Aging bodybuilders

So having 100 extra pounds of muscle and tendons to support your joints is supposed to cause problems?

Yes apparnetly...
""That extra weight, whether muscle or fat, makes the heart work harder than it must"" -

-is a excerp from a link I post below, its about a death cases of pro wrestlers, you can do further reaserch on this but most of them died of cardio vascular failure (heart problems)...some links those cases with steroid usage, but is it simple as that?

Pro Wrestler's Deaths
 
Check my first post again, It's not about the side effects of steroids or being strong. It's about carrying around to much weight as a result of having too much muscle mass. I mentioned steroids to eliminate the steroid-related symptoms from the overall symptoms to hopefully isolate the ones caused by carrying around too much mass. But as you see some posters point out, it's very hard to isolate them because huge mass gain and steroids go hand in hand with today's bodybuilders.

I think having a lot of added muscle probably has a deleterious effect on health and longevity, although imo the main cause is not the burden of having too much weight to carry, but the ill effects of the increased caloric intake necessary to build-up and keep the added muscular tissue.
 
No, Arnold was born with a genetically abnormal aortic valve, and his father had to have the same surgery at the same time

excuses!
why should he train so hard whole life and use steroids and smoke - if he knew whole time he had some abnormalities in his CV system??

And so said ppl of Mike Mentzer when he died age 49 of heart attack, and his brother Ray 2 days after him and...I dont have a list of body builders died prematurely or who at least had some heart problems, it may be even longer then "wrestlers death list"
 
Seiger sounds like you're making too many assumptions. I will use myself as a primare example. I started at 140 lb with 15-18% bf at 16 ...10 years later I am now 215-220 at 6-7% bf.....having never done steroids/prohormones/hgh......with only about 5 years of serious lifting. granted some weight was gained through some maturation process but I was still pretty pudgy......by your statements this is not possible...my genetics are far from great.......I am also not remotely trying to gain weight...ie stuffing myself with protein shakes 2-3 times a day and taking in a lot of high calorie meals....if I tried to do that and had a bigger supplement budget I could probably gain another 10-15 lb without too many problems as can most other who increase their caloric intake...

have you ever done some low rep lifting for prolonged periods(ie 95-101 of 1rm)?...

DevilsSon,
I think I didn't make too many assumptions. In fact I only assumed two different starting weights (160 vs. 230 lbs). In my post I was referring to adult, full-grown individuals. At the age of 16 one is still a full teenager. There are a lot of muscle and strength gains that take place naturally from 16 to 21-22. I meant the latter starting point. Nonetheless, your gains are impressive, especially the modification of your body composition. How did you measure your bodyfat?
What is your height?
90% of the time I only train in the powerlifting range (85-95% of 1rep max, 3-6 reps for me), since I can't bear muscle soreness or muscular burning sensation. This training scheme prevents me from having them. At times I do train in the bodybuilding range (8-12 reps) as a way to put my joints to rest. The 3-6 reps range is really hard on them.
 
Check my first post again, It's not about the side effects of steroids or being strong. It's about carrying around to much weight as a result of having too much muscle mass. I mentioned steroids to eliminate the steroid-related symptoms from the overall symptoms to hopefully isolate the ones caused by carrying around too much mass. But as you see some posters point out, it's very hard to isolate them because huge mass gain and steroids go hand in hand with today's bodybuilders.

I don't see any reason why having naturally large muscles would have long term negative side effects. Not any worse than being fat for the long term, and more than likely much better than being fat.
 
I think having a lot of added muscle probably has a deleterious effect on health and longevity, although imo the main cause is not the burden of having too much weight to carry, but the ill effects of the increased caloric intake necessary to build-up and keep the added muscular tissue.

As long as you're eating a healthy variety of foods (i.e. lots of vegetables, fish, few junk foods), I don't see why the volume would matter...
 
Yes apparnetly...
""That extra weight, whether muscle or fat, makes the heart work harder than it must"" -

-is a excerp from a link I post below, its about a death cases of pro wrestlers, you can do further reaserch on this but most of them died of cardio vascular failure (heart problems)...some links those cases with steroid usage, but is it simple as that?

Pro Wrestler's Deaths

Clearly the cause of death was they were in too-good of shape. :rolleyes:
 
DevilsSon,
I think I didn't make too many assumptions. In fact I only assumed two different starting weights (160 vs. 230 lbs). In my post I was referring to adult, full-grown individuals. At the age of 16 one is still a full teenager. There are a lot of muscle and strength gains that take place naturally from 16 to 21-22. I meant the latter starting point. Nonetheless, your gains are impressive, especially the modification of your body composition. How did you measure your bodyfat?
What is your height?
90% of the time I only train in the powerlifting range (85-95% of 1rep max, 3-6 reps for me), since I can't bear muscle soreness or muscular burning sensation. This training scheme prevents me from having them. At times I do train in the bodybuilding range (8-12 reps) as a way to put my joints to rest. The 3-6 reps range is really hard on them.

