Do higher bodyweights really mean shorter lives?

[Tux]

Let's take two examples. Both guys are twins, and use a ton of drugs. Neither has bad side effects like BP, kidney, liver, etc. One guy is 5'5" 175-190 year-round and lean, the other guy goes Lee Priest style... 275 off-season and 220 3% contest time. Now, again, assuming that NEITHER guy, counting the one who is 275 half the year, has any medical danger signs, like hypo/hyperglycemia, high BP, bad lipids, kidney function, liver function, joint aches, NOTHING, will his life really be that much shorter than his twin who stays much lighter? Realize, of course, I am talking about my own situation. No matter what I've taken, high or low doses, i've never got bad lipids( except once on winny, low HDL which I took care of), no enzyme problems, no high BP, nothing at all except increased muscle. I'm 5'5", and I've been as high as 205lbs with 10% bf. I could go higher, in fact this off-season I've been toying with the idea of getting up to 210 or so, then competiting around 175-180 next summer and killing the competition. So my question really is, everything else being the same, even dosages( yes the smaller guy still takes high doses!), does carrying that extra bodyweight really shorten your life by that much? Would it make me die at 65 instead of 90? Or at 87 instead of 90? The second option I could live with, the first I could not. I always want to push things to the max, see how far I can push my limits, and extend my limits, but not at the expense of MANY years of my life. So, how long do you think the much heavier( but otherwise medically just as healthy) guy will live? Thought this question might be nice for those guys who like to be 190 and 5% year-round vs the guys like All-traps, Needsize, Quadsweep, etc. So chime in and let's here it! I'm off to take the PCAT now, when I get back you better have lots of interesting responses or y'all ain't gettin' any under the table testosterone from me once I'm a Pharmacist!

 

[riverrock]

Don't think you'll be getting too many replies on this one Tux, its way too difficult to tell. One for the medical professionals to answer I'm afraid.

 

[WannaBeBig72]

Don't think you'll be getting too many replies on this one Tux, its way too difficult to tell. One for the medical professionals to answer I'm afraid.

Yeah I mean I don't know how any one could give an informed opinion on this one, and I'm sure even the medical "experts" could never come to any agreement...

I have remember seeing research that having a severe reduced calorie diet will extend your life. That the aging process is linked to how much fuel or calories we burn...So maybe the real skinny guys with no muscle tone whatsoever are the best off, but who would ever want to live such a life???

 

[a-bomb5083]

i would think its all about the drugs, not bodyweight. there are plenty of fat people who tend to live over 50+ years old. your body can't differenciate between 275 8%bf adn 275 30%bf. weight is weight as far as your body is concerned. but you asked a question that is kind of off the wall in terms of not having any problems due to gear. that of course would not be the case. but to answer your question, if no medical or health issues occured, i think the one who stayed overweight for 1/2 the year would not live as long as the healthier, leaner one.

 

[JLA]

I don't have any scientific evidence, only anecdotal but... it seems to me once the body weight exceeds 350 or so, that some guys start dropping off.

Korey Stringer - around 350 (Minnesota Vikings)
Johnny Perry - around 400 (WSM Competitor - I was a big fan of him)
I know there are others, but can't think of them right now...

IMO, if you stay under 300 and watch everything closely, you have a much better chance of not dying young...

 

[terrapin]

It seems to be true that lower caloric diets extend life span. I think if you look at the life span of NFL players, for example, they tend to not to live as long as the average person- this could be because of the physical abuse or the diet/weight.

 

[glover]

does carrying that extra bodyweight really shorten your life by that much? Would it make me die at 65 instead of 90? Or at 87 instead of 90?

The theory is that a heavier body requires more food (energy) which requires more oxidation thus wearing out the cells and causing aging. Hence a diet high in anti oxidants is good for the body. So the answer to your question based on what science knows at this point in time is yes The higher bodyweight will age you faster because of the higher rate of oxidation. However there are many more factors that contribute to life expectancy besides oxidation, attitude, exercise, sleep, habits (smoking, drinking) etc.

 

[thelion2005]

My opinion at 61:

Genetics are so critical. Food, drugs, environment, exercise, random chance and other factors can work against your genetics or with them. For example longevity. If your family members have this, you want to promote it! Cancer ... If your family has this, you do not want to encourage it.

As you get older, life becomes about HEALTH, not image and ego as the clock ticks. You also want to just plain "feel better" and that means internal peace and freedom from pain. And ... you want every frigging second on the life clock.

So ... I'd vote for the lighter weight with low body fat levels, minimal dosage of medications, and with all blood test results within accepted ranges.

You know that silly BMI index that doesn't take into account the balance of muscle and fat and just assigns a number? Get to the top weight for your heigth and sex and make it max muscle and min fat.

This approach takes the load off your enternal organs and your joints, and lowers the potential for triggering the onset of cancer and other diseases.

 

[wutangnomo]

Here's a twist to your situation.

Guy A (the smaller lean guy) is taking a shower. He slips in the bathtub and hits his head. Dead instantly.

Guy B (the bigger guy) is at a club. Some small lean twerp doesn't like his buffness because he's getting all the chicks so he decides to stab him out of envy. Dead instantly.

Point? You never know when the hell you're going to die. Tomorrow an asteroid may strike earth and we all get vaporized. Or another massive tsunami should strike as a result of a giant earthquake that levels half the world. Who the hell knows. We go when it's our time. It may be today, tomorrow, or a few days more from tomorrow.

