Does fitter mean healthier?

Yes, fit people live longer:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2707428

This is the correct take. For a long time it has been incorrectly assumed that it was the body fat % level itself that was the issue with RED-S, but this isn't quite accurate. Body fat % and caloric intake are somewhat related at more extreme ends of consumption, but not 100% correlated.

In my case, I had amenorrhea as a teen. At this time my body weight was about the same as it is now without amenorrhea. My body fat % is probably lower now. This is counterintuitive but is supported in literature - female athletes who have a caloric deficit tend to have a higher % body fat than those who don't. This is because the caloric deficit messes with hormone levels, which influence body composition.

I hit rock bottom physically pretty quickly (within 1 year) of amenorrhea and had to take a season off. At this time there wasn't so much awareness in doctors so I had to DIY it. I read some scientific articles that suggested that I should try to increase my caloric intake, and the amount of protein I was eating. I did both of these things, recovered, and got faster. Many young women like me end up busted and toast before age 20 because there is no intervention. I am >30 and still running at a high level, setting PRs.

getting there wrote:

In terms of aging, we all know to get fitter or faster you've got to stress the body for adaptation.

But does fitter mean healthier?

Here's my story and, I know, I'm only one person:

I'm 62 I've been running for 50 years. Up until the last 5 years or so I averaged only about 40-55 mpw.

I raced but was very mediocre (16's for 5K, 2:49 for a marathon [off of 50 mpw]) I really only did pushups, pullups and crunches for cross training.

I ate A LOT- both healthy and unhealthy.

Now, my doctor says I'm very healthy. He says my blood work numbers are what they should be for a healthy person 30 years younger.

Oddly- my testosterone is over 300 "points" higher than what is considered acceptable for a person 30 years younger than I am.

Now, I run 3 mile a day or so 5-6 days a week and do some core work a few times a week.

A plus- Since getting a divorce I've dates women MUCH younger than me- they say it's because guys their age are immature and selfish.

Keep running but don't over do it.

Oh yeah- I have a full head of thick (but grey) hair.

Pretty sure that people at the highest levels of fitness tend to get sick more than people who are simply fit.

Anyone have anything on this?

No

No

runn wrote:

Since getting a divorce I've dates women MUCH younger than me- they say it's because guys their age are immature and selfish.

Now it's time to work on your grammar skills young man.

Apparently the longtime Boston Globe sports writer, Dan Shaughnessy, now 68 yrs. old, has been running

just one mile a day for decades.

He looks trim, healthy; I wonder; has this limited daily effort done much for his health, or is he wasting

his time? Most likely he’s never had injuries…

Fit means different things for many people.

Just look at this old man

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vfyphm9EkgI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfAfulgAaZg

getting there wrote:

In terms of aging, we all know to get fitter or faster you've got to stress the body for adaptation.

But does fitter mean healthier?

No. It absolutely does not mean that. You can be super fit and yet have a chronic health condition that makes you not healthy. A few years ago there was that professor who had pancreatic cancer, and he accepted he was going to die. He was a fit person and even did pushups at some of his talks to show the tragic irony.

Being fit helps keep a person healthy...lowers cholesterol, good for brain health, helps keep certain cancers at bay.

But, no, you can not look at a fit person and just determine that they are healthy.