My statement doesn’t have any power in qualifying for health insurance. A fit 300lber and an obese 300lber are in no way going to see anything past 75 years old. I was talking about longevity. …[/quote]
What are you basing this on? Someone who weighs 250lbs will live fewer years than someone 200lbs? What studies are you using to back up claims like this? Why use an extreme like “300lbs” when there is a very minute portion of the population who could even reach that much weight and be lean at the same time?
My grandfather was pretty damned stacked. His forearms were huge and had veins running down them that looked like fire hoses. He weighed over 200lbs when he was 70 years old. Guess what? He is still alive and it hitting 76. He is sick right now and has lost weight due to the illness, but your assumptions are only that…assumptions. People subconsciously seem to WANT there to be something wrong with bodybuilding. They look for the smallest details to support this thought. Does it really hurt that much to accept that the huge bastard standing next to you with 20" arms is just as healthy as you are? Is it that painful to comprehend?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Does it really hurt that much to accept that the huge bastard standing next to you with 20" arms is just as healthy as you are? Is it that painful to comprehend?[/quote]
You know this is an excellent point.
There seems to be a notion in general population that athletes we see on TV (you know the top guys and gals) are not generally healthy. I often hear people say something like “…yeah, sure that Olympic gold medalist got his medals, but how long is he going to live?..”. Basically the notion seems to be that big sport is not healthy and since in big sport we see very fit folks, this preconception seems to transfer on other sport activities, like body building.
And it may be true that some or many (I don’t have the numbers) of the top athletes are not healthy, but it doesn’t mean that other people involved in body building and watching
their nutrition are not healthy either or may not live long. It is not that it is painful to comprehend that someone with a lot more muscle is healthier or just as healthy as a skinny guy, it is just that there seems to be misconception that really muscular guys must be doing something funny to get to that point, like taking drugs, etc. It is a matter of general public not being educated on the subject and of course there?s an ego that can tell
someone that the bigger guy must be all f*d up, because he just can?t be as good or better then a skinny guy.
Indeed. And while I know we are trying to have an intellegent discussion based on facts, I must say that most of the people that I have come across that tell me being big is not healthy tend to be fat out-of-shape people that wouldn’t have a clue about health, or super skinny people who buy into the belife that the only way to be healthy is to do rediculous amounts of cardio. If anyone could explain that to me it’d be great ^_-
OK, this is partially on topic here. I was listening to NPR about a month ago and I heard about new studies that suggest C-reactive protein (CRP) measurements predict heart attacks far better than cholesterol levels. This may to some extent explain why seemingly fit people with good blood tests suddenly drop dead with heart attacks. The cardiologist that NPR interviewed was himself an avid runner with good cholesterol levels that had a heart attack. He later learned that his CRP ratio was in the danger zone. I guess the liver produces CRP when there’s inflammation anywhere in the body, which people are starting to associate with chronic disease.
It was suggested that CRP levels are a cumulative measurement of damage caused by lifestyle. I don’t know anything more than what was said in the segment, so this is a shot in the dark to explain why being frickin huge could be unhealthy.
[quote]HoratioSandoval wrote:
I don’t know anything more than what was said in the segment, so this is a shot in the dark to explain why being frickin huge could be unhealthy.[/quote]
How do you come to that conclusion when your example is that of a runner and not a bodybuilder? Wouldn’t the proper conclusion be that running could put you at more risk? Like I said, people will overlook simple evidence in order to “prove” to themselves that bodybuilding is bad. Nothing in your statement suggests that bodybuilding is detrimental to health, especially since you decided to show no actual links to studies to even support the claim against runners.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
HoratioSandoval wrote:
I don’t know anything more than what was said in the segment, so this is a shot in the dark to explain why being frickin huge could be unhealthy.
How do you come to that conclusion when your example is that of a runner and not a bodybuilder? Wouldn’t the proper conclusion be that running could put you at more risk? Like I said, people will overlook simple evidence in order to “prove” to themselves that bodybuilding is bad. Nothing in your statement suggests that bodybuilding is detrimental to health, especially since you decided to show no actual links to studies to even support the claim against runners.[/quote]
OK, I guess my post didn’t come off quite right. Here’s a link with a basic explanation of CRP:
I was just trying to show that medicine is still coming up with new explanations as to why healthy looking people (both bodybuilders and cardio freaks) could be actually unhealthy. It seems like the conventional wisdom is that going to extremes is unhealthy (ie. Ronnie on the T-mag deathwatch lists,) but there’s not too much consensus as to how these are extremes are exactly going to kill them.
