First of all, the illustration is ridiculous. The people who created it went out of their way to make these folks look hideous. -Who the heck did the hairdo for that poor woman?
Secondly (and more importantly), it implies that almost all the fat we see is to be considered harmful, barely even mentioning the difference between "central or android fat distribution" and "peripheral or gynoid fat distribution".
The distinction isn't trivial. It may mean the difference between fat that harms health and fat which promotes health. The difference between a frail old age and a vital one.
There is a lot of evidence to suggest that a combination of higher levels of appendicular fat (and lower levels of centrally located fat) may be optimally healthful for both genders. Here are just a few, with all emphasis being mine:
Lower thigh subcutaneous and higher visceral abdominal adipose tissue content both contribute to insulin resistance*.
"Subjects with a combination of low VAT and high TSAT had the highest insulin sensitivity, subjects with a combination of high VAT and low TSAT were the most insulin resistant. These associations remained significant after adjusting for age and gender. These data confirm that visceral excess abdominal adiposity is associated with IR across a range of middle-age to older men and women, and further suggest that higher thigh subcutaneous fat is favorably associated with better insulin sensitivity. This strongly suggests that these two distinct fat distribution phenotypes should both be considered in IR as important determinants of cardiometabolic risk."
Waist and hip circumferences have independent and opposite effects on cardiovascular disease risk factors: the Quebec Family Study.
"A narrow hip circumference (adjusted for age, BMI, and waist circumference) was associated with low HDL-cholesterol and high glucose concentrations in men (P < 0.05) and high triacylglycerol and insulin concentrations in men and women (P < 0.05)."
"A narrow waist and large hips may both protect against cardiovascular disease. These specific effects of each girth measure are poorly captured in the waist-to-hip ratio."
Independent and opposite associations of waist and hip circumferences with diabetes, hypertension and dyslipidemia: the AusDiab Study
"CONCLUSION: We found independent and opposite associations of waist and hip circumference with diabetes, dyslipidemia and less strongly with hypertension in a large population-based survey. These results emphasize that waist and hip circumference are important predictors for the metabolic syndrome and should both be considered in epidemiological studies. The associations were consistent in all age groups, except in age greater than or equal to75 y. "Further research should be aimed at verifying hypotheses explaining the 'protective' effect of larger hips."
Trunk fat and leg fat have independent and opposite associations with fasting and postload glucose levels: the Hoorn study.
"If trunk fat is taken into account, accumulation of fat in the legs seems to be protective against a disturbed glucose metabolism, particularly in women."
Low subcutaneous thigh fat is a risk factor for unfavourable glucose and lipid levels, independently of high abdominal fat. The Health ABC Study.
"Larger subcutaneous thigh fat is independently associated with more favourable glucose (in men) and lipid levels (in both sexes) after accounting for abdominal fat depots, which are associated with unfavourable glucose and lipid levels."****
Hip Fractures Risk in Older Men and Women Associated with DXA-Derived Measures of Thigh Subcutaneous Fat Thickness, Cross-Sectional Muscle Area, and Muscle Density.
"We found that decreased subcutaneous fat, CT thigh muscle attenuation, and appendicular lean mass by height squared (ALM/Ht2 ) were associated with fracture risk in men, hazard ratios (HR) equal 1.44 (1.02, 2.02), 1.40 (1.05, 1.85), and 0.58 (0.36, 0.91) respectively after adjusting for age, race, clinical site, BMI, chronic disease, hip BMD, self-reported health, alcohol use, smoking status, education, physical activity, cognitive function. In a similar model for women, only decreases in subcutaneous fat and DXA CSA were associated with hip fracture risk."
"Men with a high ALM/Ht2 and low subcutaneous fat thickness had over 8 times higher risk for hip fracture compared to those with low ALM/Ht2 and high subcutaneous fat. In women, ALM/Ht2 did not improve the model when subcutaneous fat included. We conclude that the DXA-derived subcutaneous fat thickness is a strong marker for hip fracture risk in both men and women, and especially men with high ALM/Ht2 ."
I fully expect you to suggest that I would only post this if I were a "fatty". That's okay. You can kiss my fat ass! :-)