> because they are healthy now. In the long run, the percentage of fat above normal increases the likelihood of heart attack and metabolic syndrome, which leads to diabetes.

Not the opposite? Do metabolic cracks lead to hard-to-smelt fat? You simply won’t check it. Growth above the norm also leads to overload of the heart, but this does not mean that cutting out the extra centimeters returns from the risk group back to the golden middle. To argue that this whole apple makes any sense, you need to take thousands of pairs of identical twins (or tens of thousands of pairs of randomly mixed people) with a slight superiority, and divide them into a control group that runs, jumps, cuts wood in the fresh air and weighs as much as possible, and a test group that does the same plus slightly restricts the diet to drive the weight into the statutory framework of domesticated diet leaders. And here on them already to see if the second is really healthier than the first years after 30.
And the stupid statistics that these are thicker and live less, and these are slimmer and live longer - this is the same statistics that are on the list after a gross lie. Because "the bull has two horns and two eggs", but this does not mean that one is the consequence of the other. There are two correlating consequences of one reason – the fact that it is a bull.