It's all about quality of life, not quantity.

 

[Dial_tone]

I don't believe the extra bodyweight is the issue. its the problems that usually come with extra bodyweight. Poor diet leading to clogged arteries, possibly diabetes, etc.

 

[Guvna]

the heavier guy will die sooner (all things being equal, including the largest factor-GENETICS [though genetics will never be the same, this is for the sake or argument]. Why??


1) The bigger guy has eaten more food. Food causes free radicals. Free radicals kill you faster. There are PLENTY of studies showing that the less food you eat, the longer you live.


2) The bigger guy is bigger. No matter if you are 300 of fat or muscle, the heart still has to pump the blood to support all of that mass. Tall people usually die of CHF (more than normal heigh people that is) because their heart has to pump blood against gravity that much further. this is extremely taxing on the heart, causing it to wear out faster. Same goes with people overweight (whether it be muscle or fat). True, the fatter person will have a multitude of problems that the muscular person will not, but the heart still has to sustain the extra tissue. It is more taxing, and it will wear out faster.

 

[FlexManning]

Yeah I mean I don't know how any one could give an informed opinion on this one, and I'm sure even the medical "experts" could never come to any agreement...

I have remember seeing research that having a severe reduced calorie diet will extend your life. That the aging process is linked to how much fuel or calories we burn...So maybe the real skinny guys with no muscle tone whatsoever are the best off, but who would ever want to live such a life???

Actually there's a hormone or substance released in the body, the name of which I forget, that is released during periods of starvation or underfeeding. This hormone reduces bodyfat and prolongs life in general. Obviously though there are other problems linked with starvation diets. However, in general, yes, eating less and being smaller does lead to a longer life. But of course scientists want to find a way to make this substance into a drug and make a ton of dough.

The more you eat, the more calories your body has to burn. Burning calories produces oxidants for one thing. Also, being huge, even at a low BF%, causes the heart to have to work harder.

In general, those that live into very old age are short, thin people. The statistics are offset somewhat by the fact that some diseases that will cause premature death also cause smallishness. (Remember people like Gary Coleman, Emmanuel Lewis, the guy that used to rap with Kid Rock whose name I forget, they have diseases that caused them to be of short stature. The Kid Rock midget dude has already passed away, and it's doubtful the other two will live to be 80 or whatever.)

Let's put it this way: do you know of anybody who is 80 years old and anywhere close to 7 foot tall? How about even 60? Could you imagine the Big Show at 75?

Anyway, there's a lot of variables but the long and short of it is that in fact there is evidence out there that being big, force feeding, various other related factors can shorten lifespan somewhat.

 

[silverbackn]

Yes, being heavier will take years off of your life. How many? No one can know that for sure. It's the same reason taller people don't live as long. Your circulatory system has to work harder to supply all the extra mass on your extremities. Even if you are very lean and weigh 260 (actually probably more so because muscle is way more metabolically active than fat) it taxes your heart. It's a decision we all have to make. That said, genetics play the largest role in lifespan.

 

[UA_Iron]

fluxuations in body weight like that are also not healthy

all things being equal - the lighter guy will live longer.

 

[Tux]

Hmm, some nice answers... some medically backed and some entirely made-up lol. I think genetics is probably the biggest one. I also don't buy into the "heavier guys hearts work harder" thing as much. If you're in great shape, have clean arteries, and exercise, your heart can pump more blood with LESS effort than if you were the same weight and fat. Now, if you were comparing 7ft tall against 5'5", then yes, gravity comes into play. In my case, i'm 5'5", gravity is my friend here. Extra muscle is not going to make my heart have to pump any harder, if anything, the frequent exercise will keep my heartrate lower and my stroke volume higher, meaning better cardiac output with less effort. I'd still like more replies, but I think I'm just going to get as big as I can comfortably get and still have bloodwork come back ok. If I can be 230lbs, 5% bf, with 120/80, perfect enzymes, perfect echocardiogram, cholesterol of 60 HDL and 130 total... well, by god, I'll be 230 as long as I want lol. Very unlikely that would happen, but thanks again guys for the interesting responses. Keep the coming if you like, I need a serious nap now, that test was 5.5hrs long and NO food, I'm half-dead, but damn do my abs look nice!

 

[silverbackn]

Hmm, some nice answers... some medically backed and some entirely made-up lol. I think genetics is probably the biggest one. I also don't buy into the "heavier guys hearts work harder" thing as much. If you're in great shape, have clean arteries, and exercise, your heart can pump more blood with LESS effort than if you were the same weight and fat. Now, if you were comparing 7ft tall against 5'5", then yes, gravity comes into play. In my case, i'm 5'5", gravity is my friend here. Extra muscle is not going to make my heart have to pump any harder, if anything, the frequent exercise will keep my heartrate lower and my stroke volume higher, meaning better cardiac output with less effort. I'd still like more replies, but I think I'm just going to get as big as I can comfortably get and still have bloodwork come back ok. If I can be 230lbs, 5% bf, with 120/80, perfect enzymes, perfect echocardiogram, cholesterol of 60 HDL and 130 total... well, by god, I'll be 230 as long as I want lol. Very unlikely that would happen, but thanks again guys for the interesting responses. Keep the coming if you like, I need a serious nap now, that test was 5.5hrs long and NO food, I'm half-dead, but damn do my abs look nice!

