Just one more point in addition to my previous comment. The article which prompted me to start this thread is about dysmorphia in bodybuilding. Synthol abuse is outright self-mutilation rather than bodybuilding. Both can be taken to extremes, but one is crazy from the get-go.
the guy on the right must eat a lot more calories to sustain, a. lot. more. should calories matter the guy on left has the longevity edge, all else being equal. let's assume the guy on left is a marathon runner. has anyone seen an Okinawan bodybuilder?? i've see lots great kenya marathoners!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...anymore/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.991d3d2b3737 he looks soooo healthy don't he? 12,000 cals is a lot of sh^t to take in and metabolize.
endurance athletes have better hearts (ET = endurance trained, ST = strength trained): "In conclusion, ET athletes had a better diastolic function compared with ST athletes. In ET athletes population there was a better diastolic function at rest and low LVT, UTW and AVCS values associated with normal longitudinal function necessary to guarantee an adequate reserve mechanisms to increase the systolic function during exercise. These mechanisms are not present in ST athletes." I have also researched longevity and endurance athletes live longer than strength athletes. not by a great deal though. EDIT: Source -> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4286641/
he's on a road to ruin. think about it..performance is only as good as reducing risk of morbidity. after that...the curve switches direction
You'd have to define your consideration of the adjective "better". Are you asking whose heart can handle more endurance? Because I would define "better" as "will last longer" ie, not have heart disease, heart attacks, etc. And if you go by my definition, then the runner does not necessarily win.