I think the problem here is that every day overweight dudes who lift weights are being labeled as bodybuilders. (Or maybe that’s not the case in which case Im very confused)
That doesnt really make sense to me. All of the bodybuilders I know, the guys who meticulously keep track of their food, take lifting as serious as any other part of their life, and who have aspirations to compete, dont look like shit at all. Age be damned.
Stop calling gym rats “bodybuilders” and this problem goes away.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]RussaldoStrong wrote:
Why would you start a thread to demonize someones goal in life? Weather or not you want to get big, if someone else does, good for them.
Have they set goals? Do they work hard to achieve them? If the answer to both of those is yes, then weather you agree with what they are doing or not, just say “good job” and move on.
[/quote]
I guess for the same reason the guy who runs the site decided to write an article about it. To generate discussion.
And
Youre criticizing someone for critizing someone else. Strange.
You could have done exactly what youre telling the OP to do when there are differing opinions; acknowledge it and move on. [/quote]
Touche…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
If this article had been about checks and balances, i.e. not pursuing size at all costs, it would have been fine. But that’s not at all how it came off. Instead, it came off as saying skinny lean guys are better bodybuilders than fat huge guys. I don’t see that there’s a difference. Maybe that’s the livespill comments skewing my perspective, but like VT said, most of the guys praising the article were 160-pounders. If that’s the cause TC was meaning to champion, then this isn’t really a bodybuilding site…it’s a dieting site. For the record, I’m about 210 at 5’9" and don’t ever plan on going higher than 225, so I agree with a lot of what you guys are saying.[/quote]
I agree. This article makes it sound like the goal is no longer to even gain muscle mass. That can ONLY bring up a bunch of people already making no progress now using that as a justification.
As far as old large people, first lifting weights isn’t even popular with most people over the age of 50. It is a lifestyle issue that is generational.
Second, hormonal issues are the largest factor for why most men lose muscle mass in large amounts as they age past the age of 50. These could be studied and effectively countered if the current stigma surrounding hormone treatment (which is a stance this very article seems to be upholding) wasn’t keeping that from happening.
Balance in your own life should be the goal, not some declaration by guys in their 50’s that gaining muscle is for nothing because they mistakingly relate big muscles with poor health.[/quote]
It wasn’t the point of the article and it wasn’t my point. The point of the article was, a lot of guys are on a constant bulk and carry more junk that necessary and it’s unhealthy (it absolutely is). My point was as middle age nears, it’s not healthy to be 250 plus no matter what the composition. It’s a strain on your heart - period. End of story. Keep twisting the article and my point to justify what you want to do - it’s transparent and ridiculous. NO ONE said “big muscles = poor health”. You’re building a strawman (big surprise on these forums) to justify your pursuits. Your pursuits need no justification.
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]TheCanadian wrote:
In regards to the lack of very well-built dudes over 65, wouldn’t their generation have a lot to do with it as well? The youngest of these guys would have been born in 1946- while this puts them right in the prosperity of the post-war era during their development, doesn’t it also mean they were subjected to all the brand-new synthetics and associated increase in environmental toxins that came around in that era? Wouldn’t that have a dramatic effect on their long-term digestive capacity etc. and the degradation of their faculties later in life as the body was more stressed by its environment during its lifetime? Add to this the enormous increase in proper information on nutrition and exercise that has become available with the advent of the internet, and it seems logical that accordingly there are a lot more big guys walking around today period than there ever were before.
I’m not arguing that being 250#s+ is or isn’t healthy/practical in the long-term, but rather proposing why our current crop of old people are far less likely to carry a large, muscular physique into later life than those who will grow old in upcoming decades. [/quote]
How dare you use logic and reasoning in your post to counter the OP! [/quote]
LOL are you serious? He closes by reiterating my point.
And by the way, you’re the “manatee” the article is speaking of. Do you actually believe you’re healthy? Really? Do you make any money powerlifting? I’m all for getting strong as human possible - I pursued it with vigor for years. But how smart is pursuing strength in a pseudo-sport - YES, “pseudo-sport” at all costs? Excuse me, but powerlifting is a joke with all the organizations, the ridiculous disparity in rules among organizations, the drugs, the equipment, etc. It will NEVER receive Olympic recognition and the average person doesn’t even know what the fuck powerlifting is.
