Large Muscle Size Can Be a Sign of Poor Health

Why is there not a single mention of steroid use and abuse in the article? (It's only mentioned in the embedded video.) You can't get that big without steroids anyway. Building muscle naturally actually strengthens the heart. However, and aside from other far-reaching toxicity, steroids can actually weaken the heart.

http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/20100427/anabolic-steroids-may-weaken-the-heart

Perhaps a better thread title would be: "Large Muscle Size is a Sign of Steroid Use."
 
Last edited:
Nutritional & supplement strategies to produce excess muscle most often are inconsistent with those employed for longevity and preservation of health. Big biceps do not impart a survival advantage, BB's die prematurely young with rest of freely eating populace:(
 
jimmiebarton said:
Nutritional & supplement strategies to produce excess muscle most often are inconsistent with those employed for longevity and preservation of health. Big biceps do not impart a survival advantage, BB's die prematurely young with rest of freely eating populace:(
More...
Sorry, JB, but you're becoming a bit of a drone.

Building muscle naturally is healthy because there is a natural limit and it strengthens the heart. It promotes longevity and mobility in advanced years. It adds quality and quantity to life. As for supplements, I don't pretend to know much about them, but my guess is that they offer little more than rounding error, if that, to a good exercise regimen and proper diet. The only "supplements" that produce "excess muscle" are steroids and their equivalent. And they have nothing to do with either health or longevity. Genetic differences aside, the obviously big guys who claim to be "natural" would be more honest if they said that they were, at best, "natural now." Big difference.
 
Last edited:
Frederick Foresight said:
Sorry, but you're becoming a bit of a drone, JB.

Building muscle naturally is healthy because there is a natural limit and it strengthens the heart. It promotes longevity and mobility in advanced years. It adds quality and quantity to life. As for supplements, I don't pretend to know much about them, but my guess is that they offer little more than rounding error, if that, to a good exercise regimen and proper diet. The only "supplements" that produce "excess muscle" are steroids and their equivalent. And they have nothing to do with either health or longevity. Genetic differences aside, the obviously big guys who claim to be "natural" would be more honest if they said that they were, at best, "natural now." Big difference.
More...
exercise (ie activity) is useful for longevity, but it's bell shaped with a maxima reached quickly. Now, make nutritional decisions about your bicep size, you're no longer thinking of health but appearance:(
 
So the antioxidant group gained more strength but less size than the placebo group. Which group was made healthier by the program?
I’ll put my money down on this: the smaller muscle that can exert more force is the healthier muscle. A gargantuan but weak muscle is an unhealthy muscle.
 
Last edited:
trader482 said:
Maybe you guys can read the article first. Just a thought...

Everyone who works out should be aware: when it comes to muscles, bigger is not the same as better. The healthiest muscles are those in a wiry physique – modest size, but able to exert a lot of force.
More...
I did. My point is that the author's reference to bodybuilders, who were clearly juicing, is something of a false point of comparison, and therefore diminishes the credibility of the article. As for the guinea pigs, I'll be sure to give mine plenty of antioxidants (rather than deprive them of antioxidants either substantially or altogether). But I'll just stick to the ~normal levels:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...t-supplements-too-much-of-a-kinda-good-thing/

http://healthland.time.com/2013/08/06/the-truth-about-antioxidants/

I don't know how big you think you can get naturally, but my guess is most people overestimate that limit by what they see and read in muscle rags. I doubt the natural limit impedes health, especially when supported with a natural, balanced diet.
 
Last edited:
The concern where 'building muscle' is primary goal too many calories and too much protein is consumed, knocking biomarkers in the dirt. and too much fat which almost always attached to animal protein. "To get big muscle got to eat big muscle (ie, animal protein)..ever hear this adage?
 
Last edited:
Frederick Foresight said:
Only among the uninformed. True, engaging in athletic activity requires more protein intake than does a sedentary lifestyle, but the additional requirement is not that much more, and most Americans are getting too much already anyway.

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/psychology/health_psychology/Protein.htm

And weekend warriors don't need even that.

As for calories, sure, the more energy you expend, the more energy you will need. But even a fool can see when he's wearing too much "food energy" around his waist.

There is nothing wrong with getting bigger naturally (and that's not nearly as big as you might think -- forget the guys posing, they're all drugged up). You get stronger and fitter in the process.
More...
And that's the concern in a nutshell. Making nutritional decisions such as protein intake on your muscle size. Only so many calories can be consumed, how many % will you devote to protein, and what source and why? Every gram additional of protein is a gram of blueberries that must be discarded. Where do you believe the nutritional bang for the buck lies...steak or blueberries, and WHYo_O
 
Statements such as this below are always amusing:

"Yes, the improvement was not statistically significant. But it was there. "

If it is not statistically significant, it is NOT there. Not at the level of significance one has elected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top