That is true, if your stroke volume in increased accordingly to the new mass and your resting heart rate is still lower then you are probably not affected as much. All I know is that when I was over 250 it was taxing to walk up stairs , but I don't do any cardio either.

 

[Guvna]

I think genetics is probably the biggest one.
.....agreed.....

I also don't buy into the "heavier guys hearts work harder" thing as much. If you're in great shape, have clean arteries, and exercise, your heart can pump more blood with LESS effort than if you were the same weight and fat.

.......Absolutely. The heart of the muscular guy IS stronger. Buuuut, his heart will do the same amount of work (amount of blood to support the tissue), but wont work as hard doing it. While the muscular guys heart will certainly be in better shape (and not work as hard relative to th fatter guy), it is still working far harder than the lighter guy that is also in good shape. Also, "being in great shape" and being in great shape plus 75 pounds over your genetic limit are two entirely different ballgames......


In my case, i'm 5'5", gravity is my friend here. Extra muscle is not going to make my heart have to pump any harder, if anything, the frequent exercise will keep my heartrate lower and my stroke volume higher, meaning better cardiac output with less effort.


.......Very true on the height thing. I sure as hell would rather be 5' 5'' at 210 than 6' 3'' at 275+ (or whatever the comperable weight would be).


perfect echocardiogram



.......ECG is only a test of PAST problems. It does not fortell future signs of problems. It only knows if the heart is screwing up "right now," or screwed up sometime in the past. FYI-My uncle died of a major heart attack not 8 days after a perfect ECG........




cholesterol of 60 HDL and 130 total... well, by god, I'll be 230 as long as I want lol. Very unlikely that would happen, but thanks again guys for the interesting responses. Keep the coming if you like, I need a serious nap now, that test was 5.5hrs long and NO food, I'm half-dead, but damn do my abs look nice!



.......I wish cholesterol like that ran in my family. What test???......

asdfasd

 

[krishna]

What about the fact the the bigger/leaner guy has been working out with weights and cardio which keeps his body and organs in good shape, as opposed to a smaller guy who barely works out at all. I think in this case, the bigger guy would be healthier and possibly have a longer life span. Now if they were two equally active individuals in good physical condition, I concur that the smaller guy would have less stress on his heart and circulatory system.

 

[Joe Stenson]

What about the fact the the bigger/leaner guy has been working out with weights and cardio which keeps his body and organs in good shape, as opposed to a smaller guy who barely works out at all. I think in this case, the bigger guy would be healthier and possibly have a longer life span. Now if they were two equally active individuals in good physical condition, I concur that the smaller guy would have less stress on his heart and circulatory system.

That's true, but there's a tradeoff. At some difference in bodyweight (obviously indeterminable) the smaller guy may outlive the bigger guy just because of the whole heart is doing less work thing.

If your heart is more efficient that's great. But how many lbs of bodyweight does each % increase in efficiency allow the body to hold?

 

[krishna]

That's true, but there's a tradeoff. At some difference in bodyweight (obviously indeterminable) the smaller guy may outlive the bigger guy just because of the whole heart is doing less work thing.

If your heart is more efficient that's great. But how many lbs of bodyweight does each % increase in efficiency allow the body to hold?

You're right, at some point ti would shift in favor of the smaller guy. But by not working out, the samller guy my not have to maintain as much weight, but his heart won't be as healthy as he just sits around and lets his arteries clog up.

 

[silverbackn]

This is pretty thought provoking. There isn't much in the medical community about this and there is definitely no line drawn as to how each heart responds to added mass. Interesting none the less.

 

[UA_Iron]

Hmm, some nice answers... some medically backed and some entirely made-up lol. I think genetics is probably the biggest one. I also don't buy into the "heavier guys hearts work harder" thing as much. If you're in great shape, have clean arteries, and exercise, your heart can pump more blood with LESS effort than if you were the same weight and fat. Now, if you were comparing 7ft tall against 5'5", then yes, gravity comes into play. In my case, i'm 5'5", gravity is my friend here. Extra muscle is not going to make my heart have to pump any harder, if anything, the frequent exercise will keep my heartrate lower and my stroke volume higher, meaning better cardiac output with less effort. I'd still like more replies, but I think I'm just going to get as big as I can comfortably get and still have bloodwork come back ok. If I can be 230lbs, 5% bf, with 120/80, perfect enzymes, perfect echocardiogram, cholesterol of 60 HDL and 130 total... well, by god, I'll be 230 as long as I want lol. Very unlikely that would happen, but thanks again guys for the interesting responses. Keep the coming if you like, I need a serious nap now, that test was 5.5hrs long and NO food, I'm half-dead, but damn do my abs look nice!

300lbs is 300lbs for your heart - it does not distinguish between fat and muscle.

obviously the 300lb fatty will have a slew of other health related issues - but regarding the work done by the heart its all the same. (providing the cholesterol of both is the same which surely the 300lb fatty will have more issues with).

 

[krishna]

300lbs is 300lbs for your heart - it does not distinguish between fat and muscle.

obviously the 300lb fatty will have a slew of other health related issues - but regarding the work done by the heart its all the same. (providing the cholesterol of both is the same which surely the 300lb fatty will have more issues with).

Ya the fatty will have clogged arteries which will make it even harder on the heart. With that said, whe work done by the heart for the fatty and the muscle guy will not be the same.

