3 ms·

> It's bunk, but if it represents a large portion of the population then I'd say it is fair to judge bodybuilding based on that; Do you usually judge groups ba

by leshow 6y ago

> It's bunk, but if it represents a large portion of the population then I'd say it is fair to judge bodybuilding based on that; Do you usually judge groups based on the worst actors in them? Part of the problem is that at the high levels of bodybuilding everyone is on steroids and other drugs, thyroid, clenbuterol, diuretics, etc and there aren't any studies to tell people how those should be taken in order to make yourself really lean-- those are the spaces that pseudoscience jumps into the most.

andreareina 6y ago
Not the worst actors, but I'd say typical is fair game. And there's a whole lot of nuance there of course, both in terms of what's the scope of "typical" and what you do with that info. As I said I don't have much exposure to high-level bodybuilders so I can't speak to that specifically. But if you take a look at fittit there's a *lot* of broscience repeated by the majority of posters, and to the extent that the bullshit increases the friction that beginners experience and provide little to no benefit (either in relation to the effort expended, or worse yet in absolute terms), it is detrimental to the casual majority. I realize we may be talking at cross purposes since I can't speak to personal experience with bodybuilders, just the popular perceptions of their habits.