For those who have even the smallest pinch of spare flesh, the latest health study to emerge from the US, declaring half of fat people are just as healthy as slim people, makes you want to run straight to the nearest baker and buy a celebratory cream puff.
After all, we've spent decades being hammered with the notion that being even slightly porky is wicked. The idea is so entrenched that in a comparison of two people, one slim and one fat, the thin one would probably have to be grey and pustulated to be judged least healthy. So let's enjoy a small hallelujah before the next sobering expert comes along to inform us otherwise. Among the revelations from this University of South Carolina research is the fact some fat people remain "metabolically healthy" even though their body mass index would suggest they are not. Additionally, among those with heart problems, those who are underweight are worse off than those who are fat. Though I'm not very fat myself, this seems of particular relevance, since, last week, my five-year-old son asked me the mortifying question, "Why am I slim and you big?" I tried to suggest that this was because I was older, but he retorted, "But daddy's slim too and he's older."
Rather than deluge him with my own private torrent of indignation and pointing out that I do running, unlike his dad, or that I do eat quite healthily – a fact which he seems already to know, since he assumes that anything I like must, horror-of-horrors, be healthy – I simply hurled the word "metabolism" at him. My son is a bit sceptical about "healthy things", but nevertheless he seems to have gleaned that it's better, in this world, to be thin than fat.
A study like this one is hardly going to reverse that. But at least it provides a puncture to the bloated body of thought that suggests fatness is immoral, irresponsible and downright bad.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article