Despite what the latest headlines have been screaming at you, I would say –

It depends.

For one thing, it depends on what your definition of “fit” is. 

So here’s a study that is only looking at two very specific things – BMI and cardiovascular disease (CVD).   

https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjpc/zwaa151

And the researchers find

In summary, increasing PA levels appear to provide benefits in an overall dose-response manner (regularly active > insufficiently active > inactive for the risk of hypertension or diabetes) across BMI categories and should be a priority of health policies. However, weight loss per se should remain a primary target for health policies aimed at reducing CVD risk in people with overweight/obesity.

So.  Exercise good.  For EVERY BODY.

Fat people (even ones who exercise) are still at risk for CVD.

So I don’t have a problem with a conclusion that, according to their data, exercise does not eliminate the increased risk of CVD in fat people.

That was what the study was about.  Right?

They didn’t have to point out the fact that more and more studies (INCLUDING ONES THAT ARE LISTED IN THEIR OWN FUCKING PAPER) are showing that there is a protective quality to fat when it comes to coronary events (like the two new studies which recently came out: Association of obesity indices with in-hospital and 1-year mortality following acute coronary syndrome (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41366-020-00679-0) and The obesity paradox in the stress echo lab: fat is better for hearts with ischemia or coronary microvascular dysfunction (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41366-020-00655-8 ) finding even more protective qualities of fat in connection with coronary events. 

Their study wasn’t on what survival after a coronary event.

The first problem is the authors claim they

“[R]efute the notion that a physically active lifestyle can completely negate the deleterious effects of overweight/obesity.”

WTF?

This is what is known as a “strawman argument”.  A strawman is a fallacious argument that distorts an opposing stance in order to make it easier to attack. Essentially, the person using the strawman pretends to attack their opponent’s stance, while in reality they are actually attacking a distorted version of that stance, which their opponent doesn’t necessarily support.

Saying you can be fat and fit does not reflect any notion that being fat and fit COMPLETELY NEGATES any deleterious effects of anything! 

As far as I know, nobody is saying that exercise makes you illness-proof (or death-proof).

You’d have to be a special kind of stupid to think that that is what “fat and fit” means.

Second, their conclusion regarding weight loss does not appear to reflect what they studied.  Their study was not about the relationship between weight loss and CVD risk.  So to conclude that weight loss should be the primary target for health policies seems to be totally outside the purview of the study. 

WTF?

And of course, as usual, the reporters did not bother to look at the actual study, instead, they decide to trumpet what the researchers are claiming (erroneously):  that being fat and fit is not possible – Never mind that the researchers have created their own “special” (i.e. strawman) definition of the concept of being fat and fit.

And everybody ignores the fact that LONG TERM SIGNIFICANT WEIGHT LOSS IS NOT ACHIEVABLE FOR ALMOST ALL HUMANS.

Bad reporters, no cookie.  In fact, here’s a smack upside your head. 

And here’s a couple more for those researchers.