Need info on whether or not body building is bad for your heart

[zeph317]

My uncle told my dad that guys who weigh over two hundred pounds, regardless of whether or not they are muscle or fat, are at risk for heart disease as compared with those men under 200 pounds. I contend that maybe someone who has taken steroids or some ex-football player might be guys who look to be in shape but then get a heart attack. I think heart disease is also predominantly genetic. Anyone out there know of studies that I can show my dad so that he will admit that he is wrong? He is so stubborn. I am 6 foot and weigh 220. I am 25 to 35 pounds overweight so he is telling me I need to stop lifting and reduce my overall size like down to 175. I weighed 180 when i graduated from college and was probably 10 percent body fat then, so 175 I think would be impossible unless I stopped lifting and became a tri-athlete :-)

[DuracellBunny]

Originally Posted by zeph317

My uncle told my dad that guys who weigh over two hundred pounds, regardless of whether or not they are muscle or fat, are at risk for heart disease as compared with those men under 200 pounds. I contend that maybe someone who has taken steroids or some ex-football player might be guys who look to be in shape but then get a heart attack. I think heart disease is also predominantly genetic. Anyone out there know of studies that I can show my dad so that he will admit that he is wrong? He is so stubborn. I am 6 foot and weigh 220. I am 25 to 35 pounds overweight so he is telling me I need to stop lifting and reduce my overall size like down to 175. I weighed 180 when i graduated from college and was probably 10 percent body fat then, so 175 I think would be impossible unless I stopped lifting and became a tri-athlete :-)

You wouldn't find any studies that are worth anything.

If you look at people who are over 200lbs and don't have high BF, they are more likely to i) do cardio ii) not smoke iii) eat sensibly; which will all improve long term cardiac health.

Any possible statistical evidence that their bodyweight was damaging their heart would be overshadowed and invalidated by their lifestyle.

On a personal note, my heart is closely monitored (I have a pacemaker - neurological cause) and have never had my weight mentioned to me by any of the cardiologists I have seen - I am 6'2" and 230-235lbs.

The long and the short of it is that if you exercise, on average you are going to be less likely to have cardiac issues than somebody who doesn't.

[Aquilius]

regardless of whether or not they are muscle or fat

This is simply false.

I think heart disease is also predominantly genetic

There are many types of heart diseases. Some of them are clearly, or mostly, hereditary. However, as I understand, a very large portion (I don't know if it's the majority - I seem to remember 4/5, but would have to research actual numbers first) of heart diseases are "acquired" - either through e.g. infection, or through lifestyle (metabolic syndrome!). Genetical predisposition may play a large part, but actual "inherited" heart diseases are a minority (~5%?).

Anyone out there know of studies that I can show my dad so that he will admit that he is wrong?

Do a search for the INTERHEART study (Lancet, 2004): "The INTERHEART case-control study estimated that 63% of heart attacks in Western Europe [...] are due to abdominal obesity (a high waist to hip ratio), and those with abdominal obesity are at over twice the risk of a heart attack compared to those without. This study also found that abdominal obesity was a much more significant risk factor for heart attack than BMI."

The study concludes that there are 9 risk factors which are independent of race, age and sex:

Nicotine abuse (Odds ratio 2,87)
Increased ApoB/ ApoA1 Lipid Quotient (3,25)
High Blood Pressure (1,19)
Diabetes Mellitus (2,37)
Abdominal Adipositas (1,12)
Daily Fruit and Veggie consumption (0,07)
Regular Alcohol Consumptionregelmäßiger Alkoholkonsum (0,91)
Psychosocial Risk Factors (2,67) - those without stress, the happy, the wealthy and the educated get less heart attacks...

Interesting, but not evaluated/correlated, is that some risk factors are intercorrelated with one another: the Fat (those with Adipositas) are also at higher risk for Diabetes, High Blood Pressure, and have bad lipid ratios, i.e. if you are fat (as having a high BF) you can be at significantly increased risk of heart disease as you'll have heightened risk factors in several categories.

The german governmental institution responsible for health also recently changed their recommendation, based on re-evaluation of long-term health statistics. Their conclusion is simple: if you have a a waist circumference of > 90cm (35") - which was reduced from 100cm (39") of earlier recommendations - you are at increased risk for heart disease. Now we all know from the navy circumference method that waist circumference is the main indicator for body fat %... and not overall weight. For the average height male of 177cm this 35" results in an app 17% BF, over which he is at strongly increased risk for heart disease.

He is so stubborn.

It's just the BMI thinking - invented as a simple rule of thumb, understandable for idiots (high BMI = BAD), it has become a falsely understood measure-for-all, even if it is clearly not at all applicable for strength-trained individuals.


