Fitness vs Fatness…A false Dichotomy
In yesterdays discussion the common logical fallacy was brought up about the false dichotomy between “fitness” and “fatness”. This is a false dichotomy because ‘fitness’ is not the opposite of ‘fatness’…not always.
To start off we have to define the logical fallacy “false dichotomy”
A false dichotomy is an erroneous reduction of many possibilities down to only two. Essential creating an either/or situation that doesn’t exist.
In the case of fitness vs fatness the false dichotomy assumes that the opposite of fit is fat when in reality it is not.
The opposite of fit is unfit, and the opposite of fat is lean.
This doesn’t mean there can’t be some overlap between fatness and being unfit, and being lean and fit, but they are not categorically the same things.
At this point we need another definition…what is ‘fitness’?
I’d say fitness is a poorly described term at best. a quick browse of the interwebs will give various descriptions but it’s not that obvious what fitness is.
It seems to be a vague idea of being able to sustain some level of exercise without losing your breath (but not necessarily a distance runner type of endurance)…it doesn’t seem to really relate to maximum strength (as many powerlifters and strong men are massively strong but not what people would consider ‘fit’)
It seems to relate to having a lower heart rate than average, lower blood pressure than average, and good to above average blood markers of health (LDL, HDL, total cholesterol, triglycerides, total lipid profile etc)…it might also have something to do with VO2 measurements (volume of oxygen you can consume while working out)
If you want to get really text book geekish then ‘fitness’ simply refers to genetic superiority/preference as a mate for producing viable offspring. (and this is one of the deep rooted subconscious reasons we’re attracted to healthy and ‘fit’ looking bodies)…so perhaps this is the best definition of all…
It doesn’t seem that fatness is really the opposite of fitness, at least not all of the time…it seems the opposite of fit is simply unfit.
With that said I think there is a continuum of fatness that eventually becomes a good indicator of a lack of fitness.
In other words, someone who is carrying around 10-20-30 and even 40 extra pounds of fat could still have very good markers of fitness, they could easily be able to run 10 kms in a good time, be very agile, have good muscular endurance, have good blood markers of health, a strong heart, low blood pressure and all of the rest of it…they just have extra fat on them from years of overeating that they’ve not managed to burn off yet.
BUT, when it starts to become 50-60-70 pounds and beyond of extra fat it would seem reasonable that there is less and less chance this same person will have favorable blood markers of health, or be able to run any distance without pain and joint issues and lack of breath, or be able to maintain low blood pressure and a low heart rate (and all of the other measures of ‘fitness’)
So as body fat levels increase fitness seems to decrease, but there is a considerable range of bodyfat levels that most likely cannot predict fitness. I’m not sure where the cutoff is, and it doesn’t seem that there is any good data yet describing this break point.
My guess is the break point is somewhere around the 30-40 pound range of extra fat for the average man and maybe 20-30 pounds for the average woman.
It seems reasonable to assume that at some point the extra weight itself stops a person from engaging and attempting exercise that would lead to increased ‘fitness’.
At extremely high ranges of body fatness almost all measurable levels are in poor standing and can be drastically improved by simply losing weight by a calorie reduction without doing any exercise at all.
So when a very heavy person needs to get in shape…their first issue is not exercise at all, but rather weight loss by way of eating less. The simple act of eating less and losing weight would actually return any unhealthy looking markers of health and fitness back to at least ‘normal’ ranges…Once they’ve lost enough weight to resume exercising without risk, then they can actually start working on improving their ‘fitness’ level from normal to above average.
One of the biggest mistakes I see people and trainers make in the gym is taking obese people and making them train like an all star athlete in the gym. In reality the best things these people could do is start eating less and then once they’re at a lower body weight start exercising. But the trick is how to get them to eat less? I say Eat Stop Eat (yes I know this is a biased opinion, but hey I think it’s the best way to lose weight)
John
P.S. Your contribution to the discussions here are what make this blog worth writing, so I just wanted to take this moment to say thanks and keep em’ coming.