The guy reiterated my point that being 250lb plus is not healthy or practical long term. Duh, I think that was my “OP”. My OP never said anything about being small and weak. I’m 240 and lean right now at age 46, drug-free, with a chronic degenerative neck problem. I’m wondering…how many guys here exactly are 240 and lean drug free? Fuck it, even with the drugs? How many? Bueller? Bueller? Does it fucking sound like I’m intending or advocating that we strive for the Brad Pitt body?
Gimme a motherfucking break. Seems to me that those that protest the loudest might see themselves in the unflattering commentary of the article (manatee or insecure).
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]TheCanadian wrote:
In regards to the lack of very well-built dudes over 65, wouldn’t their generation have a lot to do with it as well? The youngest of these guys would have been born in 1946- while this puts them right in the prosperity of the post-war era during their development, doesn’t it also mean they were subjected to all the brand-new synthetics and associated increase in environmental toxins that came around in that era? Wouldn’t that have a dramatic effect on their long-term digestive capacity etc. and the degradation of their faculties later in life as the body was more stressed by its environment during its lifetime? Add to this the enormous increase in proper information on nutrition and exercise that has become available with the advent of the internet, and it seems logical that accordingly there are a lot more big guys walking around today period than there ever were before.
I’m not arguing that being 250#s+ is or isn’t healthy/practical in the long-term, but rather proposing why our current crop of old people are far less likely to carry a large, muscular physique into later life than those who will grow old in upcoming decades. [/quote]
This was a good post.
Above all else, GENETICS are what can allow one man to get bigger than another with no health consequences. Making blanket statements like some seem to be doing is illogical.
Claiming that the lack of built old people is because size killed the rest off is completely off base. Declining digestion, declining hormones, loss of motor skills and joint damage are the main reasons.[/quote]
Again. STRAWMAN. No one said “build old people”. Excessive size is not healthy. You claim to be a fucking doctor every chance you get, so go speak to a cardiologist.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
I think the problem here is that every day overweight dudes who lift weights are being labeled as bodybuilders. (Or maybe that’s not the case in which case Im very confused)
That doesnt really make sense to me. All of the bodybuilders I know, the guys who meticulously keep track of their food, take lifting as serious as any other part of their life, and who have aspirations to compete, dont look like shit at all. Age be damned.
Stop calling gym rats “bodybuilders” and this problem goes away. [/quote]
Good stuff Bonez.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, I would say if you are 40+ and just maintaining your body weight as you get older, unless you are really into bodybuilding and focused on body composition, it is likely you are losing muscle and gaining body fat unless you are seeing regular progress in the gym.
Someone like that could end up at age 50, weighing the same as they did at 40, yet carrying an extra 20-30lbs of body fat.
To my knowledge, many of the people responding aren’t even into bodybuilding actively meaning you can’t relate their actions to someone who is.[/quote]
How is it that you identify so strongly with “bodybuilding”?? When have you ever stepped on stage? I’m not aware that you ever competed. If I’m wrong, please correct me. If I’m not wrong, aren’t your associations similar to a guy that consistently does the “big 3” while claiming to be a “powerlifter”? Even the kid that totaled 700 in his first and only meet got off his ass and onto stage to see what he can do. He’s a “powerlifter”. How is one a “bodybuilder” that never competed? Do you have a contest coming up? Do you have plans to compete? I’ve been here as long as anyone (different screen name in the beginning) and I remember you from the start and I don’t recall you ever competing.
Now, I’m asking this question is complete earnestness. I’m wondering exactly what your mind set is because you quite liberally waive the bodybuilding flag and are generally divisive among those that you consider “bodybuilders” and those that are not. Enlighten me please.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
If this article had been about checks and balances, i.e. not pursuing size at all costs, it would have been fine. But that’s not at all how it came off. Instead, it came off as saying skinny lean guys are better bodybuilders than fat huge guys. I don’t see that there’s a difference. Maybe that’s the livespill comments skewing my perspective, but like VT said, most of the guys praising the article were 160-pounders. If that’s the cause TC was meaning to champion, then this isn’t really a bodybuilding site…it’s a dieting site. For the record, I’m about 210 at 5’9" and don’t ever plan on going higher than 225, so I agree with a lot of what you guys are saying.[/quote]
I agree. This article makes it sound like the goal is no longer to even gain muscle mass. That can ONLY bring up a bunch of people already making no progress now using that as a justification.
