bodybuilding and long term health

[DuracellBunny]

Thanks for the reference. You are the first person I have encountered with an issue that it becoming obvious.

I have an issue? Please tell me oh wise one. I disagreed with your opinion without making any personal comments. That's called debating; look it up. You are the one that moved to make it personal. For having the temerity to disagree with your divine omniscience I must be a know it all or starting a pissing contest.

You are one of those people that views disagreeing with your opinion as an attack on you. I'm sure a therapist could help you with this.

[JerryB]

I have an issue? Please tell me oh wise one. I disagreed with your opinion without making any personal comments. That's called debating; look it up. You are the one that moved to make it personal. For having the temerity to disagree with your divine omniscience I must be a know it all or starting a pissing contest.

You are one of those people that views disagreeing with your opinion as an attack on you. I'm sure a therapist could help you with this.

What is your problem? I know you are jealous because my chest at age 65 looks better than your chest. If you want advice on developing a chest at least as good as a senior citizen let me know.
Have a nice day.

[DuracellBunny]

What is your problem? I know you are jealous because my chest at age 65 looks better than your chest. If you want advice on developing a chest at least as good as a senior citizen let me know.
Have a nice day.

If you want advice on benching 500lbs after 2 strokes and a pacemaker, lemme know. Jealous of a wrinkly midget in a sparkly thong and fake tan, lmao.

[Karl_Hungus]

If you want advice on benching 500lbs after 2 strokes and a pacemaker, lemme know. Jealous of a wrinkly midget in a sparkly thong and fake tan, lmao.

You benched 500?

[JerryB]

If you want advice on benching 500lbs after 2 strokes and a pacemaker, lemme know. Jealous of a wrinkly midget in a sparkly thong and fake tan, lmao.

Have a nice day.

[DuracellBunny]

You benched 500?

I picked a round number to make a point. I'm currently doing triples with 484 (I don't do singles as I won't push my body quite that far), so 500 is there if I want it. I have surgery to take all the broken wires out of me and put a new pacemaker in in October, so I might try a single during my final session before surgery.

The downside of concentrating so heavily on my bench atm is that I have limited mobility in one of my shoulders, so I can't get my shoulder back far enough to squat normally, so I am having to squat with a squat safety bar. I have to limit the size of the muscle near the clavicle (as much as I can); combine that with one side being weaker from the strokes and I am prone to injury.

[DuracellBunny]

Have a nice day.

You too. Say hi to the staff at the nursing home and make sure you take your medication. Coming off thorazine is never good.

[JerryB]

You too. Say hi to the staff at the nursing home and make sure you take your medication. Coming off thorazine is never good.

You have fun at your next skinhead meeting. End of communicating with person of 39 acting like a disturbed teenager.

[DuracellBunny]

You have fun at your next skinhead meeting. End of communicating with person of 39 acting like a disturbed teenager.

[Karl_Hungus]

I picked a round number to make a point. I'm currently doing triples with 484 (I don't do singles as I won't push my body quite that far), so 500 is there if I want it. .

Raw? If so, that is some crazy strength. Just curious, at what bodyweight are you moving those kind of numbers?

[DuracellBunny]

Raw? If so, that is some crazy strength. Just curious, at what bodyweight are you moving those kind of numbers?

Yes raw. Right now I weigh 237lbs. I competed nationally in juniors and sub-juniors, so my training has always been strength biased. I've considered competing again, but I can't get a doctor to sign off on it and the British IPF affiliate won't let me compete without signed medical consent. Looking at the new raw division in the IPF I stack up pretty well, which is why I get tempted, even though I'm not supposed to do singles.

[Karl_Hungus]

Yes raw. Right now I weigh 237lbs. I competed nationally in juniors and sub-juniors, so my training has always been strength biased. I've considered competing again, but I can't get a doctor to sign off on it and the British IPF affiliate won't let me compete without signed medical consent. Looking at the new raw division in the IPF I stack up pretty well, which is why I get tempted, even though I'm not supposed to do singles.

That is outstanding at that bodyweight (hell, at ANY bodyweight). I can't bench anywhere near that -- my best was 425 for a double, but I had to weigh between 255-260 to do it. If my bodyweight goes under 240, my bench (and squat) both sink like a stone.

Sorry to hear about your medical issues -- hopefully your health will allow you to maintain an active life, even if it prevents you from competing.

[DuracellBunny]

That is outstanding at that bodyweight (hell, at ANY bodyweight). I can't bench anywhere near that -- my best was 425 for a double, but I had to weigh between 255-260 to do it. If my bodyweight goes under 240, my bench (and squat) both sink like a stone.

