11 ms·

Except for winning competitions, is there any natural advantage of bodybuilding for both men and women? For both, for advantage in most sports and attractivene

Except for winning competitions, is there any natural advantage of bodybuilding for both men and women? For both, for advantage in most sports and attractiveness the typical calisthenics physique, sort of gymnast/football(soccer) one seems like the ideal one to me, yet a lot of people seem to be obsessed with getting overly buff.

leshow 6y ago
Depends what you mean. Genetics plays a big role in competitive bodybuilding, but it plays a big role in any sport. Some people are genetically predisposed to put muscle on easier, some people genetically can be leaner, all of these things can help. At the upper levels of the sport you will see people that work very hard, have good genetics, and do lots of steroids.
throw0101a 6y ago
> Except for winning competitions, is there any natural advantage of bodybuilding for both men and women? For the 'extreme' of what most competitors go through? Probably not. But resistance/strength training more generally is probably beneficial: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_training https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_training For women especially, as they age about one-third suffer from osteoporosis, and lifting (heavy!) weights forces body adaptions that help strengthen bones. One also often hears about seniors slipping/falling and breaking hips, which can cause a downward health spiral: doing squats and deadlifts with respectable weights (1.0x to 1.5x your bodyweight) would probably help with that. Some simple tests can reliably predict longevity: number of push-ups that can be done, speed of walking up stairs, and a sitting-rising test: * https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/simple-sitting-test-predicts-how-long-youll-live https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/simple-sitting-test-... All involved strength more than aerobic ability. There's also the fact that strength is useful in life: from carrying children and groceries, moving (heavy) items, etc. It will also help in keeping one's independence when older: I see infomercials about electric chairs to help the elderly up and down stairs. That's completely unnecessary if one has sufficient muscle mass (which is harder to keep as one ages) for mobility and stability. * https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/want-to-live-longer-and-better-strength-train https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/want-to-live-... If one has a limited amount of time, the one activity that I'd do (and do personally) is weight training. The main disadvantage is that some equipment is needed, and with gyms closed nowadays it's hard to get much done. As a fall-back I have taken up running, but it's not my first choice (though I cycled to work pre-WFH).
- Someone 6y ago
  Some of the training may be similar, but I see resistance/strength training as different from body-building. You do the former to become stronger, the latter to look it, and even ignoring the substance abuse (which happens in strength training, too) that adds aspects to training that are unhealthy. I also think that strength training reaches a plateau fairly soon where endurance training gives bigger benefits than further strength training.
- Guthur 6y ago
  I'd strongly second resistance training, it doesn't really take that much time either. A simple program like Starting Strength will have you train for not much more than 60 minutes three days a week and you'll make significant strength gains up to 1.5x body weight easily.
  - Kluny 6y ago
    For women reading this - beware, it's not that easy. I've followed Starting Strength a couple of times and I plateau at 1.3x my weight in deadlift and .75x my weight in squats. Sticking to the program doesn't get me past it. I have to shake it up a lot with more reps, smaller weight intervals, and nearly doubling my food intake. It was a great way to get started though, and I'm really happy about the changes my body went through in six months or so. After that, you have to find a different program or a trainer.
    - Guthur 6y ago
      My apologies, my experience is from a male point of view on this, limits of my biology. There is a starting strength lift standards which shows more what to expect from a female perspective and is indeed a lot smaller relative to body weight. Starting strength is definitely a beginner program but it's simplicity is an excellent place to start. After the SS program I've gone to the Texas Method and enjoyed great success, ymmv.
    - throw0101a 6y ago