16 Responses to “Fitness vs Fatness…A false Dichotomy”
Leave a Reply
Blogs
Getting in your best shape for women
Building the perfect body for men
The most flexible diet you will ever find-
March 13th, 2010 at 11:45 am
Just as one can be thin (or even look fit) & be unfit. That’s probably why it’s a good idea to get check-ups regularly (though I don’t). As for ESE, it’s an excellent way to lose weight but maybe not the best but among the best. Only the individual can tell if it’s best for them. Obese people (who are usually emotionaly/psychologically addicted to food) probably wouldn’t do it unless extremely motivated either by money or serious health reasons. And if the latter, I’d recommend the find an experienced doctor (such as Joel Fuhrman) and go on a prolonged fast after which ESE would be an excellent protocol to maintain their diet. My two cents. –Chris
March 13th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
I wholeheartedly agree with your point, and it blows my mind how many very overweight/obese people dive in to an extreme exercise regimen right off the bat, often without making any discernible or lasting dietary changes. “The Biggest Loser” factor, I call it, but it’s alarming how many alleged “trainers” (I like “quotes”) I see pushing this point of view. Case in point, recently I saw a trainer at my gym take an overweight guy wearing knee and ankle braces, who I’m pretty sure was just pushing his VO2 max walking on the treadmill on a gentle incline, and had him doing box jumps. The worst part is, everyone in the know knows that this is rampant in the industry. They have you believe that the only way to a good body and fitness is to be a professional triathlete who also runs a 4.25 40. Don’t forget hour-long sessions on the treadmill, along with bench dips and bicep curls with the pink Barbie weights.
Usually, the people you see at the gym the most are the ones who would be best served going there the least, and focusing on their diets.
March 13th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
I don’t really know where to start with my response, because I both agree and disagree with you.
I agree that fitness and fatness are not *always* opposite. However, I believe the line where they do overlap to be much finer than you do.
I don’t know that you could actually come up with a quantifiable fitness to fatness scale, simply because there are too many variables. Let’s take markers of “fitness,” for instance.
Ability to do exercise for a length of time without losing breath: There are plenty of fat people at gyms that sustain over an hour’s worth of exercise on treadmills, ellipticals and stationary bikes without losing their breath, and they’re certainly not breathless. The description, here, I think is too vague. Maybe narrowing it down to the ability to sustain a certain percentage of your maximum heart rate for a prescribed length of time would be better.
Lower heart rate than average: Many fat people have very low resting heart rates, while many fit people can have a bit higher heart rate. There seems to be a lot of variation in this measurement, and I’m not really sure why (unless people I have informally polled simply lie about their RHR, which is entirely possible).
Low blood pressure/good lipid profile: Some of this is controlled largely by genetics, and there’s only so much that exercise can influence these variables. Maybe someone has low total cholesterol, with low bad AND low good cholesterol. They could be fat or thin. They might not do any exercise at all and be overweight and have great blood pressure and awesome cholesterol. They won the genetic lottery. Someone else may run 5 miles per day, eat a good percentage of Omega-3s, and still have high blood pressure and bad cholesterol.
Ability to turn in a “good” 10km time/be very agile: This is totally relative. How does one measure agility? What is a “good” 10km time? What is “good” can vary greatly depending upon whom is asked.
I think, though, as a general measure taken together, there is probably a lot of truth and reliability to be found in those markers. But one must be aware of the limitations of such measurements, which makes it difficult to formulate a true definition of “fitness.”
Sorry if I seem argumentative. That is absolutely NOT my intention. I do not believe that you are wrong at all. But from my perspective, the line where fatness becomes a hindrance to fitness is much less than 40 lbs. I’d put it at 10 (20 at the absolute most, and even that is pushing it).
