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

141–150 of 358 posts

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#141

Post by DoreenMichele »

linspace wrote: post #115
kofejnik wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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.

Vitamin D is technically a steroid, not a vitamin. You can also do nutritional support for hormone-producing organs in the body. Off the top of my head/anecdotally: Peanuts have proven to be good pituitary support (though they are pro-inflammatory and I have to limit them for that reason); good quality salt is important to the adrenals and adrenal support is important to thyroid health.

I probably know more than that and haven't paid that much attention to hormones per se, so I imagine if this interests you, you could figure out a whole lot more from readily available information on the internet.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#142

Post by RealityVoid »

samatman wrote: post #131
nostromo wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... really? You've never wanted to be attractive to whatever gender you're attracted to? I find it surprising that this can be "totally foreign" to any human that's not asexual. Being the most attractive version of yourself that you can be isn't just about sex, either. It really does open doors socially and economically. Right or wrong, people enjoy the company of people who put thought and effort into their appearan…

It surprises you, on Hacker News, to find someone who doesn't give a lot of thought to his appearance and thinks it's weird that other people do? Not that we should go around calling people 'neckbeards', it's rude, but there's a reason the term exists.

Not OP. But, maybe, a bit, it does surprise me. Most programmers I know in real life are not neck beards and quite presentable, despite what the cliche' is like.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#143

Post by nsajko »

Blikkentrekker wrote: post #118
nsajko wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 no…

> 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-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…

About the Euronews link, I disagree with your conclusion. The mentioned laws are just red tape (for an explanation see my reply to pacaro here). The hard limits on BMI seem to come from industry self-regulation.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#144

Post by Dma54rhs »

toyg wrote: post #117
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.

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 prop…

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.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#145

Post by rmah »

nostromo wrote: post #112
rmah wrote: post #82

I usually don't read articles like this, but it was so well written that I was sort of sucked into it. What was most interesting to me was not the various controversies about body aesthetics or even health consequences. What stood out to me was the author's description in the early parts of the article of how much she seemed to crave the approval of strangers, especially men. It was thought provoking and I'm still pr…

... really? You've never wanted to be attractive to whatever gender you're attracted to? I find it surprising that this can be "totally foreign" to any human that's not asexual. Being the most attractive version of yourself that you can be isn't just about sex, either. It really does open doors socially and economically. Right or wrong, people enjoy the company of people who put thought and effort into their appearan…

Of course I have. But that's not what she described. From what I read it was a near obsession, consuming her thoughts on a near constant basis. THAT is what I found foreign.

And of course being more attractive makes life easier. Did I say even once that it did not? That's blatantly obvious. But do you really actively think about if strangers that you happen pass on the street or in a store find you hot? This is what she described.

Everyone cares what some other people think of them. Friends, family, collogues, and people they're attracted to, etc. Some people care more, some people care less. But, I think, most people don't really care too much what complete strangers think to the point where they actively think about it while passing them by. Or do they?

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#146

Post by RealityVoid »

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.

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

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#147

Post by matwood »

jaegerpicker wrote: post #133
matwood wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are great numbers. If you don't mind me asking, what did you weigh when doing those? I agree with you, that people can get far stronger than they realize. I'm not genetically gifted, started quite skinny, and still got a 325 bp, 405 squat and 525 DL at 195 back when I was younger. All I ever took was creatine and whey. I'm fairly tall, which seemed to help the lever action with my DL, but always caused my squat…

Thanks! I'm not really close to that anymore, wish I was but not enough to put in the work. I lived in the weight room back then. I was 19 and bounced between 265-285 depending on the time of year. I wrestled in college for a year before having to drop out and I was right at 265 during that. I'm 6'1" also so not a little guy and that helps a lot. More than anything though I lived in the weight room. I actually mostly…

I hated squats also, but loved DLs. I would DL all day every day if I could. No single exercise did more for me strength, body comp or confidence wise.

The heavy lifting is a gift and a curse. I tore my ACL wakeboarding while I was near my strongest and the surgeon said my base strength definitely helped in my recovery. Eventually I had to stop chasing PRs after hurting my back playing basketball (plus I got old hah). I hope your back healed up ok, b/c back pain is the most debilitating pain I've ever experienced.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#148

Post by samatman »

hirundo wrote: post #59
detaro wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

one look at the users comment history tells you they are probably perma-banned and occasionally get vouched by users - which you could have done instead of reposting the comment.

I did vouch, and I've been doing that a lot. But I look back after vouching and it's never resurrected.

HN serves static pages with no cache invalidation, if you just use the back button, you get the same page you were just looking at.

Ctrl/Cmd-R will get you back in sync.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#149

Post by audiometry »

bluecalm wrote: post #110
gamblor956 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern actors aren't as willing to sacrifice their health for muscle as their historical counterparts, especially because the lean look is preferred over the muscle-bound appearance of yesteryear. Thus, (with rare exceptions, like Christian Bale between The Machinist and Batman Begins ), what you see on screen today is hard-earned through hours a day in the gym, a very regimented diet, and hydration timing. Generally…

Just look at athletes before widespread steroid use. They have spent way more time training than actors and haven't looked like that even in sports that require dehydration like boxing. That's exactly the problem with lying about steroids. It took a while for Arnold and his successors to admit that they were on 1000mg of test per week (plus other stuff of course; normal production of even high test men is below 100mg…

>I don't condemn steroid use btw. I oppose widespread lying about it by the users and the media.

Yeah this is the thing that annoys me. Recently listening to Tim Ferriss interviewing an amazing female powerlifter. She deadlifts 4x body weight and other sorts of remarkable feats.

So the entire 2 hour show discussed her insane training regimen and diet and other forms of wellness. Hearing how much she squats in a week was daunting (“what am I doing with my own weak training then!?”)

Then I googled her (Stefi Cohen) and she has shoulders like cannonballs (female Dan Green) and ripped abs like a male bodybuilder. So very obviously steroids play an essential role in her training /recovery capacity.

I have no problem or quibble with that. Want to take that, fine. Probably the only way you’ll meet the records she has established.

What I dislike, though, is the interview where everything BUT drugs is discussed. Drugs enable the recovery that enables her insane workload. Especially when Ferriss purports to dig into “the secrets of high performers”. Well this is one vital secret. I felt like this interview was deceptive in a way.

Like I said earlier, I’m not opposed to steroid use. I decided not to use them myself. But it would be refreshing to hear about the high performers among us who do. I’d like to know their thinking around the decision. I’m sure it valid and more refined than whatever I’d expect them to say.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#150

Post by goldenchrome »

RealityVoid wrote: post #142
samatman wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It surprises you, on Hacker News, to find someone who doesn't give a lot of thought to his appearance and thinks it's weird that other people do? Not that we should go around calling people 'neckbeards', it's rude, but there's a reason the term exists.

Not OP. But, maybe, a bit, it does surprise me. Most programmers I know in real life are not neck beards and quite presentable, despite what the cliche' is like.

“Presentable” and “attractive” are often different things. Most engineers I know put in enough effort to be presentable, but not attractive.
Post reply on HN