Since this has been a hot topic lately, I thought I'd post this WSJ article (http://online.wsj.com/wsjgate?subURI=%2Farticle%2F0%2C%2CSB1094588492110 11477%2Demail%2C00%2Ehtml&nonsubURI=%2Farticle%5Femail%2F0%2C%2CSB1094588492 11011477%2DIZjgYNklaF3m5uma3qGaayCm5%2C00%2Ehtml):
Fit Women Face a Reduced Risk
Of Cardiovascular Ills, Study Says

By JENNIFER CORBETT DOOREN
DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
September 8, 2004

Women who are physically fit have a lower risk of developing cardiovascular disease regardless of whether they are fat or thin, according to a study in today's Journal of the American Medical Association.

But a separate study, also appearing in JAMA, shows that overweight and obese women had a higher risk of developing diabetes than normal-weight women even if they were physically active. Both studies were primarily funded by the National Institutes of Health.

As a result, an accompanying editorial in JAMA suggested that medical professionals focus on getting the estimated 40 million to 50 million sedentary American adults, both male and female, to become physically active for at least 30 minutes, five days a week.

"In essence, physical activity is the common denominator for the treatment of low fitness and excess weight, making the fatness versus fitness debate largely academic," wrote Steven N. Blair and Tim S. Church of the Cooper Institute, a nonprofit medical research firm in Dallas. Mr. Blair and Dr. Church noted that everyday activities such as house cleaning and gardening count toward daily physical activity.

"In recent years, the 'fitness versus fatness' issue has led to controversy and heated debate," Mr. Blair and Dr. Church wrote. "Although the debate may never be fully resolved, the relative contribution of fitness and obesity to overall health and risk actually may be a trivial matter because a common treatment is already available for both low fitness and excess body weight." That common treatment, they said, is physical activity.

In the cardiovascular study, researchers looked at 906 women who were being evaluated for possible cardiovascular disease in 1996 to 2000. Of those women, 76% were overweight, 70% had low fitness levels and 39% had coronary heart disease. During followup, more than half of the 906 women had a heart attack, stroke or some other event such as an unstable heart beat and 68 died.

The study, led by Timothy R. Wessel of the University of Florida College of Medicine, found that women with low fitness levels were 46% more likely to have had an "adverse" coronary event than those with high fitness levels.

"These results suggest that fitness may be more important than overweight or obesity for [cardiovascular disease] risk in women," Dr. Wessel wrote.

Carl Pepine, the chief of cardiovascular medicine at the University of Florida and another one of the paper's authors, said that fit overweight women had better outcomes than unfit thin women. About two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese.

"We are just inundated with the importance of weight but we seem to have lost track of fitness," he said, adding that small increases in daily activity levels can lower risk for cardiovascular disease. He said walking up a flight or two of stairs and parking at the back of parking lots each day can quickly add up.

In the diabetes study, researchers looked at 37,878 women in a continuing NIH Women's Health Study, to determine the effects of body weight -- as measured by the body mass index, which uses height and weight to calculate body fat -- and physical fitness as it relates to the risk of developing diabetes.

Compared with normal weight women, or those with a BMI of 25 or less, overweight women had a risk for diabetes that was three times as great. For those who were obese, having a BMI of 30 or higher, the risk was more than nine times as great.

Researchers, led by Amy Weinstein, formerly of Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, did find that there was a modest reduction in diabetes risk with increased physical activity but that gains in BMI were a bigger risk factor.

Dr. Weinstein also suggested that people increase their physical activity because it often leads to weight loss.

"It remains an important intervention in diabetes prevention," she wrote.

Write to Jennifer Corbett Dooren at jennifer.corbett-dooren@dowjones.com

(text in italics is my emphasis)

:up: Just goes to show that thin does not always equal healthy!

please don't flame me ... is it possible to be overweight and fit? I myself am overweight and would love to be in better condition as in having more energy,stamina is it possible to achieve this with out losing a bunch of weight? I am trying to lose weight and it is hard and I have been exercising.

Check out the Living Large thread (I know it's long, but it's not too hard to sort through) and you'll see quite a few people in there who are technically "overweight" but live an active, completely healthy lifestyle...their bodies just weren't meant to be tiny :)

I'd say no, you can't be overweight and in optimal health. To me "overweight" means "quite a bit over what's healthy for your body". I suppose it's what one's definitin of what overweight is. I lot of what society and even doctor's call overweight looks just fine to me.

DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUDES.. did you not read the article? :rolleyes:

Well, at least it's not in the heap so it shouldn't get to a disrespectful point. Regardless, I'm staying away from this one.

The article says what we "fat" girls at VB have been trying to say all along.

I used to be technically obese, but not overweight. My bodyfat was 35%, but I was 5'7" and 150lbs. At the time, I was very unhealthy. There are plenty of larger people who are very fit and healthy. It really depends on what type of body you are meant to have vs. your lifestyle. If health and fitness were purely based on weight, there wouldn't be thin people having heart attacks. While not every overweight person who is fit is healthy, I think the article is right on for emphasizing fitness over 'ideal weight'. Big isn't necessarily bad.

hey come on now i am 5' 6" and 150 is my goal weight. Sheez i can't win for losing.:wall:

hey come on now i am 5' 6" and 150 is my goal weight. Sheez i can't win for losing.:wall:

No no. I was technically obese and unhealthy due to my body fat being high, not my weight. I was just trying to state that weight is not always the best determining factor for health. My weight was in the normal range and if it would have been 150lbs of strong muscle-fied woman, it would have been a completely different story.

I had no idea 35% bodyfat= Obese. I'm also 5'7" and about 155, and I'm no where near obese, and I'm not a fitness fanatic either.

ruthie:

not just what you "fat" girls have been saying. I've been saying it all along too and i'm not "fat."

again, i want to emphasize the differences between "fat" and "overweight" and "obese." in medical terms, "overweight" refers to people who don't fit into statistical averages and charts. It doens't take into account body type and other factors that would make one person of a particular height and weight "fat" and another one "thin." in the case of the "fat" person, the body may be holding the appropriate weight, but is considered "overweight" because it doesn't fit into the average. the "thin" person may be considered "underweight" for the same reason.

So, the medical definition doesn't really work that well, when it comes to fitness and weight. Different bodies will have different weights (even if two or more people are the same height), some will look "fat" and others will look "thin." Either one can be healthy or unhealthy.

To me, overweight and obese refer to people who are over the weight that their natural body type would hold if they had a consistantly healthy diet and exercise. For me, this could mean 140 lbs at 5 feet 7 inches. My sister, at 140 lbs and the same height, is *underweight* for her body type. But, when she hits 160, she's overweight again. When she consistantly exercises and maintains a healthy diet, she's 150 lbs to my 125. That's a huge difference for two girls from the same parents who are the same height. We have *very* different body types.

The real point here is fitness, not weight, although weight does have it's place. It's just difficult to discern--just by looking at a person--if they're fit and fat, fit and thin, overweight and fat, underweight and thin, or even overweight and thin and underweight and fat. How confusing is that?

Our culture is so obsessed with the graphs and charts, but what Zoe said is so right on. Most body builders, male and female, are considered overweight, obese even, although the naturals (those who don't juice) are some of the healthiest people on earth. Everyone is just so different.

If any VBers ever peaked at veganfitness.net they'd be "horrified" to see that almost everyone there, men and women, are trying their darndest to gain weight and these are not "underweight" people according to any BMI chart. They're looking for muscle/strength gains that can only be achieved by feeding your body good, healthy grub in large quantities. :up:

Very cool article! Awesome, awesome, awesome.