      For women, the Strong Curves is a popular program/book: * https://www.bretcontreras.store/products/strong-curves https://www.bretcontreras.store/products/strong-curves * https://old.reddit.com/r/StrongCurves/ https://old.reddit.com/r/StrongCurves/ I still think that SS is a good starter for the first 3-6 months, but once you can no longer jump by 2-5 pounds (1-2 kg) per workout, you've basically used up your beginner gains. (True also for men.) SS isn't meant to be a long-term program, but mostly (a) getting people to actually do strength training with (b) proper form and (c) concentrating on the Big 5 movements that probably give the best bang-for-buck/time.
toyg 6y ago
The "natural" footballer (soccer) physique is far from ideal: it's basically just thick legs and very rigid back. It's only in the last 20/30 years that footballers started training the whole body, mostly because "why not" - their physios are now well-educated professionals with degrees, they're already at the gym on most days, and it helps them look cool. This said, they are definitely closer to "ideal" natural proportions than most bodybuilders. They are also more balanced than tennis/basketball/baseball players, who have to work quite hard in the gym to compensate for the extremely unbalanced efforts their sports require. There is a lot to be said for the rugby physique; sadly the sport is insane on the grounds of personal safety.
- Dma54rhs 6y ago
  I know in person someone playing in the Polish highest division, not exactly a beer league. Eventually the club got rid of him for disciplinary reasons - the physios didn't approve him training his upper body too muscular that makes you less 'elastic'. He obviously didn't agree with them but by looking at his career trajectory they were probably right.
  - tomjakubowski 6y ago
    Robert Lewandowski is very fit and strong from top to bottom. I'm surprised Polish clubs aren't encouraging their players to imitate him.
    - toyg 6y ago
      Not everyone should be a "bomber" n.9 like Lewa...
  - 3131s 6y ago
    They're wrong. The reason that every athlete should train every part of their body is because it raises overall testosterone and promotes blood flow throughout the entire body, which speeds development and healing of the muscle groups that are predominantly used in whatever sport... e.g. I'm a sprinter, so I train my upper body as well because it helps my legs grow and heal faster.
scythe 6y ago
> is there any natural advantage of bodybuilding for both men and women? I'm especially curious about the long-term effects of training muscles for hypertrophy rather than functional endpoints (strength, power, endurance). It's always stuck out to me that workout guides just treat this as normal — "everyone" wants big muscles, so we should all do painful eccentric reps to stress them out and build up lots of not-so-useful tissue? It's not obvious this is directly comparable to normal exercise. Culturally it bothers me — fitness should be for everyone, but being a gym rat under whatever name (Crossfitter, etc) has become an identity that you either cling to or retreat from, to the detriment of both camps.
- astee 6y ago
  For naturals, there is significant overlap in the training style that produces maximum strength gains and maximum size gains. Larger muscles are stronger muscles. Studies have shown very similar size gains between groups performing high weight sets and more moderate "hypertrophy" style sets, though training with higher weight maximizes strength gains. One thing not revealed in short term studies, but which I have observed[1], is that training for strength early on eventually produces better gains in size, since when you do shift to "higher rep" training, you will be able to use more weight -> bigger muscles. Regardless, I don't think it's all that important to stress over these details, and progressively overloading (increasing weight/reps) the compound movements (squats/deadlifts/bench press/overhead press) over time is far more important than rep schemes and intensity. For steroid users, the equation changes some, as they benefit more from very high volume, high rep training that pumps the muscles full of blood. Natural lifters cannot recover quickly enough from this sort of training. [1]standard disclaimer about taking this with a grain of salt as I'm just some internet stranger, but I do have > 10 years experience with this
  - porb121 6y ago
    regarding [1], you would have a hard time getting agreement from big names in evidence-based lifting circles. e.g. I'm fairly certain Israetel, Nuckols, Helms, and others have all disagreed, and I am less certain but believe others (James hoffman, James Krieger) have too
RealityVoid 6y ago
Strong people are harder to kill and more usefull in general.
- falcor84 6y ago
  >Strong people are harder to kill Is that actually so? Looking at US homicide statistics, over 75% of cases involve firearms. Would a bodybuilder have better chances of surviving a bullet wound?
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
    Yes
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - porb121 6y ago
    you can be killed by ways other than homicide
    - falcor84 6y ago
      What approaches do you have in mind? War? Government enforced famine? Selling me cheap cigarettes? Something else? And how much will bodybuilding help me avoid getting killed by these?