 

[Tux]

Actually 300lbs muscle vs 300lbs fat is NOT the same for the heart. Again, when you're in good cardio shape, your heart does that same amount of work yes, but it takes less effort to DO that work, so it's not working as hard. Also, with less adipose tissue, blood flow is much less restricted, so BP stays normal and the heart, again, does not have to pump as hard or as much. Also, even if you gain 50lbs of muscle, realize you're not gaining 2 gallons of extra blood, your heart isn't actually pumping much more fluid per day than a wimpy non-training fat-ass. Now, 300lbs on 7ft is harder than 300lbs on 5ft for the heart b/c of gravity issues, but for someone of even height, it is MUCH easier on the heart if you're 300lbs of muscle than 300 of fat. Hell, my own medical workups prove this to a point. At 205lbs, 10% bf, while on 800mg/week of test AND 50mg/day of dbol, my BP was normal, my liver enzymes were normal, and cholesterol was 140-something. HDL in the low 40's. That's damn healthy bro. And that's about 60lbs over my "ideal" weight. My resting heartrate wasn't high, stroke volume was better than normal, everything was fine except I couldn't fit into my damn clothes lol. Even with the water retention my BP was normal, nothing on any of those tests says my heart was even working AS hard as someone who didn't lift, much less working harder than a smaller person. I say, as long as you're in good shape, and keep your bloodwork good, you can maintain a high level of muscle without shortening your life. How high a level depends on genetics, as does how much, if any, your life might be shortened by. Damnit, in the end it's still all genetics, why won't the government unban genetic engineering and stem-cell research? I wanna run 500mg/day of dbol then just regrow my liver if it blows on me

 

[silverbackn]

Good post Tux! You're very right, it is all about genetics. I know when I get heavier I feel run down and lethargic and that's even while maintaining fairly low bf%. I think the water retention gets to me.

 

[Guvna]

What about the fact the the bigger/leaner guy has been working out with weights and cardio which keeps his body and organs in good shape, as opposed to a smaller guy who barely works out at all. I think in this case, the bigger guy would be healthier and possibly have a longer life span. Now if they were two equally active individuals in good physical condition, I concur that the smaller guy would have less stress on his heart and circulatory system.

Im pretty sure we were talking about people that work out an equal amount (all things being equal except weight and food intake is what I was referring to).

 

[krishna]

Im pretty sure we were talking about people that work out an equal amount (all things being equal except weight and food intake is what I was referring to).

I was just pointing it out because it was unspecified.

Good post Tux...I totally agree.

 

[UA_Iron]

yeah, but 300lb bodybuilders are not in good cardio health

a flight of stairs is tough for them - just like a 300lb fatty

cholesterol is not the best indicator of heart health anyway...so nothing has been proven.

But I agree that one can maintain a good amount of muscle and still be healthy

the extremes on the other hand are pushing the envelope.

 

[silverbackn]

yeah, but 300lb bodybuilders are not in good cardio health

a flight of stairs is tough for them - just like a 300lb fatty

cholesterol is not the best indicator of heart health anyway...so nothing has been proven.

But I agree that one can maintain a good amount of muscle and still be healthy

the extremes on the other hand are pushing the envelope.

Great post! You hit the nail on the head with this bro!

 

[H_T_]

how many 300 pound 80 year old people have you seen?

 

[Tux]

Not many, but I've seen a shit-load of 260lb 70 and 80yr olds lol. I think that's close enough. I bet if they'd worked out and had been 260 instead of fat and 260, they'd live a lot longer, no matter how heavy they were.

 

[silverbackn]

I've probably never seen a 80 year old who weighed 200 pounds in all honesty.

 

[Joe Stenson]

Actually 300lbs muscle vs 300lbs fat is NOT the same for the heart. Again, when you're in good cardio shape, your heart does that same amount of work yes, but it takes less effort to DO that work, so it's not working as hard.

I know we're using hypothetical examples here, but how many 300lb bodybuilders do you know that are in good cardiovascular shape?

I know working out is a "cardiovascular workout", but I wouldn't compare a bodybuilder's heart to a runner's heart if you see my point.

 

[BOOEY]

It seems to be true that lower caloric diets extend life span. I think if you look at the life span of NFL players, for example, they tend to not to live as long as the average person- this could be because of the physical abuse or the diet/weight.

This is true, there are a lot of studies saying that with a low-calorie diet, one can live longer. But I think it has more to do with putting less stress on the systems that metabolize food and so on, rather than the extra weight. BUT, one would assume that on a low-calorie diet, you'd weigh less than normal. So there may be a correlation there.

I would do a search on PUBMED for the studies. Also, google may help. As far as my educated guess, the difference between 210 and 205 is negligable as far as stress on the body is concerned. Now, the difference between 210 and 300 is huge, so expect someone like Ronnie Coleman to kick the bucket sooner than his potential minus the drugs and the weight.

 

[coloradosteve]

"Now, 300lbs on 7ft is harder than 300lbs on 5ft for the heart b/c of gravity issues." What? Do you know what an aphorism is? Anyway, keep going, I need my amusement for the day.

 

[H_T_]

just look at how many of the strongman competitors that have died in the last 10 years.

