Poiltely_amused,
I don't see people arguing that it is better to be fat. I do see people saying that medical cat, fitness test and continual on-the-job assessment are better criteria on which to measure someone's ability to perform their role than the arbitrary once-over that guidedweapon was advocating. Moreover, the crux of his indignity appeared to be the presentation rather than the substance.
Everyone could be fitter if they spent more time training. You may have set your own level that happens to be above that required by the service, crab@saa has certainly done so by achieving the levels for those much younger - good for both of you. However, you appear to be saying that those who don't, or who can't, set the same standards are ill-disciplined; even if they meet the level required by the service.
The nub of the argument is that unless someone is about as fit as you, or fitter, they are unprofessional. This could equally be applied to flying ability, professional knowledge or CRM. Playing devil's advocate - unless you are about as good as me, or better, in all those disciplines then you are unprofessional. You can't say "but I meet the standard required " because you have already rejected that argument.
Try it another way - Do you advocate folks doing sport during working hours? Instead of getting their heads in the books? Or only after their supervisors are happy that their professional standards are satisfactory (there's that same argument again).
I agree that grossly overweight is bad, but some of the jockstrappers need a reality check on the relative merits of this one aspect versus all the other attributes that go to make up a good operator.
"We only get so many heartbeats in life - I don't like wasting mine on exercise" - Neil Armstrong.