Regards,
Aquilius

[30-A rider]

Your Dad's thinking is definately flawed. Ask him to think in terms of height. For a 6' tall man that is considered to be of large framed according to height and weight charts max weight is to be 188 lbs (not that height and weight charts mean anything). So what about the guy like my good frined who is 6'5" with very wide shoulders. According to your Dad he is to be 200 lbs of less! At 6'5"! This guy I speak of is so large you cant se me at all stand behind him...he is a 6'5" genetic freak of nature weighing approx 300 lbs with a 38" waist. I dont know his bodyfat levels but within a healthy range for sure.

Id bet your Dad is just saying what he does to somehow encourage you to get yourself leaner.

[zeph317]

I still want more evidence but it may not be forthcoming. Here is my line of reasoning (correct me if I am wrong): Arnold basically put body building on the map so studies on body builders is only now able to start generating stats on such things as muscle mass correlating with heart disease? Does muscle mass help reduce the effects of age so that men and women in their 70's and 80's can still bike, hike and do other activities that were reserved for only a few in decades past? Does muscle mass increase life expectancy? etc. Of course, Arnold has heart issues because it is a fact that he used steroids so that is not in the equation for our discussion because my dad and I are talking about naturally gained muscle mass.

Chuck Norris is one of my heroes and he is kicking butt at mid-60 years old.

My thinking is that muscle mass will help you to keep active longer as age tends to shrink the muscles and then you have to deal with bad knees, bad back, and other ailments that muscle holds at bay. So I plan on lifting until I am old and gray and having a healthy old age void of heart disease. My dad's dad is 87 years old and he eats poorly (typical mid-westerner: lots of potatoes, veggies, fruit, roasts, pies, cookies, etc); did not jog, run, walk, hike, or bike nor did he lift weights. He is 6 foot and probably 230 pounds with skinny legs and arms. His knees are so bad that he has to ride a cart because the ligaments and cartilage are gone! If he can survive strokes and live to be close to 90 without a good diet or regular exercise, how much more healthier shall I be?

[Aquilius]

I still want more evidence but it may not be forthcoming.

There loads and loads of studies on those issues. One just has to find them (such as the one about strength training being more effective for fat loss than cardio...). An excellent source would be: http://shop.spiegel.de/shop/action/p...91231&nav=6442 - summarizes a lot of the current state of affairs and quotes loads of studies. Unfortunately, it's also in german...

Arnold has heart issues because it is a fact that he used steroids

Methinks this is a deeply flawed argument: how do you you come to the conclusion that his steroid (ab)use was causative to his heart problems? Seems somewhat far-fetched to me.

as age tends to shrink the muscles

This has been shown to not be entirely correct as of itself. Generally, the major aspect of age induced muscle loss seems to be the physical inactivity usually associated with increased age, as combined with changes in certain hormonal states. I.e., if you remain physically active, you can stave off age-induced muscle loss to a large degree. It also has been shown that strength training, even at high age, can have tremendous beneficial aspects (statistically, for example, greatly decreasing the risk of falls and broken bones). Even with the very aged, a little strength training has been shown to increase muscle mass by 10% and increase functional strength by a factor of 3(!).

It also has been shown that strength training is statistically more effective as e.g. precaution against osteoporosis than the usual medication. Furthermore, as one famous (name is Kieser) proponent of medical oriented strength training states, 80% of all back problems could be avoided or cured with the correct training, without resort to costly surgery (an interesting side note: when challenged about this, the spokespeople for the german public health system just complained about all the jobs that would be lost if that actually happened - the truth of the statement was never challenged...).

So I plan on lifting until I am old and gray and having a healthy old age void of heart disease.

Unfortunately, there is never any certainty about such things. The only thing you can do is to reduce your risk, you can never eliminate it.

Regards,
Aquilius

[Energizer1000]

Originally Posted by zeph317

My uncle told my dad that guys who weigh over two hundred pounds, regardless of whether or not they are muscle or fat, are at risk for heart disease as compared with those men under 200 pounds. I contend that maybe someone who has taken steroids or some ex-football player might be guys who look to be in shape but then get a heart attack. I think heart disease is also predominantly genetic. Anyone out there know of studies that I can show my dad so that he will admit that he is wrong? He is so stubborn. I am 6 foot and weigh 220. I am 25 to 35 pounds overweight so he is telling me I need to stop lifting and reduce my overall size like down to 175. I weighed 180 when i graduated from college and was probably 10 percent body fat then, so 175 I think would be impossible unless I stopped lifting and became a tri-athlete :-)

Hi Zeph! Just talked with a cardiologist, he said that a heart attack is basically caused when an artery is blocked by fats.This will cause your heart problems.
Thats what he said, thus following his logic, your weight does not play a role here unless you are full of bad cholesterol in your system. Have it checked, then if your normal...pump more iron!

[Aquilius]

he said that a heart attack is basically caused when an artery is blocked by fats.This will cause your heart problems.