      - kridsdale1 6y ago
        Falling down the stairs at 80 years old will kill someone who spent 80 years sedentary vs an 80 year old yoked grandpa
- nashalo_nighly 6y ago
  Most homicide victims are men and men are on average stronger than women so I seriously doubt that.
b0rsuk 6y ago
I think many women enjoy feeling small, petite next to a swole guy. Or just a big guy. I'm extremely tall and random girls and coworkers have commented how small they feel next to me, but always with a smile.
porb121 6y ago
bodybuilding is far less injurious than other strength sports and those are far less injurious than any team sports. you are almost certain to sustain significant acute injuries doing gymnastics, football, basketball, etc over a long training career. the same cannot be said for bodybuilding - you might develop overuse injuries or wear and tear, but still less frequently than in other sports. it's really, really, really hard to tear an acl, break a collarbone, or dislocate a shoulder bodybuilding. yet I know someone who did all 3 in one season of rugby!
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  I think it really depends. I mean the extremes of bodybuilding also involve rigid diets (maximizing calories for maintenance and bulking out, minimizing them + dehydration around competition, down to dangerous levels of fat (people have fainted at competitions), or lifting to the point of tearing muscles, prolapsing, etc. A competition weightlifter can only go for a record attempt once, maybe twice a year - their nerves are fried after that. And there's enough dumb people around that try and lift too much without being spotted.
  - porb121 6y ago
    no, it really doesn't depend. there is well-established research on the relative safety of bodybuilding [1]; you have to provide evidence that somehow the diets involved in contest prep increase the injury rate of bodybuilding by a factor of 10 (to be comparable to other strength sports), or >100x for other dynamic sports. such an increase would mean diet-related injuries account for 90/99% of bodybuilding injuries; anyone involved in the sport can tell you that's not even close to true. you would be on the mark if you mentioned the anabolic agents in contest prep, especially fat-burners/diuretics/insulin. those absolutely shorten the lifespan of bodybuilders drastically, but natural bodybuilding is a perfectly healthy and popular alternative. > A competition weightlifter can only go for a record attempt once, maybe twice a year - their nerves are fried after that. it's unclear whether you mean a true olympic weightlifter or a powerlifter - neither is true. the bulgarian weightlifting team under Abadjiev famously competed dozens of times per year while training just as hard throughout the year. the IWF olympic qualification (before covid changed the timeline) required athletes to compete in 6 events from november 2018 to april 2020 - that's more than twice a year alone. a top american weightlifter might compete at pan ams, IWF worlds, and USAW nationals alone each year. in powerlifting, an elite american lifter at minimum has to do USAPL nationals and IPF worlds, but might also do the arnold or local meets. [1] Keogh and Winwood, or Siewe et al.
lvturner 6y ago
Yes. The mental and physical requirements coupled with seeing the weekly changes in the mirror were damn near the only thing that kept me sane over a busy period of work, combined with lockdown, combined with my wife being away for over three months due to work/family illness and unable to see each other due to travel restrictions. I also went from an unhealthy BMI, high but not yet dangerously so cholesterol levels to nearly stage lean (have since raised my weight to a saner level) and having excellent blood work all round to the point of my doctor being completely astonished. (Note, I did not take any androgenic substances, so I wasn’t expecting much other than positive changes in my blood work)
ardit33 6y ago
By bodybuilding, you probably mean steroid-fueled muscle building. Most natural body-building will never reach that level. On the other way, there is plenty of good health reasons to train with weights, and build a good/solid muscle mass. It also improves a lot of other aspects in your life (social). So, weight-training, bodybuilding - lite is great. Steroid ladden/extreme body building one is probably not healthy.
- kofejnik 6y ago
  > Steroid ladden/extreme body building one is probably not healthy. Steroids are not necessarily always bad, tho taking your body to the extremes of competitive bodybuilding probably is.
  - linspace 6y ago
    My reasoning is the following, and as someone who likes to do weight lifting I would love to be proved wrong: if steroids are not necessarily bad and we surely know they work wonders how is it possible that, in a world obsessed with looks and moving so much money in all kind of (absurd) products, they have not been legally commercialized somehow.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - samatman 6y ago