Sorry to hear about your medical issues -- hopefully your health will allow you to maintain an active life, even if it prevents you from competing.

Thanks man. 425 for a double is something to be proud of, there are very few people that will ever do that, despite how many people claim large benches. The bodyweight thing is interesting. I came down from 250 to 220 over the course of a couple of years, then came back up to 228-230 and sat there. Bringing my bodyweight up to 237 brought a bigger surge in strength that I expected; 240ish may be my current sweet spot.

[Pablo Escovar]

If you want advice on benching 500lbs after 2 strokes and a pacemaker, lemme know. Jealous of a wrinkly midget in a sparkly thong and fake tan, lmao.

Duracell,

Do you know what caused your strokes? Is the need for a pacemaker related to the strokes? The fact that you are alive and pushing yourself physically is impressive. I would imagine your docs have told you to go easy. I am of a physical therapy mindset, which is, push yourself into the discomfort zone in order to avoid physical decline. So, I would tend to ignore the overly conservative doctors and go for balls out pumps, burns, and DOMS because that is how I roll.

Keep on working it.

[Iceman1800]

I've outbenched all of you so the next derogatory post will yield some time off. Come on already.

[DuracellBunny]

Duracell,

Do you know what caused your strokes? Is the need for a pacemaker related to the strokes? The fact that you are alive and pushing yourself physically is impressive. I would imagine your docs have told you to go easy. I am of a physical therapy mindset, which is, push yourself into the discomfort zone in order to avoid physical decline. So, I would tend to ignore the overly conservative doctors and go for balls out pumps, burns, and DOMS because that is how I roll.

Keep on working it.

They're ischemic. Heart rate drops through the floor (or stops), blood pressure follows suit, no oxygenated blood reaches the brain and voila. The pace is a direct response/solution to that. Docs are conservative because they don't have a big enough dataset (few people in my situation) to say with any authority. Some tell me not to do anything at all, some don't comment and leave it to me, but none of them will sign anything due to the legal implications.

An edit to answer the next likely question: it's not a lifestyle issue, it's a having been born premature issue.

[Pablo Escovar]

My grandfather was the same as me, 72" tall, 31" waist. He died at 48.

Do you think he may have been a statistical outlier? What was his cause of death?

How is your aesthetics acquisition coming along?

Have you made it past 48?

So many damned questions!

To add to your outlier, My dad has been morbidly obese for most of his adult life and he is currently 76. Granted, he did exercise by training for powerlifting meets, but he lifted in the superheavyweight class so that he would not have to limit his bodyweight. At his zenith, he was about 6' 3", and he peaked in weight at 370lbs. through the course of his competition career, he transitioned from doing full meets to doing bench and deadlift meets to just bench meets. His joints are all shot now, and his quality of life sucks. He can barely walk, and his shoulders cause him a good bit of pain. His muscles have atrophied to embarrassingly small and weak while his gut has remained impressively large. He is currently about 310lbs. This summer, he was bragging about how much weight he has lost. I told him he only has 100lbs to go. He then said, "and look emaciated?" I said, "yeah, like me."

He is an old dog who refuses to apply new tricks.

Keep on dicking around in the gym.

[DuracellBunny]

Btw OP, you should read the link I posted on the previous page.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....icleid=1555137

In short, those with a BMI of 25-30 have the lowest mortality rates. As the studies were done across 2million+ people, they are obviously looking at untrained individuals. An untrained individual with a BMI of 29-30 must realistically (I'm guessing) have 25-30% bodyfat and yet has the lowest mortality figures.

I'm going to go against conventional wisdom for a minute and say a person's bodyfat level, in and off itself, doesn't pose anywhere near the risk that we have been lead to believe. This is pure conjecture, but follow the argument for a minute. How did the person become obese, what were the factors involved? Dietary choices, exercise (lack of), alcohol, medication, general lifestyle choices etc. The things that made the person obese have their own risk factors and you can look at obesity as a symptom of the synergistic effects of various lifestyle choices. If you treat the causes of the obesity, as well as the person losing bodyfat, their mortality figures would improve by the removal of the detrimental lifestyle choices. How much of the improved life expectancy is then related to the actual lower level of adipose tissue and how much is related to the removal of the factors that caused the obesity.

The logic of the above argument is easy to follow and whilst it may or may not have any basis in statistical evidence (I haven't looked and it would be very difficult to measure in any case), it illustrates the point that bodyfat alone is too simplistic a measure for looking at these things.

[orb85750]

That study is crap because it does not account for important unhealthy causes of low BMI -- habits and conditions. Much has been written about it. Eliminate the cancer patients, addicts, and smokers and it has been established that a lower BMI correlates with longevity.