As far as old large people, first lifting weights isn’t even popular with most people over the age of 50. It is a lifestyle issue that is generational.
Second, hormonal issues are the largest factor for why most men lose muscle mass in large amounts as they age past the age of 50. These could be studied and effectively countered if the current stigma surrounding hormone treatment (which is a stance this very article seems to be upholding) wasn’t keeping that from happening.
Balance in your own life should be the goal, not some declaration by guys in their 50’s that gaining muscle is for nothing because they mistakingly relate big muscles with poor health.[/quote]
It wasn’t the point of the article and it wasn’t my point. The point of the article was, a lot of guys are on a constant bulk and carry more junk that necessary and it’s unhealthy (it absolutely is). My point was as middle age nears, it’s not healthy to be 250 plus no matter what the composition. It’s a strain on your heart - period. End of story. Keep twisting the article and my point to justify what you want to do - it’s transparent and ridiculous. NO ONE said “big muscles = poor health”. You’re building a strawman (big surprise on these forums) to justify your pursuits. Your pursuits need no justification. [/quote]
? I am saying that someone making a blanket statement about what weight is unhealthy shouldn’t be making anymore blanket statements.
Also, how would you know who is on a “constant bulk” and who has a goal you aren’t aware of?
I didn’t diet down before because I wasn’t the size I wanted to be. I feel I am now. How would you or anyone else know the difference without speaking to me?
Also, what is your definition of “bulked”?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]TheCanadian wrote:
In regards to the lack of very well-built dudes over 65, wouldn’t their generation have a lot to do with it as well? The youngest of these guys would have been born in 1946- while this puts them right in the prosperity of the post-war era during their development, doesn’t it also mean they were subjected to all the brand-new synthetics and associated increase in environmental toxins that came around in that era? Wouldn’t that have a dramatic effect on their long-term digestive capacity etc. and the degradation of their faculties later in life as the body was more stressed by its environment during its lifetime? Add to this the enormous increase in proper information on nutrition and exercise that has become available with the advent of the internet, and it seems logical that accordingly there are a lot more big guys walking around today period than there ever were before.
I’m not arguing that being 250#s+ is or isn’t healthy/practical in the long-term, but rather proposing why our current crop of old people are far less likely to carry a large, muscular physique into later life than those who will grow old in upcoming decades. [/quote]
This was a good post.
Above all else, GENETICS are what can allow one man to get bigger than another with no health consequences. Making blanket statements like some seem to be doing is illogical.
Claiming that the lack of built old people is because size killed the rest off is completely off base. Declining digestion, declining hormones, loss of motor skills and joint damage are the main reasons.[/quote]
Again. STRAWMAN. No one said “build old people”. Excessive size is not healthy. You claim to be a fucking doctor every chance you get, so go speak to a cardiologist. [/quote]
? I wrote “builT old people” in relation to your own claim that there are no big old people…to which people have posted pics of big old people and I wrote that size didn’t kill old people off or keep them from getting old.
I know yelling “straw man” is your usual defense, but it doesn’t seem to be flying here at all.
You just seem upset because people are challenging you.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, I would say if you are 40+ and just maintaining your body weight as you get older, unless you are really into bodybuilding and focused on body composition, it is likely you are losing muscle and gaining body fat unless you are seeing regular progress in the gym.
Someone like that could end up at age 50, weighing the same as they did at 40, yet carrying an extra 20-30lbs of body fat.
To my knowledge, many of the people responding aren’t even into bodybuilding actively meaning you can’t relate their actions to someone who is.[/quote]
How is it that you identify so strongly with “bodybuilding”?? When have you ever stepped on stage? I’m not aware that you ever competed. If I’m wrong, please correct me. If I’m not wrong, aren’t your associations similar to a guy that consistently does the “big 3” while claiming to be a “powerlifter”? Even the kid that totaled 700 in his first and only meet got off his ass and onto stage to see what he can do. He’s a “powerlifter”. How is one a “bodybuilder” that never competed? Do you have a contest coming up? Do you have plans to compete? I’ve been here as long as anyone (different screen name in the beginning) and I remember you from the start and I don’t recall you ever competing.
Now, I’m asking this question is complete earnestness. I’m wondering exactly what your mind set is because you quite liberally waive the bodybuilding flag and are generally divisive among those that you consider “bodybuilders” and those that are not. Enlighten me please.[/quote]
Dude, you can call me what you wish. I really don’t care. I know what my goal is and I know no one is looking at me and assuming I am not lifting for a reason.