Just judging by purely anecdotal evidence, I see a much stronger correlation between fitness and fatness than the 10-20-30-40 lbs swing for men. I’ve run many a 5 and 10k event. The top finishers are always very lean. Just from pure observation, the finishers seem to place lower the bigger they are, as a general rule (although there are obviously bigger people that have trained for the event and thin people who haven’t). It would be interesting to see a scatterplot of how someone placed versus weight in some 10ks. Sure, there would be statistical outliers, but I think the general slope would be that thinner people were faster while fatter people were not. So, in that sense, there is a correlation. I’d also like to see the R2 of that. But enough math…
I also play in competitive soccer leagues and pickup games. As a general rule, the thinner players are much tougher to defend than the bigger guys. The bigger guys, while they may have some great ball skills, simply aren’t as quick with them and can’t move their feet as quickly as the smaller guys. The bigger guys can also never outrun me, while thinner guys have a greater chance to do so. If I make a mis-step against a thinner guy, I’m going to have a much more difficult time recovering my position to stop them, if I even CAN. Against a big guy, the chance for me to recover is much greater, which allows me to take more risk when defending them (diving in for the ball, attempting to jump a passing lane, etc.).
Kansas City Chiefs coach Todd Haley made all his players lose weight this past offseason because he saw a correlation between fitness and fatness. His theory was that lighter players will perform better toward the end of games and would wear down less over the course of the season because they carry less mass. Granted the Chiefs are not very good, but late-game performance and late-season performance was much better this year than under previous regimes where the same players played at a higher weight (up to 20 lbs heavier for some of the receivers). The linemen that dropped weight mostly dropped fat, while players like the receivers, who were already at low body fat, shed some muscle mass to make the weight.
It just all boils down to how one defines “fitness.” In some ways, yes, fitness and fatness are not strictly related, and I think you’ve defined that very well. However, I think that in competition or sports, where I spend most of my recreational existence, there most certainly IS a correlation. Someone else may not see it that way at all. This is because we define fitness differently.
March 13th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
I agree with Chris R. ESE is great, but for some people it may not work as well. My husband can fast no problem, if I try to do it I automatically want to binge. However,I am able to fast after a holiday. Probably because we will fast together and have eaten enough the day before hand that we’re not too hungry anyway. It’s just easier for me to eat less each day than to cut out food, even for 24 hours. Call me weak, I just can’t do it right now.
For people who are obese, it may be better for them to work on burning more NEAT calories instead of tough workouts, like you mentioned already. Do you know much about that? I think it means non exercise activity thermogenisis which is just the calories you burn by being more active in your day to day life. Instead of sitting in front of the tv, one could go for a walk, garden or houseclean, anything just to be more active.
March 13th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Jennifer,
yes I am very familiar with NEAT. I actually did some research on it in graduate school and wrote a few papers about it. It’s also the basis for the report I wrote called “Eat Stop MOVE” haha.
My guess is the absence of NEAT from modern western lifestyles has to be in some way a contributing factor to a general weight gain.
Levine (the primary researcher and the guy who coined the phrase NEAT) presents a compelling argument that NEAT could very well be the major and primary factor for most people’s weight gain.
It’s a persuasive argument and I think it has it’s place as at least part of why people are gaining weight.
JB
March 13th, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Andrew,
All good points.
As it relates to athletics I think the two lines of fitness and fatness probably sit right on top of each other. Especially body weight dependent sports. Of course if your body is lighter you will be faster and more agile.
Interesting story about the chiefs. I’ve often wondered what an offensive and defensive line would perform like if they were all just really fit and really strong but not overweight…it seems that at some point the extra weigh an offensive tackle or guard has becomes very difficult for the defensive end/tackle to move/manipulate/challenge…so even though the offensive linemen himself is giving away some agility due to his own girth, he is at a net advantage because at the very least he is in control of where that girth is placed as compared to the defender in front of him.
It would be interesting to study the ‘ideal’ size of the perfect offensive tackle. I guess the only way to do this is look at the best offensive tackles and average their height, weight, strength, lean mass, 40 time and agility tests…the guys who can play the position best by definition must also possess the best body for that position (pure football intelligence and understanding of the game notwithstanding)
Anyway an interesting thought experiment for sure.
