For a while, the narrative has been that fat in the abdomen (the so-called apple shape) is more problematic as far as health. A new study suggests that being pear-shaped may not be as benign as once thought:
Fat in the abdomen has long been considered the most detrimental to health, and gluteal fat was thought to protect against diabetes, heart disease, and metabolic syndrome. … But our research helps to dispel the myth that gluteal fat is ‘innocent.’ It also suggests that abnormal protein levels may be an early indicator to identify those at risk for developing metabolic syndrome. …
The team found that in individuals with early metabolic syndrome, gluteal fat secreted elevated levels of chemerin and low levels of omentin-1—proteins that correlate with other factors known to increase the risk for heart disease and diabetes. …
High chemerin levels correlated with four of the five characteristics of metabolic syndrome and may be a promising biomarker for metabolic syndrome.
I’ve long maintained that fat (adipose tissue) is not benign. That said, this study still is only showing correlation. It may well be that the inflammation caused by other sources (bad diet, lack of sleep, stress) may be as much if not more responsible for metabolic syndrome and related diseases.
But if you’re a pear (that’d be me), this study does suggest that you may want to stop thinking that your lower body fat is somehow safe because it’s not around your waist.
Weight Maven is written by Beth Mazur. Beth believes that obesity is more symptom than cause and that the real problem is our Western diet -- especially sugar, refined grains, and industrial oils. Beth writes about nutrition, ancestral health & food policy. And cats! 
Beth,
Indeed, I would agree that obesity, regardless of the anatomical location, is the culprit. Thank you for pointing this out!
Thanks for commenting David! Hope all is well since AHS12!
I can tell you from experience from going to pear to apple that pear is not benign.
Shopping for pants when you are a pear sucks! As an apple you only have to worry about your waist. When you’re a pear, If it fits your waist it doesn’t fit your thighs! If your an apple, it fits your waist, but wears like a dress the rest of the way down.
I realize that sounds superficial, but shopping for clothes when overweight is already an awful experience. I’m ‘Petite Plus’ and that makes it harder. Yes, short and fat.
I’ve walked for hours through department stores when young trying to find pants that fit. You’d think I’d been thin with all that walking (yes, that was a joke) but no.
The internet has made shopping for pants much more pleasant. I can order things in my size and even get the manufacturers size chart.
Despite that, I’d rather be a pear again. They look better.
Addressing the concept Re: different kinds of adipose tissue…
I’ve been looking for research on the differences in functional processes (e.g., leptin signalling, dopamine levels, etc) between adipose tissue as it operates physiologically before weight loss—exceeding, say, 10% of fat tissue (i.e., before significant adipose cell shrinkage) vs. post weight loss adipose cell functioning. The role of leptin, for example, seems to be compartmentalized in researchers’ minds (and in minds of most who know even vaguely the classification of leptin as a hormone and thus involved with signalling related to homeostatic conditions) as “that hunger hormone”; however, leptin was only recently *discovered* and acknowledged as a key player in metabolic-neuroendocrine homeostatic systems.
Anyway, I keep wondering why it is widely assumed that post obesity adipose tissue—*shrunken* fat cells in large numbers (forgive laymen’s terms)—is “healthier” (contributes to less morbidity) than adipose tissue before weight loss. Is it maybe related to the lack of research subjects who have maintained long term weight loss? I’m just asking. I really don’t know. And it just seems like such an important piece of weight loss/weight loss maintenance that *should* be researched and better understood (especially given the massive advocacy for weight loss as a “controllable” means to achieve improved health.)
I realize I’m hoping for a lot, but research about adipose cell functioning (e.g. as hormone-producing tissue, including apart from its role in appetite/hunger signalling) post weight loss might yield useful knowledge. I guess the implicit $64 billion question would include “Useful for whom?”
That is a *really* great question! I did get a bit excited about the idea of adipose cell apoptosis after a period of maintenance, but that’s likewise an unknown. For now, most researchers get excited about changes in markers (like cholesterol, blood pressure etc) when those changes are likely as a result of the intervention (improvement in diets and/or exercise) and not as a result of fat loss.