Holy Grail, or the only remaining Jimmy Saville fan .

Jeans are built for people with twig legs, shirts similar in terms of arms (or if not, nothing else fits) and suits are the biggest 'mare of the lot, if you don't want to spend tailored in some form money, for whatever reason. Is a standard 6 inch drop remotely relevant now, one way or another?

Sizes are all over everywhere, but for me generally on the mean side - is 42 chest, 32-33 waist really XL territory when average height & build is generally increasing?

[DukeDickson]

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.

How do you reckon you'd manage with 2.5 suitcases, which is where I started the question from?


To me, this is what someone who is fit & some looks like, as an example:

http://www.redbull.com/uk/en/adventure/stories/133...


Anyone who looks like Homer Simpson, while suggesting they do anything near to even 50%, without changing shape, has some serious explaining to do, IMHO.

[DukeDickson]

RobM77 said:

DukeDickson 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.

How do you reckon you'd manage with 2.5 suitcases, which is where I started the question from?

I can't even imagine that! Running 8 minute miles for 5k or 10k carrying the equivalent of a small adult! (60kg) The other thing is the skeleton - I struggle to imagine how the joints (specifically knees, ankles and hips) could cope with that sort of weight and anything strenuous like jogging, running or jumping; of course I don't expect they do cope, and anyone of that sort of weight must have constant joint pain and probably a very limited healthy lifespan for their joints.

My knees and ankles are stuffed. Yes, I probably 50%+ did for one knee before being lardy, but now all don't like me.
Even now not a total lard-arse, the after effects are still there. A 15-20 mile bike ride (not that great in the grand scheme of things) is painkillers beforehand territory. I don't even think about running, although part of me wants to do a triathlon of the shorter form, while I still have a chance.


This kind of impact is another tick in the box as to why I find it hard to believe that you can be very big (in a not good way) and yet do large amounts of exercise by almost all standards every day without effect. It must be the most detrimental if you're bad big, rather than good big.