You don't even know what intensity is. You can't bear muscle soreness? Get out.
 
You don't even know what intensity is. You can't bear muscle soreness? Get out.

I really don't like to get sore muscles (It kinda remembers me of bodybuilding :D). I'm not a professional athlete, so there's no need for me to bear them. Delayed onset muscle soreness is not related to the effectiveness of a training session aimed at strength gains. In fact people get sore the most by doing bodybuilding routines. Moreover, most of the posters here are not powerlifters. They use weight training solely to improve their fighting performance. Getting sore from the gym is not a desirable effect, since it will hinder their performance on the mat.
And what has intensity to do with the content of my previous post?
 
As long as you're eating a healthy variety of foods (i.e. lots of vegetables, fish, few junk foods), I don't see why the volume would matter...

TrinitronMaximu, The problem lies fundamentally not in the kind of food (even though it also plays an obvious role). It has to do with the effects of a pure increased energetic intake.
The beneficial effects of caloric restriction on health and longevity are well-known to science. The cause for this fact lies in the mitochondrial respiratory chain, which in the process of generating ATP from dietary substrates also produces free radicals. A diminished caloric intake means less substrate for the respiratory chain and therefore less free radicals production. That's the biochemical basis for the healthy effects of moderate caloric restriction. Now imagine the opposite scenario, in which one has to dramatically increase his caloric intake in order to build-up and keep muscle mass. There would be a much greater substrate supply for the respiratory chain, and thus a bigger free radicals production. It's possible that over decades this would have a deleterious effect on health.
 
TrinitronMaximu, The problem lies fundamentally not in the kind of food (even though it also plays an obvious role). It has to do with the effects of a pure increased energetic intake.
The beneficial effects of caloric restriction on health and longevity are well-know to science. The cause for this fact lies in the mitochondrial respiratory chain, which in the process of generating ATP from dietary substrates also produces free radicals. A diminished caloric intake means less substrate for the respiratory chain and therefore less free radicals production. That's the biochemical basis for the healthy effects of moderate caloric restriction. Now imagine the opposite scenario, in which one has to dramatically increase his caloric intake in order to build-up and keep muscle mass. There would be a much greater substrate supply for the respiratory chain, and thus a bigger free radicals production. It's possible that over decades this would have a deleterious effect on health.

Is the bold part your theory, or have there been actual studies on this?
 
Clearly the cause of death was they were in too-good of shape. :rolleyes:

there is no such thing as "too good shape". of course it depends wholy on how you define good shape. if being in good shape means to you 22 inch arms and 6 pack abs (although you cant run half a mile without gasing) then we have not much to discuss.

I know we have all being brainwashed by bodybuilding magazines to see it that way,and that looks is everything today but it just may not be just that black and white.

Im not saying that fat is better than lean muscle of course, its more like that too much of anything is usualy not good thing and so may be the case with "too much muscle" (whatever that means)

someone said tha muscle loss is big issue as we age. I agree. but that doesnt rule out that too much muscle can trouble our heart and overall health over the course of years an if it is the case I dont want to close my eyes in frot of it but I would rather know it!
 
I'd just like to point out that the heart is a muscle.
 
sorry for my last post, couldnt resist, lol...anyway you are aware that larger heart muscle is illnes in itself and serious one?? athletes do have somewhat bigger heart-muscle but only to certain degree. if you have it bigger then that, you are in serious trouble which only proves - too much muscle can get you killed
 
there is no such thing as "too good shape". of course it depends wholy on how you define good shape. if being in good shape means to you 22 inch arms and 6 pack abs (although you cant run half a mile without gasing) then we have not much to discuss.

I know we have all being brainwashed by bodybuilding magazines to see it that way,and that looks is everything today but it just may not be just that black and white.

Im not saying that fat is better than lean muscle of course, its more like that too much of anything is usualy not good thing and so may be the case with "too much muscle" (whatever that means)

someone said tha muscle loss is big issue as we age. I agree. but that doesnt rule out that too much muscle can trouble our heart and overall health over the course of years an if it is the case I dont want to close my eyes in frot of it but I would rather know it!

Not too many of us have been brainwashed by bodybuilding magazines. With the exception of Devilson, there aren't any of us that are truly lean. We care about strength. Some of us care about conditioning too.
 
Fat and strong 4 lyfe. Devil is going to be a cop, donuts and ho-ho's will turn that physique around.
 
*pouts*

Or does lean imply noticeable muscle mass?

Dude, you're just skinny. You're not lean in the same sense that BB'ers and DS are lean. You're lean like Keira Knightly is lean.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,234,826
Messages
55,310,353
Members
174,732
Latest member
herrsackbauer
Back
Top