I have no interest in arguing about whether you alone acknowledge what I am after or my goals.
No one cares.
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, I would say if you are 40+ and just maintaining your body weight as you get older, unless you are really into bodybuilding and focused on body composition, it is likely you are losing muscle and gaining body fat unless you are seeing regular progress in the gym.
Someone like that could end up at age 50, weighing the same as they did at 40, yet carrying an extra 20-30lbs of body fat.
To my knowledge, many of the people responding aren’t even into bodybuilding actively meaning you can’t relate their actions to someone who is.[/quote]
as guys get chronologically older, alot of times their test turns to estrogen. thats why a good AI would prevent that and keep these guys from losing muscle and gaining fat. plus there are tons of supplements out there that can prevent the loss of test. you guys really need to check out the latest supplements a bit more. [/quote]
You wreak of “Dumbfuck”
And I lol’d hard at the twilight analogy. Well done fattroll
[/quote]
its good that you had a laugh. i also laughed at the fat troll comment. given most guys in any gym would chew their own mothers arm off to have my chest size and shoulder width. but back to the twighlight comment. yes i realize it was a movie. but i was simply making a point that obviously went over your head. i simply meant that it doesn’t matter what your age is, people don’t know how old you are. people only go by what they see. if they see youthful, then you will be percieved as young. [/quote]
I find it sort of funny that youve completely derailed a thread to talk about how you wish you were a vampire and are also happen to be EXACTLY the type of person being referred to when the author said “most bodybuilders look like crap”.
[/quote]
that article has come under attack by quite a few people. lets get real. that article is for small guys to complain. to make excuses. “oh, its much better to be small and lean” even though once you put on a shirt, nobody even knows you workout. yep, sign me up for that. no thanks, ill stick with my 58 inch chest and 20+ inch arms and mile wide shoulders and back. that article was written by one guy with an opinion to help small guys feel better cause they aren’t big. [/quote]
You sound real fucking insecure. But I’m stating the obvious at this point. This thread is one big fucking Freudian orgy for some of you. It’s damn entertaining…and revealing.
[quote]LiquidMercury wrote:
I love how you’re so specific about your chest and arms and than go on to say “mile wide shoulders and back”. The article was written about tempering goals and aspirations with costs I’d say, not simply as a “pick-me-up” article for smaller guys.[/quote]
Wow. Someone that can actually read without Freudian blinders.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
Wonder if PF paid for this article, seems like the kind of stuff pencil-neck office warriors and overweight stay at home moms would be happy to read.
[/quote]
LOL…and those same types here will love it…the ones crying steroids at every turn but won’t post pictures of what they apparently spent years working on.
The mentality is a little like people who say, “don’t get a tattoo because you will hate it when you are 60”.
It is as if they forget all of the life to be lived before then.
Getting old sucks. It has to be the greatest villanous act mankind has ever known.
However, for people who are older to turn around and tell every young guy to avoid aspirations because somne old guys who weren’t really even into bodybuilding got high blood pressure is a little off.
The OP even admitted he got big without even trying…which is not bodybuilding. This isn’t someone who spent years working on building the most muscle possible on a balanced frame so I have no doubt he can easily discard of a dream he never even had.[/quote]
You’ll never change. You’re a funny fucking dude for real.
Is what you’re doing “bodybuilding”? When do you plan to compete?
Now you imply my frame is “imbalanced”? LOL. No one could ever guess my weight when I weighed 275 - a sure sign that I was balanced. “Discard” the dream I never had? There you go with this bodybuilding v. everyone else divisiveness you’re great at. I got a fucking newsflash for you bro - this site was NEVER solely a “bodybuilding” site - EVER. If it were, I’d have never fucking signed up.
Still building strawmen eh? My dream was to total “elite”. If I get my neck issues together, I can still do that at a lighter weight. My decision was to no longer carry ANY junk whatsoever. Keep building scarecrows X.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]behexen wrote:
How old are you prof. X? At what age did you start training? Outside of the expected newbie gains at what age has training gone the most smoothly for you? Where do you feel is the peek where your body starts to go the other way and fight against you?
[/quote]
I doubt I will bulk up anywhere near what I have in the past from now on…which was the plan from the start.