Unfortunately, while true, the "classical" heart attack is just one of several potentially deadly heart diseases.

weight does not play a role here unless you are full of bad cholesterol in your system.

While it is true that weight by itself (as opposed to high BF% as indicator of abdominal fat) is meaningless, there are several other risk factors besides cholesterol (though that is the most important) ratios:

Increased ApoB/ApoA1 Lipid Quotient (Odds ratio 3,25)
Nicotine abuse (2,87)
Psychosocial Risk Factors (2,67)
Diabetes Mellitus (2,37)
High Blood Pressure (1,19)
Abdominal Adipositas (1,12)
Regular Alcohol Consumption (0,91)
Daily Fruit and Veggie consumption (0,07)

I.e. even if your lipid ratios are OK, but you're smoking, stressed, having diabetes, having high blood pressure, fat, alcoholic and never eat fruits and veggies, you're still at a very high risk... lifting or no lifting.

Here is a very useful site on this: http://www.heartstats.org/atozindex.asp?id=8, they also have loads of statistics on various issues (for the UK, that is).

Regards,
Aquilius

[Energizer1000]

Aquillus, great info. are you a doctor?

[apilot]

Zeph317, this should help,

“Health organizations, such as the American Heart Association and American College of Sports Medicine, have made aerobic exercise recommendations for nearly 40 years. It wasn’t until recently that they also advised people to do resistance exercises such as weight training and calisthenics. Drs. Randy Braith and Kerry Stewart- from the University of Florida, Gainesville and Johns Hopkins School of Medicine- summarized the health benefits of weight training. Strength training has little effect on blood sugar or its control, but it reduces systolic and diastolic blood pressures by about three points (mmHg). People loose body fat when they train with weights, even without caloric restriction. It also contributes to the prevention and management of injury, slows bone and muscle loss, and prevents falls and delays frailty in older adults. Weight training has significant health benefits independent of those provided by aerobics.”

(Circulation, 138:2642-2650, 2006) From Health Performance Research.

[Aquilius]

Aquillus, great info. are you a doctor?

Nah. Network Engineer. But I like to know what I'm doing, and after 15 years on the web I'm very good at searching. And I read. I try to educate myself on any issue I'm interested in from as many angles as possible, to be able to judge for myself what may be the "truth", and what is obvious bull****.

People loose body fat when they train with weights, even without caloric restriction.

This also has been confirmed in a recent study at the University of Münster (IIRC), where they came to the conclusion that for untrained individuals weight training is practically equivalent to cardio for weight loss, but actually far superior to cardio concerning fat loss.

It also contributes to the prevention and management of injury, slows bone and muscle loss, and prevents falls and delays frailty in older adults. Weight training has significant health benefits independent of those provided by aerobics.

This confirms the informations from the various studies quoted in the Spiegel Special. Quote: "Strength training is the best way to increase bone density".

Regards,
Aquilius

[writeknight]

I'm pretty sure I've seen a more general study that showed that overall activity level was a more important predictor of overall health than BMI, but I can't find it right now. Basically the study found that a sedentary skinny person was at greater health risk than an active overweight person. It was reported in the popular press a couple of years ago.

Here's an article about a study of women that specifically looked at heart health:
http://www.seniorjournal.com/NEWS/He...09-08Women.htm
Your dad could still say "yeah, but that was for women", but c'mon.

[zeph317]

Quote: Methinks this is a deeply flawed argument: how do you you come to the conclusion that his steroid (ab)use was causative to his heart problems? Seems somewhat far-fetched to me.

Wow! Do you really think that Arnold-I-(AB)USED-Steriods-Schwarzenegger has health issues that have NOTHING to do with steroids? Maybe roids aren't the only thing that have contibuted but they have got to be part of the equation. What is "far-fetched" is that you think otherwise. But of course you may be a roid user and so you have convinced yourself that they are not damaging to the heart and other organs as EVERY study I have seen or heard about has stated. I am not completely ignorant. I am on here because I wanted to ask people who work-out and build muscle mass the natural way, without cheating, if they know guys past 40 who have low BF and yet get heart attacks AND this has been directly connected to their muscle mass causing their hearts to have to overwork. This is what my dad is suggesting in a nutshell, very vehemently, I might add :-)

Usually, diseases such as heart disease have many contributing factors, such as smoking, poor eating habits that lead to high cholestrol, family history, to name a few. So I am not saying that steroids are the ONLY cause for Arnold's heart issues, I mean, afterall, he is known to have bragged about how he could eat anything he wanted and still be more cut than anyone else. Whereas, most guys in the body building world are meticulous about what they eat and drink, especially now with all the supplements that we have available.

[Aquilius]

Wow! Do you really think that Arnold-I-(AB)USED-Steriods-Schwarzenegger has health issues that have NOTHING to do with steroids?

