# Pear Shaped vs Apple Shaped - Associated Health Risks Equal for Both



## Green Eyed Fairy (Jul 30, 2017)

I've read for years that being an apple shape is more "dangerous" far as a human being's health is concerned. New research is showing that is just not so...




> In the obesity war, the pear shape loses ground
> Pear-shaped? Apple-shaped? On the front lines of fighting fat, doctors say new research on body type will help them combat dangerous weight.



http://www.startribune.com/in-the-obesity-war-the-pear-shape-loses-ground/192089321/


----------



## DragonFly (Jul 30, 2017)

Interesting read, as an apple I have always gotten the weight in the middle speach.


----------



## Dr. Feelgood (Jul 30, 2017)

I'm not sure what the study actually _does_ show. First we're told that subcutaneous fat generates the "same damaging proteins" as belly fat. _What_ damaging proteins? We don't know, because the article says nothing about them; instead, it goes on to say the danger is that any kind of body fat puts us in peril of many (unspecified) diseases. Neither assertion is discussed in further detail, as far as I can see. FWIW, I recently read a book on obesity, diabetes, and the metabolic syndrome -- by an endocrinologist -- which made no reference to the generation of "dangerous proteins". I'm always a little leery of articles on obesity in the popular press: they don't always tell the same stories as the articles I read in online medical journals, but they are ALWAYS stridently in favor of weight loss at any cost. But then, doctors don't put ads in the papers, and the weight-loss industry does. And the first rule of journalism is "never offend a major advertiser."


----------



## agouderia (Aug 1, 2017)

I can only second Dr. Feelgood's approach.

Having bumped into this issue in various languages, the question of the effects of visceral fat is extremely fuzzy science, to put it mildly.

In the quoted article in English, they're talking about "damaging proteins". In German, they claim these are "metabolically active messenger substances". In French, they speak of "inflammatory molecules".

So what exactly is it???

Trying to transfer "findings" of which medical science hasn't even established an understanding of what they are, is on par with medieval medicine.

Right now there is so much money in "obesity research" and such an audience for fat fear-mongering, that any nonsense will be published.


----------



## HereticFA (Aug 4, 2017)

Chemerin, a protein associated with inflammation and atherosclerosis.

Link to summary of actual article with downloadable PDF:
https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article-lookup/doi/10.1210/jc.2012-3673

I suspect they skewed the study by requiring participants with central obesity and that already exhibited symptoms of systemic inflammation. So it appears they rejected true pear body types with a minimal tummy that didn't have signs of inflammation.

From the 'Subjects and Methods':



> Briefly, the subjects classified as having MetS had at least 3 risk factors to sustain the diagnosis, including central obesity, hypertension (or on antihypertensive medications), and dyslipidemia (low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol[HDL-C] and/or high triglycerides [TGs]150 mg/dL and afasting and plasma glucose between 100 and 125 mg/dL) (1).


So as usual, the popular press interpreted the study incorrectly. It didn't provide any measure of whether an apple vs pear body type was more likely to have metabolic syndrome (MetS). It was to show _which_ reactive proteins were present and to what degree in the pre-diabetic state of MetS.


----------



## Tracii (Aug 7, 2017)

I love how some publishing office with a fancy name somehow is considered a medical expert.
Any one of us could give ourselves a fancy important sounding name and publish a paper just like that.
In the end its only their opinion.


----------



## HereticFA (Aug 7, 2017)

Tracii said:


> I love how some publishing office with a fancy name somehow is considered a medical expert.
> Any one of us could give ourselves a fancy important sounding name and publish a paper just like that.
> In the end its only their opinion.


If you're referring to the JECM where the original article appeared, it is a peer reviewed publication of the century old Endocrine Society. If they're not qualified to write about endocrine issues we're all in trouble

If you're referring to the OP link to the Star-Tribune, I just chalk it up to the mainstream media not being competent to write about anything outside of food, entertainment, fashion or sex. My expectations of their work product being correct are extremely low based on a half dozen personal interactions with reporters over the years.


----------



## BigElectricKat (Aug 9, 2017)

All this talk of apples and pears is making me hungry!


----------

