Does having a lot of muscle mass do anything for your actual health, quality of life, and longevity?

Does having a lot of muscle mass do anything for your actual health, quality of life, and longevity?

In the long run, what’s the point of resistance training if all you need to do to live long is walk and not eat like shit?

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    no. the mangays that populate this board are gonna come HULKING over to this thread and tell you otherwise but they're just wrong. as long as you have mobility, good cardiovascular endurance, and as you said, eat a well balanced diet, you're fine.

    its so funny, literally only other hulking mangays care about a dudes physique. women do like muscles, but nothing you couldn't accomplish by just doing calisthenics. hulkgays are always coping but NOBODY CARES ABOUT THEIR MUSCLES

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      seethe harder crossshitter

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    it’s fun
    /thread

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    god i just want to continuously smash my head against those abs like a brick wall until i get serious brain injury and die

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I’d rather just lick the sweat off her abs (and pits, of course) but each to their own, brotein shake!

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Man? yes its good
    Woman? fucks up your menstruations and life after age 30

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Does having a lot of muscle mass do anything for your actual health, quality of life, and longevity?
    Yes

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    more muscle = more time till sarcopenia renders you a withered gay = more years enjoying high quality of life with full mobility and autonomy.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If you go ridiculously hard and end up on the obese side of a bmi chart at below 10% bodyfat youll probably have some heart problems or something?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Only happens with non-natty lifters, which you shouldn't even take into consideration when the topic is about health and longevity

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I dont think its impossible to be natty and do it. Ive hit 242lbs at 6'4 and i was around 12-15% it wouldve taken some serious effort but im sure i couldve gone sub 10% and maintained weight

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You were not even close to the written bf% percentages. Take it from another tall guy who used to underestimated his bodyfat levels on IST, I used to believe I was 14% because I could see some hint of abs but in hindsight I was probably 18% at that point. Lost a shitton of water weight and dropped from 245 to 200 close to actual 10%

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    women just want HWD

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    > According to the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, there are healthy body fat percentages based on your age. For people aged 20 to 39, women should aim for 21% to 32% of body fat. Men should have 8% to 19%. For people 40 to 59, women should fall between 23% to 33% and men should fall around 11% to 21%. If you’re aged 60 to 79, women should have 24% to 35% body fat and men should have 13% to 24%.

    Lol so basically I can just do whatever the fuck I want

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >taking advise from people that despise you and want you to be a placid, insect eating slave

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The "Science" was wrong about eggs
        >Milk
        >cardio
        >global warming
        >Covid
        Why would you trust them now?

        I bet y’all listen to joe rogan too. Neck yourselves and use crystal magic you fucking retards

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Science can't tell you what you "should" do. If it's telling you that, it is not science.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Studies says X food causes cancer
            A reasonable person would interpret that as science saying you shouldn't eat that food.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Yeah, sunlight can cause cancer too. Does this mean science is telling us we should only use artificial light? Does this mean you should avoid going outside? Hell no dude.
              You can't avoid doing the cost/benefit analysis. Science can't do it for you. There are always tradeoffs, and it's up to YOU to decide what the best course of action is-- it is not up to the people wearing lab coats.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                > Does this mean you should avoid going outside?

                If you’re white then yes lol

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Good luck anon. Higher mortality among those who avoid sunlight.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >A reasonable person would interpret that as science saying you shouldn't eat that food.
              No cause one study that was probably paid of by someone who wants you to consume food Y instead of X doesn't mean much. I bet you heckin' love science you retard, don't you?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Never said I was reasonable

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Studies also say you are 99% more likely to be raped if you are a white woman around a black male.
              thank you for validating my racism

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >thank you for validating my racism
                It's 2022, you're late to the party

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >The "Science" was wrong about eggs
      >Milk
      >cardio
      >global warming
      >Covid
      Why would you trust them now?

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Strength is unbelievably useful.
    We have to be able to move ourselves around in the world to achieve some goal or avoid some threat -- which sometimes means running, or climbing, or jumping, etc.
    We also have become a creature that uses tools and builds and toils. The currency of this kind of existence is strength and endurance. Technology has eased this somewhat, but it's not as if we can just build machines that build machines that build machines that build machines that do literally every physically demanding task that needs doing. Some things are heavy and there is no reasonable way to design a machine to move them in a way that's useful to us.

    Mining is still strenuous.
    Logging is still strenuous.
    Agriculture is still strenuous.
    Construction is still strenuous.
    Transportation of goods is still strenuous.

    Imagine you're going to move to a new home. Who (or what) moves the furniture onto the truck? Who moves into the new space and puts it right where you want it? I'll contend that it will never be a machine. It will, until the end of humanity, be a pair of human beings who pick up and move that couch. It's not impossible for a machine to exist that does that, but it's not economically or logistically or ergonomically worthwhile.

    tl;dr civilization is enabled by the capacity of human beings to do physical work and that will never change. You may not need strength, but you will certainly come to rely on the strength of others.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Logging is still strenuous.
      Eat less fibre. Trust me bro

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If you can't carry your mom or loved one into your car from upstairs into the car to take to the er that could be the difference between life and death.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >more bone density
    >better posture
    >stronger articulations
    >generally less prone to injuries
    Of course this is only true if you are natty and don't train in a retarded way.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    left.in answer to you question: i dunno probably

Your email address will not be published.