The way you state this: Yeah, I think he probably has lots of health issues which have nothing to do with his roid use. Every common cold he gets would be in that category...

You wrote it in a way which makes clear that you think his roid use CAUSED his heart problem. That may or may not be the case. Without having seen his medical records how would I (or you) know for certainty that it wasn't congenital?

Maybe roids aren't the only thing that have contibuted but they have got to be part of the equation.

Do they? Why? Just because he took them, and they may be statistically causative for heart issues in some cases, do not automatically make them causative in this individual case. Or do the studies you quote indicate a 100% certainty that roid abuse causes this specific kind of heart problem?

What is "far-fetched" is that you think otherwise.

I just think there is a difference between statistics and individuals. Just because a statistics speaks of probabilities and likelihood, I can never, ever conclude certainty for any individual (there only remains a maybe/maybe not) - the only case where you can do that is with certain dominant genetic diseases.

But of course you may be a roid user

Yeah, sure, if you say so...

and so you have convinced yourself that they are not damaging to the heart and other organs as EVERY study I have seen or heard about has stated.

You seem to have familiarized yourself with the issue, then. More so than I, apparently.

I am not completely ignorant. I am on here because I wanted to ask people who work-out and build muscle mass the natural way, without cheating, if they know guys past 40 who have low BF and yet get heart attacks AND this has been directly connected to their muscle mass causing their hearts to have to overwork.

Then why didn't you ask this question? You actually asked for pointers to studies, which you received, but which is something different.

However, "Muscle mass causing the heart to overwork" seems a very funny argument to me. And no, I know neither studies nor individuals showing this phenomenon: e.g. Muscle mass was not identified in the INTERHEART study (which AFAIK is the most important one) as one of the causative risk factors for heart disease. On the contrary - a lack of muscle mass is indicated by a high BF%, which in turn is connected with abdominal adipositas, which in turn HAS been identified as one of the causative risk factors.

This is what my dad is suggesting in a nutshell, very vehemently, I might add :-)

Which does not make it more correct.

- I personally know 1 guy with a (survided) heart attack (age 50), but he's grossly obese (~300lbs)
- I personally know 1 guy which is wiry, small, and trained (cyclist), but has herniated discs
- I personally know several other - trained or untrained - people with herniated discs or other back problems
- I personally know 1 guy which was not obese who died from brain cancer at ~35 (and his son previously survived leukemia at age 10)
- I personally know 1 middle-aged guy with diabetes, but he was obese (now slimmed down to 192lbs)
- I personally know 1 young child (now 13) with diabetes, diagnosed at age 6 (my niece)
- Of the few people I know personally who died, most (usually the younger ones) did so of accidents (motorcycle accidents, asphyxiation in a motor home from a defect heating system, etc.), the rest (usually the older ones) of either cancer of one form or another (often colon cancer), simply of "old age", or killed themselves (one guy blew himself and his whole family up), and one was murdered (shot down in cold blood). None of them was fat.
- The main health problem the trained individuals I know seem to have, are problems with their back

As I said - statistics are irrelevant for individuals.

So I am not saying that steroids are the ONLY cause for Arnold's heart issues, I mean, afterall, he is known to have bragged about how he could eat anything he wanted and still be more cut than anyone else.

As they stated: Schwarzenegger was born with a bicuspid aortic valve, a normal aorta has three leaflets, IIRC. Roid abuse may or may not have contributed to later problems with that. However, I do not see the certainty of a causative connection which you imply.

Regards,
Aquilius

[DuracellBunny]

I am going to make a few comments and then shut up, 'cause this thread is beginning to get on my nerves.

i) Zeph, you WILL NOT find studies for this, as you will not be able to establish a control group. You cannot gain the muscle mass without being more physically active (and theirby doing your heart good) than somebody of the same bodyweight but with high BF. Therefore, you cannot establish a causal relationship between the two. It is similar to a medical release made years ago in that researchers found that people who drink more than the average amount of milk had lower incidences of heart attacks etc. All well and good and you could at face value take that to assume that milk would lower your chances of having a heart attack. But look further in to it and you find that people who drink more milk are on average more active/athletic, so yes the statistical trend is valid, but the causal relationship is not as their are other causal factors effecting the results. Any statistical study of any type is meaningless without looking at the raw data involved, as the conclusion of the study is the authors OPINION of what the data means. I am not an MD, but I am a PhD, so trust me when I say that I know what I am talking about in regards to this.


iii) unless your uncle has some specific credibility in regards to this (i.e. he has been doing professional research in to it) why do you care? Considering all of the supplement/bodybuilding bashing that goes on in the USA, don't you think that if there was the slightest evidence that having a high BMI and low BF at the same time had a causal relationship to heart attacks it would be being shown on every tv station?