[/quote]
OH MY MOTHERFUCKING GOD?! YOU MEAN YOU’RE NOT GOING TO PURPOSEFULLY EVER GET BIGGER THAN YOU ARE NOW? I RECALL SAYING SOMETHING LIKE THAT! LOL IT’S ALWAYS INTERESTING “CHATTING” WITH YOU.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]RussaldoStrong wrote:
Why would you start a thread to demonize someones goal in life? Weather or not you want to get big, if someone else does, good for them.
Have they set goals? Do they work hard to achieve them? If the answer to both of those is yes, then weather you agree with what they are doing or not, just say “good job” and move on.
[/quote]
I guess for the same reason the guy who runs the site decided to write an article about it. To generate discussion.
And
Youre criticizing someone for critizing someone else. Strange.
You could have done exactly what youre telling the OP to do when there are differing opinions; acknowledge it and move on. [/quote]
And I don’t exactly recall “criticizing” anyone. Well, except for now I’m criticizing X’s reading comprehension… and a few others too. My OP was cautionary, sharing personal experience and giving my support for the actual point of the article - not to pursue size at the expense of your health and, yes, alot of you motherfuckers “bulking” look like shit.
I’ll probably leave it alone by borrowing a heavily used “Xism” (I hereby make claim to the perpetual rights to “Xism” and if anyone starts an “Xism” thread, I’ll sue for copyright infringement) by saying I am bigger, stronger and look better than “99% of the guys on this site” - I believe X pretty much defended the guy that made the spurious incline bench claim with the same sentiment and I’m pretty sure if I was black, he’d be using oft-used cliche to defend me. Oh, and he’d tell some people that they don’t even look like they work out for good measure.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
I think the problem here is that every day overweight dudes who lift weights are being labeled as bodybuilders. (Or maybe that’s not the case in which case Im very confused)
That doesnt really make sense to me. All of the bodybuilders I know, the guys who meticulously keep track of their food, take lifting as serious as any other part of their life, and who have aspirations to compete, dont look like shit at all. Age be damned.
Stop calling gym rats “bodybuilders” and this problem goes away. [/quote]
I asked X who is a “bodybuilder” is but I doubt I’ll get anything other than a vitriolic response in defense of himself.
So please, tell me what you constitutes a “bodybuilder”…
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]behexen wrote:
How old are you prof. X? At what age did you start training? Outside of the expected newbie gains at what age has training gone the most smoothly for you? Where do you feel is the peek where your body starts to go the other way and fight against you?
[/quote]
I doubt I will bulk up anywhere near what I have in the past from now on…which was the plan from the start.
[/quote]
OH MY MOTHERFUCKING GOD?! YOU MEAN YOU’RE NOT GOING TO PURPOSEFULLY EVER GET BIGGER THAN YOU ARE NOW? I RECALL SAYING SOMETHING LIKE THAT! LOL IT’S ALWAYS INTERESTING “CHATTING” WITH YOU.[/quote]
TRY EATING MORE CHEESEBURGERS PROFESSOR X!!!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
If this article had been about checks and balances, i.e. not pursuing size at all costs, it would have been fine. But that’s not at all how it came off. Instead, it came off as saying skinny lean guys are better bodybuilders than fat huge guys. I don’t see that there’s a difference. Maybe that’s the livespill comments skewing my perspective, but like VT said, most of the guys praising the article were 160-pounders. If that’s the cause TC was meaning to champion, then this isn’t really a bodybuilding site…it’s a dieting site. For the record, I’m about 210 at 5’9" and don’t ever plan on going higher than 225, so I agree with a lot of what you guys are saying.[/quote]
I agree. This article makes it sound like the goal is no longer to even gain muscle mass. That can ONLY bring up a bunch of people already making no progress now using that as a justification.
As far as old large people, first lifting weights isn’t even popular with most people over the age of 50. It is a lifestyle issue that is generational.
Second, hormonal issues are the largest factor for why most men lose muscle mass in large amounts as they age past the age of 50. These could be studied and effectively countered if the current stigma surrounding hormone treatment (which is a stance this very article seems to be upholding) wasn’t keeping that from happening.
