Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

believermag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 358 posts

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#91

Post by belly_joe »

kofejnik wrote: post #81
ardit33 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

I agree with this broadly.

I find it interesting that most of my friends/social set will (rightly) dismiss "high school health class" fearmongering over drugs, but when that drug is anabolic steroids suddenly every warning is true.

It seems reasonable to me that the same skepticism applied to claims about any drug's danger - claims which frankly derive from government sources interested primarily in social engineering - should also be applied to steroids.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#92

Post by tyingq »

redis_mlc wrote: post #40
simonbarker87 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BB is more an art than a sport, Steve Cook articulates this idea very well and is partly why he has moved more toward CrossFit and other activities. BB is primarily a competition with yourself for months and months with an expression of that work at the end that you hope is arbitrarily considered better than everyone else’s on stage by the judges (some of who may be trainers of other competitors on stage so good luck…

> BB is more an art than a sport Well, the Mr. Olympias were some of the strongest men in history. Ronnie Coleman was doing leg press reps in the 2,300 pound range, and he admitted after retirement wishing that he had gone heavier. His dumbbell presses over 200 pounds at 10+ reps per set is incredible. He had safety spotters in case the equipment broke bolts, not because he failed lifts. https://www.youtube.com/watch…

"The only person on the Terminator movies sets who could lift the gatling gun was Arnold."

The mini gun was an M134. Those weigh between 41 and 85 lbs, depending on the model variant.

So, yeah, it was heavy, but not crazy heavy.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#93

Post by pengaru »

actuator wrote: post #71

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.

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.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#94

Post by Bakary »

Jtsummers wrote: post #45
Bakary wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think it is a terrible sport. It's not only terrible for the competitors but also for the culture as a whole as normalizing steroid physique hurts normal people. It's not only bodybuilding by the way. Fitness magazines and Hollywood actors take most of the blame to be sure. The world is growing fatter by the year so it does not seem as though people are too stressed about those conceptions of the body being thrown…

While the obesity epidemic is certainly the larger societal problem, we can try and develop a better representation of what's actually healthy. There's a happy medium between single digit body fat percentage (what most bodybuilders are aiming for in competition, and the image people have of them not recognizing it's their competition form not their year-round form) and 25% body fat (lower limit of obese for men, appa…

It's not even just a larger societal problem, but something on altogether different scales of magnitude (pun not intended). People suffering from health issues due to bodybuilding are a rounding error of a rounding error in comparison. Getting anywhere close to that is an arduous task that will put off all but the most dedicated, so the problem solves itself.

I'm all for a more informed population on health matters, but I don't see the point of going after the practitioners of a specific hobby on account of it potentially hurting other people's feelings, as implied in the post I was originally replying to. Reminds me a bit of the mindset criticized in Harrison Bergeron.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#95

Post by rjsw »

ameister14 wrote: post #64
Alex3917 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are all games. Sports are things like running, cycling, rowing, cross country skiing, ski jumping, shot put, etc.

what about shooting?

It, along with hunting and fishing are the canonical list of sports, everything else is a game.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#96

Post by n4r9 »

redis_mlc wrote: post #40
simonbarker87 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BB is more an art than a sport, Steve Cook articulates this idea very well and is partly why he has moved more toward CrossFit and other activities. BB is primarily a competition with yourself for months and months with an expression of that work at the end that you hope is arbitrarily considered better than everyone else’s on stage by the judges (some of who may be trainers of other competitors on stage so good luck…

> BB is more an art than a sport Well, the Mr. Olympias were some of the strongest men in history. Ronnie Coleman was doing leg press reps in the 2,300 pound range, and he admitted after retirement wishing that he had gone heavier. His dumbbell presses over 200 pounds at 10+ reps per set is incredible. He had safety spotters in case the equipment broke bolts, not because he failed lifts. https://www.youtube.com/watch…

Coleman is a massive outlier in this regard. He also worked himself to such an extreme that he now has severe physical issues.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#97

Post by jcfrei »

actuator wrote: post #71

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.

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.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#98

Post by Blikkentrekker »

actuator wrote: post #71

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.

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.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#99

Post by [deleted] »

hirundo wrote: post #52
simonbarker87 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BB is more an art than a sport, Steve Cook articulates this idea very well and is partly why he has moved more toward CrossFit and other activities. BB is primarily a competition with yourself for months and months with an expression of that work at the end that you hope is arbitrarily considered better than everyone else’s on stage by the judges (some of who may be trainers of other competitors on stage so good luck…

There is another response to this comment that is marked as dead within one minute of posting, and I'm trying to understand why. Here is the entire comment: > BB is more an art than a sport Well, the Mr. Olympias were some of the strongest men in history. Ronnie Coleman was doing leg press reps in the 2,300 pound range, and he admitted after retirement wishing that he had gone heavier. His dumbbell presses over 200 p…

[deleted]

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#100

Post by ashtonkem »

tyingq wrote: post #92
redis_mlc wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> BB is more an art than a sport Well, the Mr. Olympias were some of the strongest men in history. Ronnie Coleman was doing leg press reps in the 2,300 pound range, and he admitted after retirement wishing that he had gone heavier. His dumbbell presses over 200 pounds at 10+ reps per set is incredible. He had safety spotters in case the equipment broke bolts, not because he failed lifts. https://www.youtube.com/watch…

"The only person on the Terminator movies sets who could lift the gatling gun was Arnold." The mini gun was an M134. Those weigh between 41 and 85 lbs, depending on the model variant. So, yeah, it was heavy, but not crazy heavy.

The M134 weighs 85lbs without ammunition, and the actor has to hold it out in front of them in an awkward position. 85lbs isn't a lot to lift or carry close to your chest, but it's a lot to hold out in front of you. Add in the need to carry/consume a prodigious amount of ammunition plus the recoil generated by the blanks, and it's a lot to deal with.
Post reply on HN