      We could ask this question about almost every substance which has been declared illegal. Indeed, we should. I don't use androgenic steroids, but I'm right on the cliff where natural levels start falling off, and once I'm over it, I will give it some serious consideration.
      - linspace 6y ago
        I don't discard also using them in the future to some extent slow aging effects but it's hard to find good info.
pengaru 6y ago
I don't think so. My understanding is that being overweight always makes some health problems more likely, especially long-term. Even if it's muscle. And that's not even considering the effects of taking excessive growth hormones / steroids etc common to body building. Being fit is something else altogether, and produces better health outcomes AIUI.
- adrianN 6y ago
  It's really hard to become overweight from muscle without steroids.
  - sanedigital 6y ago
    Obese, maybe, but not overweight. Overweight at 5’10” is around 170 lbs. That’s not even close to steroid territory.
    - adrianN 6y ago
      That is still pretty hard to achieve with low bodyfat.
      - sanedigital 6y ago
        It takes a few years of consistent but not intense activity to reach, and then is quite easy to maintain.
jcfrei 6y ago
Assuming you mean natural body building (without hormones etc): More muscles means better circulation, so you are less likely to feel cold. More muscles also increase the basal metabolic rate so you are less likely to get overweight.
Blikkentrekker 6y ago
Leaving all the ridiculous gender politics aside, body building is very comparable to those so-called “pro-ana” models in how unhealthy it is, and I believe it should be treated the same, which is, of course: allow a man to do what he wants. However, it strikes me as a particular dual standard that some jurisdictions have tackled models whose body fat percentage is dangerously low, but who do not have steroid-built, unhealthily large muscles with it that their body fat can't healthily support, but seem to be completely fine with adding said unhealthy muscles, to the former. It comes as no surprise to me that such jurisdictions elect to primarily use the very unreliable and pseudoscientific body mass index in lieu of the more reliable body fat percentage as an indicator of “underweight”, for had they elected to use the latter: it would accurately show that most body builders are unhealthy low in fat, and would be struck down under the same rules. But of course, that is not what they desire, for that falls under what they consider to be their conventional ideal of beauty, and “health concerns" have always been one of the first thing the authoritarian reaches for, to enforce his own will and social control over others. We ban drugs, for they are unhealthy! but alcohol? well I don't know about that... they are socially acceptable, after all.
- nsajko 6y ago
  > some jurisdictions have tackled models whose body fat percentage is dangerously low [...] What are you talking about here? > unhealthily large muscles Taking steroids and other activities related to bodybuilding and sports more generally can sure take their toll, but I'm pretty sure nobody has problems because of overly large muscles. > most body builders are unhealthy low in fat Source? > But of course, that is not what they desire, for that falls under what they consider to be their conventional ideal of beauty [...] Aren't you contradicting your point now? Or maybe I misunderstood what your point is?
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    > What are you talking about here? Some jurisdictions do not allow models under a certain b.m.i. to be commercially featured: https://www.euronews.com/2017/09/06/counties-fighting-underweight-modelling https://www.euronews.com/2017/09/06/counties-fighting-underw... > Taking steroids and other activities related to bodybuilding and sports more generally can sure take their toll, but I'm pretty sure nobody has problems because of overly large muscles. They do, their low body fat can't support them and they suffer from a myriad of complications. Even if they had the body fat to support them, such as in many professional athletes, the strain to achieve them is not particularly healthy. > Source? https://abcnews.go.com/Health/legendary-bodybuilder-died-body-fat-lives/story?id=29899438 https://abcnews.go.com/Health/legendary-bodybuilder-died-bod... As the article says, professional body builders often go in the 3-to-5% body fat range, which is very unhealthy. > Aren't you contradicting your point now? Or maybe I misunderstood what your point is? Not at all; — I'm saying that “health” is but a convenient excuse to ban what the authoritarian considers not socially desirable, in this case for an ideal of beauty, whereas he is fine with letting stand that which he considers beautiful, no matter how unhealthy it might be.

