Is extreme bodybuilding putting your heart at risk? Here's what the study says
Bodybuilders push their limits through intense exercise, strict diets, and in some cases, the abuse of performance-enhancing drugs. While the result is a sculpted body, it comes at a cost, and as per a recent study, the tradeoff is human life being cut short.
That stark conclusion is drawn from a large-scale study published on May 20 in the European Heart Journal. Researchers tracked 20,286 male bodybuilders who had competed in at least one bodybuilding event between 2005 and 2020.
The findings revealed that professional bodybuilders were twice as likely to die from sudden cardiac death as the general population—and five times more likely than amateur bodybuilders.
'Our findings show that the risk of death among male bodybuilders is considerably high. Professional athletes had a markedly higher incidence of sudden cardiac death, suggesting that the level of competition might contribute to this increased risk,' said study co-author Dr.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Zumbido e perda de audição? Médico revela técnica caseira de 1 real para aliviar!
Zumbido no ouvido
Undo
Marco Vecchiato, sports medicine specialist at the University of Padova, Italy.
A global Pattern
The study identified 121 deaths among competitive bodybuilders, with the average age at death just 45. Of these, about 40% were sudden and heart-related, often caused by underlying, often undetected, cardiac issues. The breakdown of deaths by geography painted a global picture of the crisis:
North America: 40.5% (mostly USA)
Europe: 38.8%
Asia: 7.4%
Africa: 6.6%
South America: 5%
Oceania: 1.7%
The data was compiled through official records, social media posts, news reports, forums, and blogs in five different languages. Death reports were meticulously cross-verified and analyzed by two clinicians to confirm the cause of death.
The cardiac cost of building muscle
Autopsy findings from some of the deceased athletes showed signs of thickened or enlarged hearts and coronary artery disease.
In several cases, toxicology reports and public information confirmed the use of anabolic steroids and other performance-enhancing substances, which are known to strain the cardiovascular system.
Medical experts warn that these substances, often used without medical oversight, can lead to arrhythmias, heart failure, and sudden cardiac arrest—especially when combined with dehydration and intense training.
Psychological toll
The study didn't just stop at physical health. Around 15% of the deaths were categorized as sudden traumatic deaths—including suicides, overdoses, car crashes, and murders—highlighting the mental health challenges many athletes face in high-stakes competitive environments.
Additional research—including a 2021 Frontiers in Psychology review—points to body dysmorphia, depression, and obsession with appearance as key mental health issues among competitive bodybuilders. 'The pressure to achieve social ideals of muscularity may contribute to psychological distress, body dissatisfaction, and athletes may develop or worsen body dysmorphic disorders,' the study noted.
One step to a healthier you—join Times Health+ Yoga and feel the change
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
He's not a traffic cop, yet this 72-year-old from Delhi has been managing traffic for past 32 years without pay. Who is Gangaram?