Btw OP, you should read the link I posted on the previous page.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....icleid=1555137

In short, those with a BMI of 25-30 have the lowest mortality rates. As the studies were done across 2million+ people, they are obviously looking at untrained individuals. An untrained individual with a BMI of 29-30 must realistically (I'm guessing) have 25-30% bodyfat and yet has the lowest mortality figures.

I'm going to go against conventional wisdom for a minute and say a person's bodyfat level, in and off itself, doesn't pose anywhere near the risk that we have been lead to believe. This is pure conjecture, but follow the argument for a minute. How did the person become obese, what were the factors involved? Dietary choices, exercise (lack of), alcohol, medication, general lifestyle choices etc. The things that made the person obese have their own risk factors and you can look at obesity as a symptom of the synergistic effects of various lifestyle choices. If you treat the causes of the obesity, as well as the person losing bodyfat, their mortality figures would improve by the removal of the detrimental lifestyle choices. How much of the improved life expectancy is then related to the actual lower level of adipose tissue and how much is related to the removal of the factors that caused the obesity.

The logic of the above argument is easy to follow and whilst it may or may not have any basis in statistical evidence (I haven't looked and it would be very difficult to measure in any case), it illustrates the point that bodyfat alone is too simplistic a measure for looking at these things.

[DuracellBunny]

That study is crap because it does not account for important unhealthy causes of low BMI -- habits and conditions. Much has been written about it. Eliminate the cancer patients, addicts, and smokers and it has been established that a lower BMI correlates with longevity.

That's a dangerous thing to do though. Once you start messing with the data like that, you can do all sorts of things. Remove the diabetics and see what happens; the morbidity figures for the high BMI groups will plummet. You can make as valid an argument for the diabetics as for the smokers. Once you start removing things you can make the study say anything you like just by deciding what to remove.

If you are going to remove things based on habit, you can remove anybody that habitually sits in a chair all day watching reality tv and eating pork rinds. If you remove all unhealthy causes of low BMI, you have to remove all unhealthy causes of high BMI and the debate goes on and on.

[orb85750]

That's a dangerous thing to do though. Once you start messing with the data like that, you can do all sorts of things. Remove the diabetics and see what happens; the morbidity figures for the high BMI groups will plummet. You can make as valid an argument for the diabetics as for the smokers. Once you start removing things you can make the study say anything you like just by deciding what to remove.

If you are going to remove things based on habit, you can remove anybody that habitually sits in a chair all day watching reality tv and eating pork rinds. If you remove all unhealthy causes of low BMI, you have to remove all unhealthy causes of high BMI and the debate goes on and on.

You do make a good point. However, it's not quite the same thing to remove obese diabetics, because the obesity is what caused the diabetes (in most cases), not vice-versa.

As more support for my statement of a lower BMI correlating with longevity, look at the traditional Okinawans, who have low BMI and something like 8 or 9 times the number of centenarians (by percentage) as the rest of the industrialized world on average. It's multi-faceted and complex for sure, but the guidelines for keeping a healthy BMI below 25 are not pulled out of thin air -- they are based on a comprehensive review of the scientific literature.

[DuracellBunny]

You do make a good point. However, it's not quite the same thing to remove obese diabetics, because the obesity is what caused the diabetes (in most cases), not vice-versa.

As more support for my statement of a lower BMI correlating with longevity, look at the traditional Okinawans, who have low BMI and something like 8 or 9 times the number of centenarians (by percentage) as the rest of the industrialized world on average. It's multi-faceted and complex for sure, but the guidelines for keeping a healthy BMI below 25 are not pulled out of thin air -- they are based on a comprehensive review of the scientific literature.

I understand the process, but I know enough about how studies work to understand how the data is interpreted. For example, on a demographic level, you can draw an inverse correlative relationship between exercise and high BMI. The higher the BMI, the less exercise (on average) that they do. The same kind of thing can be done with diet. On average, the higher the BMI, the higher the amount of transfats, processed food etc. How much is down to the BMI and how much is down to what they did to reach that BMI?

On an academic level it doesn't really matter, but when it comes down to the individual level, specifically us, it gains greater import. If we do high levels of exercise and have a high quality diet, how important is BMI as an indicator of mortality. I would posit nowhere near as of great an import as the population studies would suggest.

In regards to the traditional Okinawans, they tend to have specific dietary habits. Is their longevity down to their low BMI or their diet (lots of fish etc) and lifestyle, which resulted in that low BMI?

As an aside, I am a double PhD published 40 something times (I haven't counted), although not in this field. I'm not arguing for the sake of it, I'm debating because I am very familiar with how data is sampled and used and I know that you can draw conflicting conclusions from the same data and yet be justified in both conclusions.