leshow 6y ago

Depends what you mean. Genetics plays a big role in competitive bodybuilding, but it plays a big role in any sport. Some people are genetically predisposed to put muscle on easier, some people genetically can be leaner, all of these things can help. At the upper levels of the sport you will see people that work very hard, have good genetics, and do lots of steroids.

throw0101a 6y ago

> Except for winning competitions, is there any natural advantage of bodybuilding for both men and women? For the 'extreme' of what most competitors go through? Probably not. But resistance/strength training more generally is probably beneficial: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_training https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_training For women especially, as they age about one-third suffer from osteoporosis, and lifting (heavy!) weights forces body adaptions that help strengthen bones. One also often hears about seniors slipping/falling and breaking hips, which can cause a downward health spiral: doing squats and deadlifts with respectable weights (1.0x to 1.5x your bodyweight) would probably help with that. Some simple tests can reliably predict longevity: number of push-ups that can be done, speed of walking up stairs, and a sitting-rising test: * https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/simple-sitting-test-predicts-how-long-youll-live https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/simple-sitting-test-... All involved strength more than aerobic ability. There's also the fact that strength is useful in life: from carrying children and groceries, moving (heavy) items, etc. It will also help in keeping one's independence when older: I see infomercials about electric chairs to help the elderly up and down stairs. That's completely unnecessary if one has sufficient muscle mass (which is harder to keep as one ages) for mobility and stability. * https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/want-to-live-longer-and-better-strength-train https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/want-to-live-... If one has a limited amount of time, the one activity that I'd do (and do personally) is weight training. The main disadvantage is that some equipment is needed, and with gyms closed nowadays it's hard to get much done. As a fall-back I have taken up running, but it's not my first choice (though I cycled to work pre-WFH).

Someone 6y ago
Some of the training may be similar, but I see resistance/strength training as different from body-building. You do the former to become stronger, the latter to look it, and even ignoring the substance abuse (which happens in strength training, too) that adds aspects to training that are unhealthy. I also think that strength training reaches a plateau fairly soon where endurance training gives bigger benefits than further strength training.
Guthur 6y ago
I'd strongly second resistance training, it doesn't really take that much time either. A simple program like Starting Strength will have you train for not much more than 60 minutes three days a week and you'll make significant strength gains up to 1.5x body weight easily.
- Kluny 6y ago
  For women reading this - beware, it's not that easy. I've followed Starting Strength a couple of times and I plateau at 1.3x my weight in deadlift and .75x my weight in squats. Sticking to the program doesn't get me past it. I have to shake it up a lot with more reps, smaller weight intervals, and nearly doubling my food intake. It was a great way to get started though, and I'm really happy about the changes my body went through in six months or so. After that, you have to find a different program or a trainer.
  - Guthur 6y ago
    My apologies, my experience is from a male point of view on this, limits of my biology. There is a starting strength lift standards which shows more what to expect from a female perspective and is indeed a lot smaller relative to body weight. Starting strength is definitely a beginner program but it's simplicity is an excellent place to start. After the SS program I've gone to the Texas Method and enjoyed great success, ymmv.
  - throw0101a 6y ago
    For women, the Strong Curves is a popular program/book: * https://www.bretcontreras.store/products/strong-curves https://www.bretcontreras.store/products/strong-curves * https://old.reddit.com/r/StrongCurves/ https://old.reddit.com/r/StrongCurves/ I still think that SS is a good starter for the first 3-6 months, but once you can no longer jump by 2-5 pounds (1-2 kg) per workout, you've basically used up your beginner gains. (True also for men.) SS isn't meant to be a long-term program, but mostly (a) getting people to actually do strength training with (b) proper form and (c) concentrating on the Big 5 movements that probably give the best bang-for-buck/time.