Some individuals dedicate their entire existence to noble causes, driven not by recognition or rewards, but by the deep desire to bring positive change to the world around them. Their contentment lies in knowing their efforts might prevent pain for others. In a bustling corner of Delhi, one such man quietly carries out his mission. Seventy-two-year-old Gangaram has been regulating traffic at the chaotic Seelampur junction for over three decades, all without expecting a salary. He isn't part of the traffic police, nor has he been officially appointed by any authority. Yet, every single day, clad in a uniform and wielding a baton, he spends over 10 hours managing the flow of vehicles with utmost dedication. His decision to take on this role was born from personal tragedy. Years ago, Gangaram's son was killed in a road mishap at the same Seelampur signal where he now works. The two used to run a modest TV and electronics repair shop in the neighborhood. After losing his only child and, shortly thereafter, his wife—who couldn't bear the emotional weight of the loss—Gangaram found himself utterly alone. Grief-stricken but resolute, he turned his sorrow into a mission: to prevent such accidents from claiming more lives. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Healthcare Operations Management Product Management healthcare Degree Artificial Intelligence Finance Digital Marketing Management Design Thinking Data Science Others Leadership Technology Cybersecurity CXO Public Policy PGDM MCA others MBA Data Analytics Data Science Project Management Skills you'll gain: Financial Analysis in Healthcare Financial Management & Investing Strategic Management in Healthcare Process Design & Analysis Duration: 12 Weeks Indian School of Business Certificate Program in Healthcare Management Starts on Jun 13, 2024 Get Details Even during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, when elderly citizens were urged to remain indoors for their safety, Gangaram never stayed home. His unwavering commitment to managing traffic continued, despite the risks. Rain, heat, or lockdown—nothing could deter him. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Top 15 Most Beautiful Women in the World Undo Recently, his story caught the internet's attention when the widely followed platform Instant Bollywood shared his journey. The post quickly went viral, garnering over 16,000 likes and heartfelt reactions. Social media users flooded the comment section with admiration, calling for national recognition of his service and praising his courage and sense of responsibility. Gangaram remains a poignant reminder of how one man's grief can be transformed into a lifelong mission to protect others—an everyday hero guarding Delhi's roads, asking for nothing in return.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Trump's NASA budget cuts could compromise human safety, warn hundreds of agency employees in open letter
According to NASA scientists, impending budget cuts could jeopardise mission safety and open the door for another catastrophe similar to the Challenger disaster in 1986. According to Kyle Helson, a research scientist at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Centre and the University of Maryland , "when you're talking about cuts that appear unstrategic and unthoroughly researched and not motivated by actual improvements in mission safety, then you start to get people worried," he told Megan Williams, guest host on If You Happen. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Technology Design Thinking others PGDM Finance Healthcare Product Management CXO Degree Public Policy MCA healthcare Operations Management Project Management Digital Marketing Leadership Data Science Data Science Data Analytics Cybersecurity MBA Artificial Intelligence Management Others Skills you'll gain: Duration: 12 Weeks MIT xPRO CERT-MIT XPRO Building AI Prod India Starts on undefined Get Details In an open letter, Helson joins 362 other NASA personnel, both past and present, who have expressed concern about "recent policies that have or threaten to waste public resources, compromise human safety, weaken national security, and undermine the core NASA mission." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Learn More - How Watching Videos Can Boost Your Income TheDaddest Undo NASA official Bethany Stevens downplayed the worries in an email to CBC. "NASA will always prioritise safety. Any cuts, including the one we're making voluntarily right now, will be made to safeguard roles that are vital to safety," she stated. Live Events US savings of $6 billion are being proposed President Donald Trump of the United States is proposing a 25% budget decrease for NASA overall, or around $6 billion US ($8.22 billion Cdn), and a 50% cut for the scientific research division. "President Trump has proposed billions of dollars for NASA science, demonstrating an ongoing commitment to communicating our scientific achievements," Stevens stated. According to Helson, that is radically dishonest but technically true. "That's like saying your bicycle is missing one wheel, but don't worry, you've still got another wheel," said the man. The Congress that controls NASA's budget has not yet approved Trump's cuts. However, a number of senior officials stated they will proceed with them regardless in audio that was leaked from a NASA town hall meeting last month. The leading Democrats on a House committee that is in charge of NASA's budget, Zoe Lofgren and Valerie P. Foushee, have stated that it would be "flatly illegal" and "offensive to our constitutional system" to impose the cuts too soon. NASA has been urged by the bipartisan committee to refrain from making the changes. Fears of retaliation Addressed to Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy, whom Trump named interim NASA administrator earlier this month, is the open letter known as The Voyager Declaration. Calls for comment were sent to NASA by Duffy's office. In particular, the declaration highlights worries that if NASA keeps going in this direction, current missions will be cancelled, important scientific data will be lost, international partners will be dropped, development programs will be discontinued, staffing will be completely cut, and safety precautions will be reduced. It comes after similar open letters were sent by employees of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the latter