 

[sparetire]

i think it all comes down to your genetics. We all die at a certain age. I would take a look at your grandparents and uncles and see how long they lived for and maybe ask your parents if they knew how long their great grandparents lived to be. On both sides of my family, my grandparents lived way into their 70-80's - all died of either a heart attack or prostate cancer (so that's something i get to look forward too). But with that being said, They were all of normal / thin average weight. No obesity.

Every body builder that seems to die , especially at a young age, who abuses gear and looks freakishly huge like that guy who was almost 400 pounds and only 32-33 years of age, seem to me - dying of weight related issues like aneurisms or heart attacks etc. So, I, personally, tend to agree with the statement that a healthy weight of 300 vs a non healthy weight of 300 will put a strain and stress on your system either way. Non healthy weight has issues like clogged arteries, high blood pressure etc, vs healthy weight has stress issues on the heart and the veins, arteries, etc. No matter how you justify being 70 pounds over weight (healthy or non healthy) it's still a health issue with your system.

For instance, my body weight, before working out was 5-8 and about 130 pounds. Working out naturally , I can keep my weight at about 150 with 10% bf. On gear, i weigh about 172-175, but I think I look great around 160 and under 10 bf. I can't imagine what i would look like at 225 with such a small bone structure.

With that being said, I think we all chip a few years off of our lives doing gear or drugs, or whatever..but the simple fact remains: The death rate for everyone is 1 to 1 and we're all going to make it. We're all going to die sometime, but i'd rather live longer healthier life than to live to 55-60 looking like a freak like ronnie coleman. besides, you think this way now, but add 10 years down the road, and you who knows if you'll still be interested in working out..

 

[Joe Stenson]

but add 10 years down the road, and you who knows if you'll still be interested in working out..

I'm not a big fan of this viewpoint. You're exactly right; who DOES know what they'll want in 10 years time? No one. In fact, who knows if you'll still be alive in 10 years time. Focus on the present.

I'm not saying you should base decisions by thinking you might be not alive tomorrow, but to worry about whether you live to be 65 or 70 or 80 is just a waste of time.

 

[H_T_]

I'm not a big fan of this viewpoint. You're exactly right; who DOES know what they'll want in 10 years time? No one. In fact, who knows if you'll still be alive in 10 years time. Focus on the present.

I'm not saying you should base decisions by thinking you might be not alive tomorrow, but to worry about whether you live to be 65 or 70 or 80 is just a waste of time.

so i should jus say fuck all to the retirement plan...........

 

[Joe Stenson]

so i should jus say fuck all to the retirement plan...........

This is what I was trying to clarify when I said:

I'm not saying you should base decisions by thinking you might be not alive tomorrow, but to worry about whether you live to be 65 or 70 or 80 is just a waste of time.

 

[sparetire]

I'm not a big fan of this viewpoint. You're exactly right; who DOES know what they'll want in 10 years time? No one. In fact, who knows if you'll still be alive in 10 years time. Focus on the present.

I'm not saying you should base decisions by thinking you might be not alive tomorrow, but to worry about whether you live to be 65 or 70 or 80 is just a waste of time.

well, that was part of my point. Tux is looking and theorizing what if scenario's now based on how long he'll live. I mean, hell, he could go outside tomorrow and get hit by a bus. No one knows how long we'll live, but I think if a person is this worried about using, I don't think he should plan on getting that huge..there's consequences to everything no matter how healthy we think it is.

On top of everything else, just like the previous posters replied, "how many 300 lb 80 year olds do you see.." most people who live past 60 are fairly thin or average weight. Our hunger and need for food decreases as we age. So does our mental goals and opinions on life. You might think working out to be huge is great now, but you might change your opinion when you reach 40. I'm 33 and I know I won't be using gear all my life (unless i need too) , but I just wanna look my best during my peak in my life. I love cardio more than I love weightlifting, but I try to equal both of them out with proper balance. Look at Lou Ferrigno and Arnold, Frank Zane, probably the best body builders that have ever lived and now look at them. They still think highly of BB'ding, but is arnold less than 6% bf, coming in at 226 like his golden days of pure muscle? Of course not, and neither is Lou. That was my point...that's all.

 

[Tux]

Well both my grandmothers are 81 and still going strong, my great uncles are 89 and 87 and totally healthy. No cancers, nothing. My two grandfathers died from emphysema from 3packs a day for 50 years, and from horrible diet/no exercise/drug addiction/alcoholism. In general, my family lives to be 90+ no problem, and most are NOT thin in their old age. I think I'm a great example to be big and buff till the day I die, but if I get slender someday, so be it. I'll enjoy my life now, and when my goals change, I'll enjoy it then too. Thanks for the great opinions guys

 

[RADAR]

Heres my take on it!
At a max bodyweight of 280 even tho i was in shape(pics in my gallery) i could tell it was becomming a chore to climb a flight of stairs this became even more prominent as i reached 53,this year i dropped 40 lbs and feel a hell of alot better. Yes! I do believe the added mass puts a strain on the joints ,heart,etc.

How many years does that knock off? no one can say! But i believe it makes a difference.


RADAR

 

[csilke]

The theory is that a heavier body requires more food (energy) which requires more oxidation thus wearing out the cells and causing aging. Hence a diet high in anti oxidants is good for the body. So the answer to your question based on what science knows at this point in time is yes The higher bodyweight will age you faster because of the higher rate of oxidation. However there are many more factors that contribute to life expectancy besides oxidation, attitude, exercise, sleep, habits (smoking, drinking) etc.