toyg 6y ago

The "natural" footballer (soccer) physique is far from ideal: it's basically just thick legs and very rigid back. It's only in the last 20/30 years that footballers started training the whole body, mostly because "why not" - their physios are now well-educated professionals with degrees, they're already at the gym on most days, and it helps them look cool. This said, they are definitely closer to "ideal" natural proportions than most bodybuilders. They are also more balanced than tennis/basketball/baseball players, who have to work quite hard in the gym to compensate for the extremely unbalanced efforts their sports require. There is a lot to be said for the rugby physique; sadly the sport is insane on the grounds of personal safety.

Dma54rhs 6y ago
I know in person someone playing in the Polish highest division, not exactly a beer league. Eventually the club got rid of him for disciplinary reasons - the physios didn't approve him training his upper body too muscular that makes you less 'elastic'. He obviously didn't agree with them but by looking at his career trajectory they were probably right.
- tomjakubowski 6y ago
  Robert Lewandowski is very fit and strong from top to bottom. I'm surprised Polish clubs aren't encouraging their players to imitate him.
  - toyg 6y ago
    Not everyone should be a "bomber" n.9 like Lewa...
- 3131s 6y ago
  They're wrong. The reason that every athlete should train every part of their body is because it raises overall testosterone and promotes blood flow throughout the entire body, which speeds development and healing of the muscle groups that are predominantly used in whatever sport... e.g. I'm a sprinter, so I train my upper body as well because it helps my legs grow and heal faster.

scythe 6y ago

> is there any natural advantage of bodybuilding for both men and women? I'm especially curious about the long-term effects of training muscles for hypertrophy rather than functional endpoints (strength, power, endurance). It's always stuck out to me that workout guides just treat this as normal — "everyone" wants big muscles, so we should all do painful eccentric reps to stress them out and build up lots of not-so-useful tissue? It's not obvious this is directly comparable to normal exercise. Culturally it bothers me — fitness should be for everyone, but being a gym rat under whatever name (Crossfitter, etc) has become an identity that you either cling to or retreat from, to the detriment of both camps.

astee 6y ago
For naturals, there is significant overlap in the training style that produces maximum strength gains and maximum size gains. Larger muscles are stronger muscles. Studies have shown very similar size gains between groups performing high weight sets and more moderate "hypertrophy" style sets, though training with higher weight maximizes strength gains. One thing not revealed in short term studies, but which I have observed[1], is that training for strength early on eventually produces better gains in size, since when you do shift to "higher rep" training, you will be able to use more weight -> bigger muscles. Regardless, I don't think it's all that important to stress over these details, and progressively overloading (increasing weight/reps) the compound movements (squats/deadlifts/bench press/overhead press) over time is far more important than rep schemes and intensity. For steroid users, the equation changes some, as they benefit more from very high volume, high rep training that pumps the muscles full of blood. Natural lifters cannot recover quickly enough from this sort of training. [1]standard disclaimer about taking this with a grain of salt as I'm just some internet stranger, but I do have > 10 years experience with this
- porb121 6y ago
  regarding [1], you would have a hard time getting agreement from big names in evidence-based lifting circles. e.g. I'm fairly certain Israetel, Nuckols, Helms, and others have all disagreed, and I am less certain but believe others (James hoffman, James Krieger) have too

RealityVoid 6y ago

Strong people are harder to kill and more usefull in general.

falcor84 6y ago
>Strong people are harder to kill Is that actually so? Looking at US homicide statistics, over 75% of cases involve firearms. Would a bodybuilder have better chances of surviving a bullet wound?
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
  Yes
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- porb121 6y ago
  you can be killed by ways other than homicide
  - falcor84 6y ago
    What approaches do you have in mind? War? Government enforced famine? Selling me cheap cigarettes? Something else? And how much will bodybuilding help me avoid getting killed by these?
    - kridsdale1 6y ago
      Falling down the stairs at 80 years old will kill someone who spent 80 years sedentary vs an 80 year old yoked grandpa
nashalo_nighly 6y ago
Most homicide victims are men and men are on average stronger than women so I seriously doubt that.