Some people may be applying the idea that a candle can only burn so bright for so long. Sure ,that sounds silly to apply to a living being,but it shouldn’t stop people who are attracted to oversimplification.
[quote]HoratioSandoval wrote:
OK, I guess my post didn’t come off quite right. Here’s a link with a basic explanation of CRP:
I was just trying to show that medicine is still coming up with new explanations as to why healthy looking people (both bodybuilders and cardio freaks) could be actually unhealthy.[/quote]
I understand CRP, but relating cardiovascular event markers to bodybuilding is a huge leap that even that article didn’t make. Even your previous example of a doctor who ran all of the time yet experienced an infarction actually points to those who stress their body through endurance related activities.
What you and many seem to forget is that some people are actually genetically designed to carry more muscle mass than others. Personal info: I was over 260lbs over a month ago. I am probably just under 250lbs now (dieting). Every guy in my family is built like they could substitute for a Dallas Cowboy lineman, even though I worked hard to get to this size. My arms were over 15" before I ever started lifting…and I thought I was skinny. My blood pressure is checked pretty regularly simply because the equipment is around me all day long. The last time I checked my bp at a weight of over 260lbs, it was 130/72. I wasn’t even doing regular cardio at the time because I was trying to put on weight. This, of course, is completely different than some guy who can’t even break 200lbs and then jumps on GH and everything else he can get his hands on just to reach what came to me because of my parents. That means you can not look at someone who happens to carry a lot of muscle and make some blanket statement about how they are less healthy than someone smaller. It is a retarded concept that seems to only have one or two objectives…to make smaller men feel better about being small and to make the general population feel better about being sedentary. According to some in this thread, even though I am considered “healthy”, I must be getting ready to die sooner than some 150lbs guy simply because I take up more space. Unless someone has some studies that show size relates directly to death rates regardless of body composition, this thread could end right here.
I think you kind of hit on your answer to an extent when you mentioned the bodybuilders who aren’t able to walk a mile. Or having things in life become more difficult physically, etc, because of being huge.
If you’re looking to even out your physique and health ratio’s while on a quest to get bigger I would spend most of your time centering around building FUNCTIONAL hypertrophy and strength, and not so much on “show off” muscles.
Look for some of the strength and conditioning articles in the archives.
[quote]edvizard wrote:
Does anybody know of any men in their 60s, 70s, 80s or beyond who have trained hard since their teens/20s, and continue to do so at an advanced age? It would be interesting to know what aging effect weight training has had on these people. …
[/quote]
As was mentioned in another thread, Jack LaLanne would be the best-known example. The man is in his 90s, still works out vigorously, and remains in excellent shape. There are also plenty of anecdotal stories of people over the age of 60 working out with weights; their bone densities tend to be higher than those of similar age who don’t lift. In short, there is a lot of positive evidence to support weightlifting as a beneficial lifetime activity.
Another thing is, and some have implied this. Some of this kind of talk is just making excuses for being a 175lb pussyass. “Dude, sure he’s 220, but he could have a hearattack at any minute” …despite the fact that the bigger guy has lower bf. Classic.
I don’t really think its that, or at least it wasn’t for me. I can’t even imagine weighing in at 220 (that would take me years im sure as I would need to gain 50 pounds of muscle). I was just wondering what the benefits/consequences of being huge were. I fully intend to get as big as I want to be, I was just wondering about some of the health concerns/benefits.
There is actually a direct linear correlation to miles run by elite runners over 25 miles/week and the chance of cardiac infarction. At over 50 miles/week a person is more likely to have a coronary infarction than a completely sedentary individual. (That’s average over the course of a year). I have known runners who averaged over 75 miles a week for a year. Remember that aerobic exercise is a free radical producing engine. Free radicals cause heart attacks.
Actually, all exercise is free radical producing. Granted aerobic exrcise produces more. However, If you lift hard for and hour or so I don’t imagine you are producing less free radicals than if you jog for 30 minutes or so.
The answer is to make sure that you are consuming anti-oxidants in their proper quantities. Best done by eating fresh fruits and vegetables. Also, supplement with certain key nutrients.
As far as extra body weight goes, I think that if it’s muscle and you are living, eating and training properly you will be fine.