But isn't it true that on average larger animals live longer than smaller ones. So the average lifespan of a mouse is less than that of a rabbit which is less than that of a cat which is less than that of a horse. This might lead to the opposite conclusion?

 

[Tux]

This is only true for different species. Smaller species like cats don't live as long as monkeys. Monkeys don't live as long as humans. Humans don't live as long as elephants. In the SAME species, however, the smaller individuals do tend to live longer, i.e. guys like me who are 5'5" will live longer on average than you guys that are 6'5", so hah That is probably due to a combination of many things, gravitic effects on heart, excess wear and tear from heavier overall body, higher metabolic rate leading to increased free radicals, etc. However, I think, in my case, I could maintain 200+lbs of very lean muscle with no trouble. Yes I'd have to eat a lot more, but all I'd have to do to counteract the extra free radicals from my higher metabolism is to take more things like ALA, an anti-oxidant.. there are tons of those, and I'm sure I could prevent my free radicals from doing me in. Long-term, GH/Test replacement, anti-oxidant/lipid treatment, I'm willing to bet I could maintain 50lbs of muscle over my genetic limit and not take more than a year or two max off my life, and that would be a LONG life at that! IMO of course

 

[bicepts101]

Let's put it this way: do you know of anybody who is 80 years old and anywhere close to 7 foot tall? How about even 60? Could you imagine the Big Show at 75?

Anyway, there's a lot of variables but the long and short of it is that in fact there is evidence out there that being big, force feeding, various other related factors can shorten lifespan somewhat.

my grandpop was 6.5 at 78 years old

 

[locrian]

chances are if you do a ton of drugs your gonna have a shorter life... come on now

 

[Tux]

Yes, if you do a ton of drugs with uncontrolled side effects, yes. However, large amounts of drugs with minimal or non-existant sides? Different story

 

[Guvna]

non-existant sides? Different story

Problem is, many times sides are there that we cant see, feel, or even tested in most blood tests. Notice all the recalled drugs we have? All the people that have died from FDA approved drugs?

 

[Tux]

Well, I get everything checked that I can get checked, and that can go wrong b/c of these drugs. Remember steroids have been around since the 40's and early 50's, we KNOW the side effects, short and long-term. I get my BP checked, cholesterol checked, liver enzymes, and that's all that really matters at my age. I am about to start propecia anyway, and when I hit 30 or so, I will get PSA values tested as well. So, brain works fine... heart works fine... blood vessels and pressure fine... lipids fine, kidneys fine, liver fine. If there's anything I'm leaving out, it's probably NOT going to do me any irreversible damage. If, by some freak chance it does, well, I made my choice and I'm happy with it. I enjoy my life more than I would have had I not started using gear, and I do not intend to stop ever. Cut back, for health reasons later in life, yes if necessary, but stop? Never.

 

[sparetire]

Yes, if you do a ton of drugs with uncontrolled side effects, yes. However, large amounts of drugs with minimal or non-existant sides? Different story

just admit it bro, you are in denial!

 

[Tux]

I do not deny it, in fact I PROUDLY admit it However, I still think as long as I don't try to stay 250lbs at 7-8% year-round at 5'5", I won't have any noticeable decrease in my quality of life or my length of life. I'll prove it to you all when I'm still benching 300 the day after you guys funerals

 

[needsize]

it really depends too on how "big" we are talking about. Alltraps and I train with a guy who I believe is 58 this year, he's 5'10, 210lbs at 7-8% bodyfat, which is bigger than 98% of this board, at least, and at 58 years old, he is probably healthier than most of us.....and stronger than 98% of this board as well

 

[concordsize]

i would say yes to your question. You were born a certain way and to many changes to that imo will have negative effects.

 

[Tux]

True concord... but changes we make can also have POSITIVE effects as well. Exercise, healthy diet, lower bodyfat, better cardiac condition.. these are all things we can do to improve upon our "natural" bodies. Let us never forget that simply lifting weights, drinking protein shakes, eating 6 times a day, is VERY unnatural to our bodies. For most of mankind's evolution, we never lifted weights, we didn't have protein shakes, very rarely vegetables, and we usually ate huge, mostly protein/fat meals once every few days after we killed something. Only very recently in history have we changed all of this, so all this lifting weights, treadmills, protein shakes, are very "unnatural" according to our genetic history, but also very helpful. So, I think I agree with NS. As long as I don't take it extremes in old age I can stay quite big, lean, and strong. For me... 5'5", 185-190 at 8% or so sounds good for a senior citizen And 190lbs is not going to be too much extra stress on my heart. I guess it's a tossup... will the benefits of these "unnatural" things like exercise, protein shakes, moderate steroids, etc, outweigh the "natural" order of things or not? I believe in the former but only time will tell, and it's a life-long experiment. Oh what fun

 

[thelion2005]

True concord... but changes we make can also have POSITIVE effects as well. Exercise, healthy diet, lower bodyfat, better cardiac condition.. these are all things we can do to improve upon our "natural" bodies. Let us never forget that simply lifting weights, drinking protein shakes, eating 6 times a day, is VERY unnatural to our bodies. For most of mankind's evolution, we never lifted weights, we didn't have protein shakes, very rarely vegetables, and we usually ate huge, mostly protein/fat meals once every few days after we killed something. Only very recently in history have we changed all of this, so all this lifting weights, treadmills, protein shakes, are very "unnatural" according to our genetic history, but also very helpful. So, I think I agree with NS. As long as I don't take it extremes in old age I can stay quite big, lean, and strong. For me... 5'5", 185-190 at 8% or so sounds good for a senior citizen And 190lbs is not going to be too much extra stress on my heart. I guess it's a tossup... will the benefits of these "unnatural" things like exercise, protein shakes, moderate steroids, etc, outweigh the "natural" order of things or not? I believe in the former but only time will tell, and it's a life-long experiment. Oh what fun

I think genetics is on your side and your reasoning is sound.