b0rsuk 6y ago

I think many women enjoy feeling small, petite next to a swole guy. Or just a big guy. I'm extremely tall and random girls and coworkers have commented how small they feel next to me, but always with a smile.

porb121 6y ago

bodybuilding is far less injurious than other strength sports and those are far less injurious than any team sports. you are almost certain to sustain significant acute injuries doing gymnastics, football, basketball, etc over a long training career. the same cannot be said for bodybuilding - you might develop overuse injuries or wear and tear, but still less frequently than in other sports. it's really, really, really hard to tear an acl, break a collarbone, or dislocate a shoulder bodybuilding. yet I know someone who did all 3 in one season of rugby!

Cthulhu_ 6y ago
I think it really depends. I mean the extremes of bodybuilding also involve rigid diets (maximizing calories for maintenance and bulking out, minimizing them + dehydration around competition, down to dangerous levels of fat (people have fainted at competitions), or lifting to the point of tearing muscles, prolapsing, etc. A competition weightlifter can only go for a record attempt once, maybe twice a year - their nerves are fried after that. And there's enough dumb people around that try and lift too much without being spotted.
- porb121 6y ago
  no, it really doesn't depend. there is well-established research on the relative safety of bodybuilding [1]; you have to provide evidence that somehow the diets involved in contest prep increase the injury rate of bodybuilding by a factor of 10 (to be comparable to other strength sports), or >100x for other dynamic sports. such an increase would mean diet-related injuries account for 90/99% of bodybuilding injuries; anyone involved in the sport can tell you that's not even close to true. you would be on the mark if you mentioned the anabolic agents in contest prep, especially fat-burners/diuretics/insulin. those absolutely shorten the lifespan of bodybuilders drastically, but natural bodybuilding is a perfectly healthy and popular alternative. > A competition weightlifter can only go for a record attempt once, maybe twice a year - their nerves are fried after that. it's unclear whether you mean a true olympic weightlifter or a powerlifter - neither is true. the bulgarian weightlifting team under Abadjiev famously competed dozens of times per year while training just as hard throughout the year. the IWF olympic qualification (before covid changed the timeline) required athletes to compete in 6 events from november 2018 to april 2020 - that's more than twice a year alone. a top american weightlifter might compete at pan ams, IWF worlds, and USAW nationals alone each year. in powerlifting, an elite american lifter at minimum has to do USAPL nationals and IPF worlds, but might also do the arnold or local meets. [1] Keogh and Winwood, or Siewe et al.

lvturner 6y ago

Yes. The mental and physical requirements coupled with seeing the weekly changes in the mirror were damn near the only thing that kept me sane over a busy period of work, combined with lockdown, combined with my wife being away for over three months due to work/family illness and unable to see each other due to travel restrictions. I also went from an unhealthy BMI, high but not yet dangerously so cholesterol levels to nearly stage lean (have since raised my weight to a saner level) and having excellent blood work all round to the point of my doctor being completely astonished. (Note, I did not take any androgenic substances, so I wasn’t expecting much other than positive changes in my blood work)

ardit33 6y ago

By bodybuilding, you probably mean steroid-fueled muscle building. Most natural body-building will never reach that level. On the other way, there is plenty of good health reasons to train with weights, and build a good/solid muscle mass. It also improves a lot of other aspects in your life (social). So, weight-training, bodybuilding - lite is great. Steroid ladden/extreme body building one is probably not healthy.

kofejnik 6y ago
> Steroid ladden/extreme body building one is probably not healthy. Steroids are not necessarily always bad, tho taking your body to the extremes of competitive bodybuilding probably is.
- linspace 6y ago
  My reasoning is the following, and as someone who likes to do weight lifting I would love to be proved wrong: if steroids are not necessarily bad and we surely know they work wonders how is it possible that, in a world obsessed with looks and moving so much money in all kind of (absurd) products, they have not been legally commercialized somehow.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - samatman 6y ago
    We could ask this question about almost every substance which has been declared illegal. Indeed, we should. I don't use androgenic steroids, but I'm right on the cliff where natural levels start falling off, and once I'm over it, I will give it some serious consideration.
    - linspace 6y ago
      I don't discard also using them in the future to some extent slow aging effects but it's hard to find good info.

