interesting thing I noticed

[scissortooth]

I was in the mountains this weekend and on the routes I saw a lot of young a middle-aged fat women... Almost all of them seemed to be in good or even very good shape and travelled a lot of kilometres, up- and downhill just as easy as the slimmer ones. What I realized, however, that all of them were either pears, hourglasses or had this kind of body where fat goes more or less evenly everywhere... Not a single apple though. Either this was just a coincidence or apple-shaped women get ouf of shape much easier - which would make sense, because most complaints I heard from BBWs about back pain, joint pain and generally fat-related health issues were coming from ladies who carried most of their weight in their middle.

Anyone else noticed something like that? I think this might have something to do with the whole visceral vs subcutaneous fat thing plus impact of weight distribution on body balance...

[litmus]

My ex-wife is an apple.  During our early years together she went from 150 to 185 (5'4") then leveled off and stayed at that weight for over a decade.  She walked almost every day and swam frequently.  We did lots of day hiking and she did well.  She was slow going uphill and needed rest breaks to keep from overheating, but she and I could easily do 15 mile day hikes with 4,000-5,000 ft of elevation change.  Near the end of our marriage she started having some digestive problems and some hip pain and decided to loose weight back down to about 150. 

I guess my general observation would be that it is all about keeping moving.  Being moderately overweight or even technically obese can be OK if you are getting regular activity.  Being sedentary is not good for you at any size.

[scissortooth]

My ex-wife is an apple.  During our early years together she went from 150 to 185 (5'4") then leveled off and stayed at that weight for over a decade.  She walked almost every day and swam frequently.  We did lots of day hiking and she did well.  She was slow going uphill and needed rest breaks to keep from overheating, but she and I could easily do 15 mile day hikes with 4,000-5,000 ft of elevation change.  Near the end of our marriage she started having some digestive problems and some hip pain and decided to loose weight back down to about 150. 

I guess my general observation would be that it is all about keeping moving.  Being moderately overweight or even technically obese can be OK if you are getting regular activity.  Being sedentary is not good for you at any size.

Well you won't see me arguing against your conclusion .

Still, in my post I was thinking more about weight range of 250+ lbs, perhaps I should have underlined that. I did see apple-shaped ladies on these routes, but basically up to barely above 200 lbs, at least according to my quick estimation. I also don't recall seing any very fat guys there... To sum it up, there were lots of slim and overweight people of both sexes, but the only people I saw over approx. 250 lbs were pear/hourglass shaped fat women.

My wife actually surprised me a lot there. She is around 250 lbs herself, is not too active most of the year, and she went through 4 hours of walking on rocks and uphill/downhill without any joint pain or exhaustion. And it was actually her first attempt at something like that... Previously we did walk for such long periods during holidays, but those were mostly slow strolls on level terrain. This was our first time in the mountains together and I was a bit anxious that any plans for longer walks may turn to dust, but the reality turned out to be positively surprising as you can see.

[Guest An Optimist]

Well you won't see me arguing against your conclusion .

She is around 250 lbs herself, is not too active most of the year, and she went through 4 hours of walking on rocks and uphill/downhill without any joint pain or exhaustion.

It's a thing that creeps up on people. Plenty of old and ex-soldiers have worn down joints from all these patrols with 120+ lbs of gear. This is a new thing - soldiers in WWII rarely carried more than 40-50 lbs in combat and the Germans marched all the way to the Caucasus (and back) carrying no more than 30 kgs per soldier..

I'm thinking it's probably because women are under more pressure to lose weight, and also more likely to tag along their mates. Meanwhile fat dudes in denial aren't gonna hike.

15 mile day hikes with 4,000-5,000 ft of elevation change. 

That's pretty good for civilized people. If only everyone did that each weekend.. heart doctors would have far less work.

I went on my first hike this year, and I was alone my tempo was somewhat higher. Climbed up 1000m in 1.5 hours..which was a little rough on 3 kms, paused 30 mins.. then descended 1000m on 12 kms in 2.5 hours (doozy).

Saw some fat people, but they'd be described as merely 'chubby' in America . Second leg, only met one guy with a dog.

[noelle-chan]

I think it's the level of activity that a person gets acclimated to. Personally speaking, I started off with short distance cycling (like, maybe only 2mi) and kept working at going for longer distances. Anyone who isn't used to hiking, fat or skinny, would have a tough time (albeit the fat one probably harder). If I slack off for awhile, my endurance goes down than if I'm regularly riding/hiking/running.