You'll just move into HRT as you age. HRT will boom over the next years and by the time you need it for health and longevity, it will be a very sophisticated science. Today, it is a bit "trial and error", even with a Doc working with you.

Don't be surprised if health becomes very important and you become a bit conservative.

You may want to lose some weight like mentioned above because it is just plain easier to get around a little lighter. Easier on your joints too, which will pick up some arthritis.

 

[Guvna]

True concord... but changes we make can also have POSITIVE effects as well. Exercise, healthy diet, lower bodyfat, better cardiac condition.. these are all things we can do to improve upon our "natural" bodies. Let us never forget that simply lifting weights, drinking protein shakes, eating 6 times a day, is VERY unnatural to our bodies. For most of mankind's evolution, we never lifted weights, we didn't have protein shakes, very rarely vegetables, and we usually ate huge, mostly protein/fat meals once every few days after we killed something. Only very recently in history have we changed all of this, so all this lifting weights, treadmills, protein shakes, are very "unnatural" according to our genetic history, but also very helpful. So, I think I agree with NS. As long as I don't take it extremes in old age I can stay quite big, lean, and strong. For me... 5'5", 185-190 at 8% or so sounds good for a senior citizen And 190lbs is not going to be too much extra stress on my heart. I guess it's a tossup... will the benefits of these "unnatural" things like exercise, protein shakes, moderate steroids, etc, outweigh the "natural" order of things or not? I believe in the former but only time will tell, and it's a life-long experiment. Oh what fun

good posting.



Also, another thing to consider: while bodybuilders have unhealthy extremes that contribute to a shortened (I believe) life ( eating a lot, overweight, drugs, etc), we also participate in activites that extend the human lifespan. Activites such as lifting weights and cardio strengthen the heart, mind, and body, as well as decreasing the risk of pretty much all diseases. We take vitamins and minerals, and make sure every piece of our nutrition is in order.
While we might take 3 steps back in terms of health by virtue of the fact that we are bodybuilders, we were already 2-3 steps in front of the average person in terms of health.

 

[marqui77]

Go to a nursing home and see home many big guys or gals are alive at an old age. You'll be hard pressed to find many people who are big, in any respect fat or muscular, that are over 70.

 

[Joe Stenson]

Also, another thing to consider: while bodybuilders have unhealthy extremes that contribute to a shortened (I believe) life ( eating a lot, overweight, drugs, etc), we also participate in activites that extend the human lifespan. Activites such as lifting weights and cardio strengthen the heart, mind, and body, as well as decreasing the risk of pretty much all diseases. We take vitamins and minerals, and make sure every piece of our nutrition is in order. While we might take 3 steps back in terms of health by virtue of the fact that we are bodybuilders, we were already 2-3 steps in front of the average person in terms of health.

That's a fairly positive way of looking at things. By comparing yourself to those at the bottom of the barrel you're always going to make yourself look better. While what you're saying is true, I don't think comparing yourself to the average out of shape slob is the best way of doing things. If it makes you feel better about yourself then go ahead, but remember that a bodybuilding lifestyle still isn't healthy.

It's like saying "well I know these cigarettes are bad for me, but at least I'm not injecting heroin".

 

[Tux]

Nice try marqui, but you forgot one thing. The whole "Fitness" fad didn't come into play really till the 40's/50's, right before the bbing competitions started. Men and women in nursing homes today didn't KNOW anything about cholesterol, exercise, weight-lifting, cardio health, etc. Dr.'s told them to lose some weight, but that was about it. Wait 50 years and see how many muscular old men there are, I bet there will be a WHOLE lot more than there are today!

 

[Guvna]

That's a fairly positive way of looking at things. By comparing yourself to those at the bottom of the barrel you're always going to make yourself look better.


.....I am comparing myself to most everyone. I eat healthier than 98% of the people that I know. THAT makes me live longer (unless I get hit by a train).....

but remember that a bodybuilding lifestyle still isn't healthy.


.....some parts of it arent. Some parts are.....

It's like saying "well I know these cigarettes are bad for me, but at least I'm not injecting heroin".


....I dont think thats exactly how I would look at it. I think its more like: "I know this test isnt that good for me, but I eat better than 98% pf the people I know, so hopefully it will even out."......


OR

......."I know cigarettes are bad for me, but I only have three a week, and I exercise and eat right."......

.........While neither of these situations are Ideal, we do the best we can in the areas that we can, and that we want. We do this in order to reach our goals, and still maintain our health when we get there.........

asdfasd

 

[marqui77]

Nice try marqui, but you forgot one thing. The whole "Fitness" fad didn't come into play really till the 40's/50's, right before the bbing competitions started. Men and women in nursing homes today didn't KNOW anything about cholesterol, exercise, weight-lifting, cardio health, etc. Dr.'s told them to lose some weight, but that was about it. Wait 50 years and see how many muscular old men there are, I bet there will be a WHOLE lot more than there are today!