pengaru 6y ago

I don't think so. My understanding is that being overweight always makes some health problems more likely, especially long-term. Even if it's muscle. And that's not even considering the effects of taking excessive growth hormones / steroids etc common to body building. Being fit is something else altogether, and produces better health outcomes AIUI.

adrianN 6y ago
It's really hard to become overweight from muscle without steroids.
- sanedigital 6y ago
  Obese, maybe, but not overweight. Overweight at 5’10” is around 170 lbs. That’s not even close to steroid territory.
  - adrianN 6y ago
    That is still pretty hard to achieve with low bodyfat.
    - sanedigital 6y ago
      It takes a few years of consistent but not intense activity to reach, and then is quite easy to maintain.

jcfrei 6y ago

Assuming you mean natural body building (without hormones etc): More muscles means better circulation, so you are less likely to feel cold. More muscles also increase the basal metabolic rate so you are less likely to get overweight.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago

Leaving all the ridiculous gender politics aside, body building is very comparable to those so-called “pro-ana” models in how unhealthy it is, and I believe it should be treated the same, which is, of course: allow a man to do what he wants. However, it strikes me as a particular dual standard that some jurisdictions have tackled models whose body fat percentage is dangerously low, but who do not have steroid-built, unhealthily large muscles with it that their body fat can't healthily support, but seem to be completely fine with adding said unhealthy muscles, to the former. It comes as no surprise to me that such jurisdictions elect to primarily use the very unreliable and pseudoscientific body mass index in lieu of the more reliable body fat percentage as an indicator of “underweight”, for had they elected to use the latter: it would accurately show that most body builders are unhealthy low in fat, and would be struck down under the same rules. But of course, that is not what they desire, for that falls under what they consider to be their conventional ideal of beauty, and “health concerns" have always been one of the first thing the authoritarian reaches for, to enforce his own will and social control over others. We ban drugs, for they are unhealthy! but alcohol? well I don't know about that... they are socially acceptable, after all.

nsajko 6y ago
> some jurisdictions have tackled models whose body fat percentage is dangerously low [...] What are you talking about here? > unhealthily large muscles Taking steroids and other activities related to bodybuilding and sports more generally can sure take their toll, but I'm pretty sure nobody has problems because of overly large muscles. > most body builders are unhealthy low in fat Source? > But of course, that is not what they desire, for that falls under what they consider to be their conventional ideal of beauty [...] Aren't you contradicting your point now? Or maybe I misunderstood what your point is?
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  > What are you talking about here? Some jurisdictions do not allow models under a certain b.m.i. to be commercially featured: https://www.euronews.com/2017/09/06/counties-fighting-underweight-modelling https://www.euronews.com/2017/09/06/counties-fighting-underw... > Taking steroids and other activities related to bodybuilding and sports more generally can sure take their toll, but I'm pretty sure nobody has problems because of overly large muscles. They do, their low body fat can't support them and they suffer from a myriad of complications. Even if they had the body fat to support them, such as in many professional athletes, the strain to achieve them is not particularly healthy. > Source? https://abcnews.go.com/Health/legendary-bodybuilder-died-body-fat-lives/story?id=29899438 https://abcnews.go.com/Health/legendary-bodybuilder-died-bod... As the article says, professional body builders often go in the 3-to-5% body fat range, which is very unhealthy. > Aren't you contradicting your point now? Or maybe I misunderstood what your point is? Not at all; — I'm saying that “health” is but a convenient excuse to ban what the authoritarian considers not socially desirable, in this case for an ideal of beauty, whereas he is fine with letting stand that which he considers beautiful, no matter how unhealthy it might be.