I don’t think so. Free radical production is proportional to calories expended. An elite 10 K runner burns about 200 cal/mile at top speed. That’s 1200 in less than 30 minutes. Remember that oxidative metabolism happens in the mitochonria which are non-existant in white muscle fiber. Even the most extreme estimate I have read is that Arnold burned about 2000 calories in 2 1/2 hour workout and did something like 110 total sets + posing. That’s 13 cals/minute or 19 per set. If I did 30 hard sets in an hour that would be maybe 500 cals. Also, the problem is pushing free radical production above free radical removal.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
There is actually a direct linear correlation to miles run by elite runners over 25 miles/week and the chance of cardiac infarction. At over 50 miles/week a person is more likely to have a coronary infarction than a completely sedentary individual. (That’s average over the course of a year). I have known runners who averaged over 75 miles a week for a year. Remember that aerobic exercise is a free radical producing engine. Free radicals cause heart attacks.[/quote]
Didn’t Florence Griffith Joyner die this way? Why didn’t this send the message to the general public that running was dangerous? Yet people are looking hard for evidence that large muscles kill you? I am not even trying to make the claim that running equals death, but you would think that if this reaction towards bodybuilding was non-biased, then the same paranoia would relate to those who do cardio like their lives depended on it. Since it doesn’t, the pussy factor is all it can be attributed to.
For the record, there’s nothing wrong with pussy…just don’t be one.
My statement doesn’t have any power in qualifying for health insurance. A fit 300lber and an obese 300lber are in no way going to see anything past 75 years old. I was talking about longevity. …
What are you basing this on? Someone who weighs 250lbs will live fewer years than someone 200lbs? What studies are you using to back up claims like this? Why use an extreme like “300lbs” when there is a very minute portion of the population who could even reach that much weight and be lean at the same time?
My grandfather was pretty damned stacked. His forearms were huge and had veins running down them that looked like fire hoses. He weighed over 200lbs when he was 70 years old. Guess what? He is still alive and it hitting 76. He is sick right now and has lost weight due to the illness, but your assumptions are only that…assumptions. People subconsciously seem to WANT there to be something wrong with bodybuilding. They look for the smallest details to support this thought. Does it really hurt that much to accept that the huge bastard standing next to you with 20" arms is just as healthy as you are? Is it that painful to comprehend?[/quote]
I love it how you accuse people of the very thing you are doing. I ain’t at 20" arms but 17" & growing… I have nothing against weight. Please direct me to the 200lb 75+ men…who are fit. I would love to have them to point to and say “See…I’ll be fine” These are more the anomaly.
X just because I believe thinner people last longer doesn’t mean I’m a thin guy. I just dropped 15lb and am now 260. I’m not what seems to be the typical T-Forum kid who wishes to be 125lbs of sinewy fightclub abs.
Show me a study proving your point and I’ll show you a study disproving it. Studies come and studies go. Reality where I’m at and have been is I do not see, know, meet, hear of…200lb…180lb…nor 175lb muscular men over 60…65…70…75…
Show me the research where this has been studied…I’d be curious to the see the n used. I bet dollars to HOT-ROX it’d be miniscule.
Please direct me to the 200lb 75+ men…who are fit. I would love to have them to point to and say “See…I’ll be fine” These are more the anomaly.
…
Reality where I’m at and have been is I do not see, know, meet, hear of…200lb…180lb…nor 175lb muscular men over 60…65…70…75…
[/quote]
As far as I can tell, fit 25 year old men that weigh 200+ lbs. are an anomaly (maybe they all die before they reach 20?). But maybe I haven’t been paying attention and DC is some mystical magical place where everyone except Dick Cheney is huge, ripped and healthy.
Out here in the real world, the vast majority of people in all age brackets are weak and unhealthy. Being fit, muscular and healthy at any age takes education, hard work, consistency and determination… Any one of these qualities is outside the capabilities of the average person. That’s what sets this site and it’s readers apart. To keep it up into the 70s and beyond is just that much more impressive an accomplishment. We don’t see many people like this simply because very few people are are mentally capable of the achievement. Jesus, I’m 25 years old and I know maybe ONE person I would say is in excellent shape (I’m sure the sedentary ones are just planning to outlive us).
Most of the people I know who are getting on into their 60’s and 70’s are in bad shape and health for reasons that have NOTHING to do with having been too physically fit and active. If you are arguing that being a weak, flabby piece of shit is the hot ticket because everyone else is doing it, well sorry but I just disagree with you.