Being muscular and fit is not going to kill you earlier, in fact you most likely live longer, however being overly big wether its muscle or fat will shorten your life. Your heart will be working overtime while trying complete simple tasks, its like trying to put out a 3 alarm fire with a garden hose. Anyway, the whole "fitness" fad for 70 percent of amercians is not existent, or might be there for very short periods of time. The way our countries going, asumming your an American, a huge majority of us will be fatter and less healthy in coming years, despite how much the general publis knows about healthy lifestyles. The amount of youngster who are over weight and obese is alarming, and well chance are most will not change in adulthood.

 

[Tux]

You totally missed the point, and if you couldn't see a point that obvious, I'm not going to reiterate it, I'm too tired

 

[terrapin]

The Lancet :

Obesity accelerates the ageing process even more than smoking, according to the largest ever study of the “chromosomal clock” in human cells.

Tim Spector of St Thomas’ Hospital in London, UK, measured the length of the ends of chromosomes, called telomeres, in the white blood cells of 1122 women aged 18 to 76. Each time a cell divides, its telomere loses a small chunk of DNA. When it becomes too short, cells can no longer divide. In effect, telomere shortening acts as a kind of chromosomal clock, counting down the cellular generations.

Spector found that the white blood cells of the youngest women had telomeres that were around 7500 base pairs long. Their length declined with age at an average rate of 27 base pairs per year.

When lifestyle factors were taken into account, however, dramatic differences emerged. The difference between being obese and being lean corresponds to 8.8 years of extra ageing, Spector told a press conference in London.

Intriguingly, the link between high leptin concentrations and telomere shortening was even stronger than the link with obesity, as measured by the body mass index. Leptin is an appetite-inhibiting hormone, but obese people are resistant to it and have higher than normal levels.

Fat smokers
Smoking was the other big factor. “Smokers were on average biologically older than lifetime non-smokers by 4.6 years,” Spector says. “For a heavy smoker on 20 cigarettes a day for 40 years, that equals 7.4 years of extra biological ageing.”

And there is a synergistic effect. “Fat smokers are at the highest risk of all. An obese smoker is on average at least 10 years older than a lean non-smoker,” says Spector. “It’s not just about heart disease or lung cancer, the whole chromosomal clock is going faster. That’s the public health message.”

And the effects appear to be permanent. Quitting smoking or losing weight reduces the rate of telomere loss but cannot restore them.

The damage to telomeres is probably done by free radicals. Smoking causes oxidative stress - a source of free radicals - as does obesity, says Abraham Aviv of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, US. Free radicals can cause mutations in DNA, and there is some evidence that mutations in telomeres cause larger chunks than normal to be lost during cell division.

“Telomere age difference”
But the findings do not necessarily prove that, say, obese people will die nearly nine years early. For one thing, Spector looked only at white blood cells, and it remains to be seen if obesity and smoking have as dramatic an effect on other tissues.

For another, while the link between telomere length and cell division is well established, the effect of shortened telomeres on the overall lifespan of organisms composed of trillions of cells is less clear. Men do have shorter telomeres than women, and intriguingly the “telomere age difference” of about seven years is about the same as the length of time women live longer than men.

But animal studies have failed to reveal any simple relationship between telomere length and lifespan. Some studies suggest that the rate of loss may be the most important factor, others that the crucial factor is not telomere length per se but a protein cap found on telomeres. It could even be that shortened telomeres are merely a sign of how much free radical damage cells have suffered, rather than a direct cause of ageing.

Spector now plans to look at the effect of other lifestyle factors on telomere length, such as exercise, diet and occupation.

Journal reference: The Lancet (DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66630-5)

 

[Tux]

Nice Terrapin, you gave us some great info AND supported my theory. Maintaining a heavier, but not freakishly heavy, bodyweight, would NOT shorten life by any noticeable amount... IF you take plenty of anti-oxidants. That takes care of the extra free radicals your body produces due to it's higher metabolism. I take plenty of these... ALA, Vit C and E, selenium, Caffeine( also a strong anti-oxidant if you didn't realize that, I didn't), possibly a few others I don't know about. But plenty enough to reduce the level of free radicals in my body BELOW that of a non-exercising fat guy, so my bet is I live longer, heavier, AND stronger, all thanks to the power of knowledge Btw, K for that if I can Terrapin!

 

[terrapin]

Thanks. They are now testing for extra body weight in general (not just obese). It should be interesting to see where this study goes. Interesting its not in an American-based journal (ie: New England Journal of Medicine). The Lancet is top notch though but gets little recognition in the american press.

 

[Tux]

Well I read a medical study... not online so unfortunately I can't dig it up, but it stated that being mildly overweight, like 20-30lbs, had little to no effect on health as long as bloodwork was normal. So if you're 5'10", supposed to be 170, and weigh 200 with a gut, but have normal BP, cholesterol, etc, the study showed no long-term health problems or shortened life. This study was done for an insurance company, so you KNOW they wanted to make sure that if people were dying b/c they were fat, they'd charge a bigger premium, but that means they made sure they did it right so they couldn't be sued later by some overweight guy with totally normal bloodwork who got denied when a skinny guy with bad cholesterol didn't.