Balance in your own life should be the goal, not some declaration by guys in their 50’s that gaining muscle is for nothing because they mistakingly relate big muscles with poor health.[/quote]
It wasn’t the point of the article and it wasn’t my point. The point of the article was, a lot of guys are on a constant bulk and carry more junk that necessary and it’s unhealthy (it absolutely is). My point was as middle age nears, it’s not healthy to be 250 plus no matter what the composition. It’s a strain on your heart - period. End of story. Keep twisting the article and my point to justify what you want to do - it’s transparent and ridiculous. NO ONE said “big muscles = poor health”. You’re building a strawman (big surprise on these forums) to justify your pursuits. Your pursuits need no justification. [/quote]
? I am saying that someone making a blanket statement about what weight is unhealthy shouldn’t be making anymore blanket statements.
Also, how would you know who is on a “constant bulk” and who has a goal you aren’t aware of?
I didn’t diet down before because I wasn’t the size I wanted to be. I feel I am now. How would you or anyone else know the difference without speaking to me?
Also, what is your definition of “bulked”?
[/quote]
Keep nitpicking my friend and I’ll keep burning your strawmen. A constant bulk is an expression for a fat motherfucker. It’s an expression. If you don’t get the point of the article and you don’t get my OP, go read them again without your personal bias.
As a “doctor” are you advocating the pursuit of size at the expense of health? Are you advocating constantly walking around with excess adipose?
And while you’re at it, I guess you can apply your direct and veiled criticisms at Dave Tate too. Because I was basically echoing the sentiment he expressed not too long ago, except I don’t believe my blood work was anywhere close to how bad he was. My stuff was only moving in the wrong direction - nothing was alarming. But Dave probably has nothing valuable to say, because he aint a fucking bodybuilder, he got big and never really had the dream to be “balanced” so he so “easily discarded it”. LOL
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
I think the problem here is that every day overweight dudes who lift weights are being labeled as bodybuilders. (Or maybe that’s not the case in which case Im very confused)
That doesnt really make sense to me. All of the bodybuilders I know, the guys who meticulously keep track of their food, take lifting as serious as any other part of their life, and who have aspirations to compete, dont look like shit at all. Age be damned.
Stop calling gym rats “bodybuilders” and this problem goes away. [/quote]
I asked X who is a “bodybuilder” is but I doubt I’ll get anything other than a vitriolic response in defense of himself.
So please, tell me what you constitutes a “bodybuilder”…[/quote]
How about ‘someone who is actively working towards competing in a bodybuilding contest’?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]TheCanadian wrote:
In regards to the lack of very well-built dudes over 65, wouldn’t their generation have a lot to do with it as well? The youngest of these guys would have been born in 1946- while this puts them right in the prosperity of the post-war era during their development, doesn’t it also mean they were subjected to all the brand-new synthetics and associated increase in environmental toxins that came around in that era? Wouldn’t that have a dramatic effect on their long-term digestive capacity etc. and the degradation of their faculties later in life as the body was more stressed by its environment during its lifetime? Add to this the enormous increase in proper information on nutrition and exercise that has become available with the advent of the internet, and it seems logical that accordingly there are a lot more big guys walking around today period than there ever were before.
I’m not arguing that being 250#s+ is or isn’t healthy/practical in the long-term, but rather proposing why our current crop of old people are far less likely to carry a large, muscular physique into later life than those who will grow old in upcoming decades. [/quote]
This was a good post.
Above all else, GENETICS are what can allow one man to get bigger than another with no health consequences. Making blanket statements like some seem to be doing is illogical.
Claiming that the lack of built old people is because size killed the rest off is completely off base. Declining digestion, declining hormones, loss of motor skills and joint damage are the main reasons.[/quote]
Again. STRAWMAN. No one said “build old people”. Excessive size is not healthy. You claim to be a fucking doctor every chance you get, so go speak to a cardiologist. [/quote]
? I wrote “builT old people” in relation to your own claim that there are no big old people…to which people have posted pics of big old people and I wrote that size didn’t kill old people off or keep them from getting old.
I know yelling “straw man” is your usual defense, but it doesn’t seem to be flying here at all.
You just seem upset because people are challenging you.[/quote]
I’m not upset at all. I’m annoyed when my points are misrepresented. By the way, I hate to fucking break it to you, but a man in his 60’s is not “old”. If all you care about is making it to your 60’s, then that’s your problem. I want to make it beyond 80 and healthy. Excess weight is excess weight as you age - it’s a strain on your heart. Your heart DOES NOT distinguish between fat and muscle - it’s an increased load, ASK ANY CARDIOLOGIST!. For crying out loud, you claim to be a “doctor” - at least have an informed opinion and an understanding of my point.