of which suspended 144 of the signatories. Similar retaliation is feared by NASA employees Only four signatories who currently work with NASA are willing to speak out on record, and about half of those who signed the letter did so anonymously, according to NIH and EPA representatives and Stand Up For Science, the group that organised the letter. Among those four, Helson claims that the only reason he feels comfortable speaking is because he works with NASA in collaboration with the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, which he claims allows him greater academic freedom than those who work directly for NASA. "A lot of my coworkers who are civil servants are very afraid right now, and so I want to use what I perceive to be my advantages in my position to speak out on their behalf," he stated. "People are afraid that they're going to lose their job." When CBC asked NASA if it would take revenge on the signatories to the letter, NASA did not answer. The letter is formatted as an act of "Formal Dissent," a reference to a NASA policy that gives staff members the right to voice their opinions on choices they feel are "not in the best interest of NASA." The New York Times claims that the policy was implemented in response to the fatal Challenger space shuttle disaster in 1986 and the Columbia space shuttle disaster in 2003, when some engineers' concerns were dismissed. All seven of the astronauts on board perished when the Challenger broke apart seconds into its ascent on January 28, 1986. On February 1, 2003, the seven-person crew of the Columbia perished when it broke apart during re-entry. Signatories to the letter express concern that the changes will affect other programs intended to avoid such tragedies. "The culture of organisational silence promoted at NASA over the last six months already represents a dangerous turn away from the lessons learnt following the Columbia disaster," the letter continues. The Official Declaration of Voyager sent by signatories of ex-NASA and NASA officials to NASA's Interim Administrator Duffy Dear Interim Administrator Duffy, In light of your recent appointment as Interim NASA Administrator, we bring to your attention recent policies that have or threaten to waste public resources, compromise human safety, weaken national security, and undermine the core NASA mission. We, the signatories of this letter, dissent from these policies, and raise these concerns because we believe strongly in the importance of NASA's mission, which we are dedicated to uphold. Major programmatic shifts at NASA must be implemented strategically so that risks are managed carefully. Instead, the last six months have seen rapid and wasteful changes which have undermined our mission and caused catastrophic impacts on NASA's workforce. We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritizes political momentum over human safety, scientific advancement, and efficient use of public resources. These cuts are arbitrary and have been enacted in defiance of congressional appropriations law. The consequences for the agency and the country alike are dire. Main concerns raised by the officials 1) The officials oppose any modifications to NASA's Technical Authority capabilities that are motivated by factors other than mission assurance and safety. Already, the organisational quiet culture that NASA has fostered over the past six months is a risky departure from the lessons learnt in the wake of the Columbia tragedy. The Technical Authority system should only be altered to improve safety, not in anticipation of future budget cuts, as was proposed at the NASA Town Hall on June 25. 2) The officials oppose the termination of missions for which Congress has approved funds because it would permanently deprive the United States of its ability to operate both on Earth and in space. Operational spacecraft cannot be restarted after they are decommissioned. Furthermore, the next generation of vital observations could be lost if missions in development are cancelled. 3) Because indiscriminate cuts to NASA's scientific and aeronautics research would deprive the American people of the special public benefit that NASA offers, the officials oppose their implementation. Fundamental space science, aviation, and environmental stewardship research are fundamentally governmental tasks that the private sector cannot and will not undertake. Additionally, NASA promotes national security by ensuring that the United States maintains its leadership in science and technology, and it generates economic activity that roughly triples the return on investment. 4) Because NASA's non-strategic staffing reductions will compromise the agency's primary mission, the officials oppose them. In the process of terminating, resigning, or retiring early thousands of NASA civil servants have taken with them highly specialised, irreplaceable knowledge that is essential to NASA's mission. 5) The officials oppose NASA's decision to stop participating in foreign missions because it would be betraying America's allies. The Artemis Accords have been ratified by 55 countries to date, and NASA's position as the global leader in space exploration is in jeopardy if we stop supporting missions with our longstanding partners at the European Space Agency (ESA), Canadian Space Agency (CSA), Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), and others. 6) Because it hurts state and local economies nationwide, the officials oppose the cancellation of NASA funding and contracts for non-performance-related reasons. By eliminating competitive grant selection procedures, arbitrary contract and grant termination undermines private entrepreneurship and lowers the amount of private sector jobs related to the space economy. 7) Because it diminishes NASA's ability to innovate for the good of humanity, the officials oppose the termination of programs designed to train and support the agency's personnel. The agency's primary value of inclusion is squarely at odds with cuts to diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessible programming that have already been put into place. The country's future space economy workforce would suffer a severe damage if the Office of STEM Engagement were abolished.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
So it was not diabetes but the common diabetes pill which was causing heart disease! Shocking research reveals the unbelievable!