JB
March 13th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Great post,
March 13th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
John:
“P.S. Your contribution to the discussions here are what make this blog worth writing, so I just wanted to take this moment to say thanks and keep em’ coming.”
One of the reasons that I read this blog, buy some of your products, and listen to more and more of your advice, is that I can tell you are doing things out of an honest belief in and enjoyment of the subject matter, and also, that I think you are truly helping people, unlike some fitness experts, who recommend fighting “MORE” pounds with “MORE” (food, exercise, eating etc)
March 13th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Chris, I don’t know that multi checkups per year are necessary.
If one moderates their intake of macronutrients and cholesterol rich foods enough to maintain a healthy weight / BMI, it stands to reason that your other health markers would be good. I guess the physical comes in if you want to be in tip-top shape.
March 13th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Thanks for the NEAT reference! found this on Levine’s site:
NEAT and occupation
Matched individuals with highly active ambulatory jobs can have NEAT values of 1000 kcal/day greater than sedentary peers. In areas of nutritional need, this has implications for starvation-threatened individuals. In affluent countries, industrialized can convert high-NEAT jobs to lower-NEAT jobs and this has been associated with increased obesity rates.
Non-occupation NEAT
Dish washers
Cars
Remotes
Lawnmowers
Drive-through
Game-boy
Elevators
Snow blowers
This makes total sense, when I was a waiter in college, I could eat WHATEVER I wanted and not gain a lb, I ate more then, and I also drank approximately two pounds of fat PER WEEK in liquor calories.
March 13th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Anthony, I wasn’t advocating multiple check-ups per year by any measure. Once per year over a certain age or (and especially)if you are genetically predisposed to certain health issues. Certain diseases, like heart disease, would require aggressive changes in your eating habits to avoid problems down the line even if you look & feel healthy. And I’m basically talking about people who use excercise alone to remain within a healthy BMI while eating whatever crap they feel like.
March 13th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Unfortunately I don’t think there is a right answer here. I say find some way to persuade them to eat less by explaining that it’s:
1. ok to eat less and not dangerous
2. necessary to eat very little amounts of food (as compared to before) to lose weight
3. explain that exercise can’t match what can be achieved by eating less.
4. encourage them to find a way that works for them.
March 13th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
John, how funny u wrote this. Stephan over at wholehealthsource had this article up too:
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2010/03/false-dichotomy.html
March 13th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Yavor,
I agree that there doesn’t seem to be any simple answer here at all.
The other thing that makes it more complex is the similarity in results when an obese person simply eats less…and when a normal weight person starts to exercise more.
In the case of an obese person, their overall markers of health and fitness will improve simply from eating less…as they approach a more normal weight their health and fitness markers will also approach a more normal state…BUT once they get to ‘normal’ they would have to take up an exercise routine to become above average or better than normal…or what average people would call ‘fit’
So it seems reasonable that the intervention (diet vs exercise) is dependent upon the persons starting body fat %. Namely, really big people should start by eating less until they get to a lower body fat % at which point they could introduce exercise as well…on the other hand averaged or normal sized people can start with exercise immediately.
JB
March 14th, 2010 at 5:57 am
The older you get the more meanings ‘fit’ has.
As a kid it was the cross country run, completing it without stopping.
In high school is was all about your body appearence and somewhat how many sports you played well.
Then 20+ years old its a combination of alot of things such as cardio, how much weight you can bench, body image and if you play a sport or not.
Then once you’re older it goes back down again after your 60′s (roughly) and people of that age consider playing lawn bowls or walking the dog a way to keep ‘young and fit’ even though it’s not exactly a high intensity sport/activity.
Am I making sense to anyone?
March 14th, 2010 at 11:04 am
Good Analysis.
I’ve enjoyed Brad Pilon’s comments for quite a while,
and I’m very pleased that he led me to your comments,
and your shared podcasts.
I will be reading and listening regularly.