It won’t be news to anyone that muscle mass is an indicator of health and longevity. But a debate that rarely happens is the extent to which this muscle mass stops being healthy and starts having a harmful effect. This issue is rarely addressed because, on the one hand, very few people have “extra” muscle mass and, on the other, because the information on this topic is not that extensive or conclusive.
When analyzing the relationship between muscle and mortality, there is one detail that stands out: all studies indicate that having low mass levels muscular/lean mass increases mortality riskbut they do not unequivocally state that “the more muscle, the better”, nor do they clearly identify the level at which the benefit ceases to exist. Interestingly, the same can no longer be said for strength levels and cardiorespiratory fitnesswhere yes, there seems to be the maxim “the more, the better”. Which means that, more important than how much the muscle measures, is how much the muscle (and cardiorespiratory system) does/works.
In theory, a good population to study the effect of large amounts of muscle mass on longevity would be bodybuilders. And in fact the evidence is overwhelming, as professional bodybuilders have a 5 times higher risk of sudden death than amateur athletes. Furthermore, respective autopsies consistently reveal ventricular hypertrophy (thickness of the left ventricle 125% higher considered normal) and cardiomegaly (with a heart 75% heavier compared to a healthy individual).
It is true that, in these athletes, the use of anabolic steroids contributes decisively to this outcome. The use of these substances triples the risk of sudden death not only due to the aforementioned effects on cardiovascular architecture, but also by increasing blood pressure, cholesterol and the number of red blood cells, making the blood thicker. However, in studies carried out in non-athlete individuals we can reach similar conclusions: people with excessively high levels of lean mass (Lean Mass Index > 24.3 and 20.6 kg/m2 in men and women, respectively) have a higher risk of cardiovascular mortality. One possible justification is that excess body weight — whether fat mass or muscle mass — can impose an additional hemodynamic load on the cardiovascular system, increasing blood volume, ventricular wall tension and, ultimately, the risk of heart failure.
Another view (more speculative, of course), may be related to the constant periods of “bulk” or caloric surplus necessary to create even more muscle mass where there is already a lot. While this excess of calories is necessary to create the optimal environment for muscular hypertrophy, it is not necessary to ingest too high a value, as this will only increase the amount of fat mass gained, without additional benefits on strength and muscle mass. These recurring periods of caloric surplus every autumn/winter (even with subsequent restriction in spring/summer) are often accompanied by excessive consumption of protein in the diet (and an exaggerated supply of protein whey and consequent stimulation of insulin production), together with a reduced incidence of cardiovascular training can create a perfect broth for a metabolic environment unfavorable in the long term.
The conclusion to be drawn is that muscle mass is crucial and (together with the training that increases it) constitutes one of the greatest life insurance policies we can take. But, as with protein intake (both daily and per meal), its benefits seem to occur up to a certain point, after which there may no longer be additional benefits or even counterproductive effects.
We are talking about a first world problem, because what abounds are cases of too little muscle mass, not too much muscle mass. Still, this is an important message for the community of fitness and more orthodox bodybuilding, which sometimes even boasts some moral superiority over “hybrid” modalities, such as CrossFit or Hyrox.
It is possible to be healthy without having 40 centimeters of arms or 105 centimeters of glutes.
It is possible to be healthy without doing weight training five to six times a week (especially when this involves neglecting more cardiovascular training).
It is possible to be healthy without eating five or six identical lunchbox meals of “chicken/sweet potato/broccoli” or “tuna/pasta” (especially if this results in a consumption well above 2.5g/kg/day of protein).
There is more to life than training-resting-eating (especially for new parents, shift workers and people on low incomes), and there is much more to life beyond a “six pack” fully defined (especially if this is at the cost of giving up socializing with family and friends).
And above all, it is incomparably healthier to achieve good levels of muscle mass, strength and endurance without the use of anabolic steroids and all the side effects that come with them.
A “big” and muscular body is not always a strong, mobile and performative body. And as we have already seen, it is the triad mass/muscle volume (strength)/endurance which can provide the greatest gains for our health.