For many living with type 2 diabetes, managing blood sugar is a daily reality. Often, medications come as a lifeline, and among them, sulfonylureas like glipizide are popular choices, especially in the US. They've been around for decades, are affordable, and have shown effective results in keeping glucose in check. But now, a new study has cast a shadow over this commonly used medicine. Researchers have discovered a possible link between glipizide and increased heart-related risks. Here's what the study found, what it truly means, and why this matters to families where diabetes is part of everyday conversations. Glipizide: Familiar, trusted, But now under scrutiny Glipizide belongs to a group of drugs called sulfonylureas. For decades, these medications have been trusted for lowering blood sugar in people with type 2 diabetes, often when metformin alone isn't enough. What made glipizide popular was its affordability and long-standing availability. But popularity doesn't always mean perfection. The latest study signals a possible red flag. Involving nearly 48,000 individuals, this research found that those taking glipizide had a higher risk of heart attacks, strokes, heart failure hospitalisations, and even cardiovascular-related deaths than those taking a newer class of drugs called DPP-4 inhibitors. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like You Won't Believe the Price of These Dubai Apartments Binghatti Developers FZE Get Offer Undo The numbers that raised eyebrows The research compared glipizide with other sulfonylureas like glimepiride and glyburide, along with DPP-4 inhibitors. Here's what stood out: Over a 5-year period, the risk of major heart events was 9.1% in those taking glipizide, while for those on DPP-4 inhibitors, it was 8.1%. The risk ratio for glipizide users was 1.13, indicating a 13% higher risk of cardiovascular events compared to DPP-4 inhibitor users. The risk was also slightly higher with glimepiride (8.6%) and glyburide (8.4%), but not statistically significant. What makes this important is that most participants were on their second diabetes medication after metformin, a common scenario in diabetes care. And they weren't at extremely high cardiac risk to begin with, just moderate, everyday individuals managing a chronic condition. Not just about the numbers, but about what they mean It's easy to be alarmed by statistics. But what do these numbers truly tell us? Firstly, the study doesn't claim that glipizide causes heart problems directly. What it suggests is a possible association, a pattern that raises concerns, especially in people already facing moderate cardiovascular risk. The heart, after all, is already under pressure in type 2 diabetes. When a drug meant to help with sugar control potentially adds to that risk, even slightly, it becomes a serious discussion for healthcare providers. Why affordability might come at a cost Sulfonylureas like glipizide are often the go-to option in low- and middle-income settings because they're inexpensive. DPP-4 inhibitors, on the other hand, are costlier but have a more favourable cardiovascular safety profile. This raises a deeper, more sensitive question: should treatment decisions depend on cost or safety? The answer isn't straightforward. But studies like this push for better informed decisions, where doctors weigh more than just sugar levels, they also look at heart health, overall risk, and long-term quality of life. What this means for families dealing with diabetes This isn't about pushing panic buttons. Glipizide is still an approved and effective drug. But the study offers important insights for personalised diabetes management. It's a reminder that medications work differently for different people, and what works well for one might not be ideal for another, especially when silent risks like cardiovascular strain are involved. It's also a cue to revisit older medications with a fresh lens, especially when newer, safer options are available. The story here isn't about fear, but about awareness and agency. (Inputs from agencies)
