The encyclopedia of “modern” bodybuilding by Arnold (it’s old now) was written with the help of somebody who writes (elsewhere) about female bodybuilders frequently. It’s exceptional writing, with long chapters about aesthetics and the meaning and goals of the practice. Other chapters on psychology and how to talk to your friends about your important goals that they might not understand. I haven’t followed what happened in the decades since it was published but I hope there are some positive stories
The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding
161–170 of 358 posts
Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding
#162I'm mostly disappointed that there wasn't a single picture in the whole article.
As far as I can tell she didn't compete under her current name, but here's a random contestant from the same contest:
https://jesshutchensfit.com/npc-bikini-competition-steps-to-...
And here's her idol Bev Francis:
Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding
#163Except 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.
Most homicide victims are men and men are on average stronger than women so I seriously doubt that.
Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue is not building muscles, in almost any body building competition, what comes with it is lowering body fat to unhealthy levels. Know well that something as simple as visible abdominal muscles already requires a body fat percentage that is lower than what is generally considered healthy.[0] One's musculature should not be “defined” for optimal health, — that requires dropping below healthy fat levels. Profess…
This reads like coping material from someone with no abs. 10-12% is definitely _not_ unhealthy. Agree on the unhealthy BF% for bodybuilders though
The article points out that for visible abdominals one needs to maintain less than 10%, typically 8%, and that doctors recommend between 15% and 20%
10% is at the outskirts of what is generally considered acceptable, it is not a disaster such as the 3% that some body builders go for, but gaining more is definitely better and to achieve 10% one must in general consciously malnutitrion and avoid eating food that the body can use to synthesize fat.
Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Robert Lewandowski is very fit and strong from top to bottom. I'm surprised Polish clubs aren't encouraging their players to imitate him.
Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Let's assume that be the case.
The politicians allow this nonsensical, pseudoscientific self-regulation instead of demanding that they switch to b.f.p., because they know well that it would outlaw body builders, which they do not want, despite their being as unhealthy.
The industry came up with this method, of course, to allow bodybuilders to continue, and only having to cull the the hyperthin.
It's a nice unspoken understanding between them that enables both to place the blame on the other.
If the industry had found such a clever way to allow the hyperthin to still continue, one could be certain of that the politicians would step in to order a halt to it.
Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those are all games. Sports are things like running, cycling, rowing, cross country skiing, ski jumping, shot put, etc.
Your definition is etymologically backward. A sport is anything diverting or entertaining which humans do for leisure. Hence, being a good sport, sporting around, and declaring dastardly behaviour to be "not sporting". The International Olympic Committee considers chess to be a sport. And they're correct to do so.
There is play, which does not have clearly defined rules. Then there are games, which is play but with rules, but need not be competitive. If it's competitive play with rules, then it's a sport.
Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
Staying healthy and injury free is obviously important, but that's important at every single level. Also to be clear, a drug free 725 lb squat is very impressive, that's not something most people would be able to achieve even if they managed to stay injury free.
It is, 725 is a lot of weight. In fact I believe it probably contributed to a severe back injury later in life. At the time I was a division 1 college heavyweight wrestler that was forced to drop out and NEEDED an athletic outlet badly. So I lived in the weight room and chased numbers. I wasn't the healthiest mentally at the time and channeled all of that into it. I actually wouldn't recommend that level of lifting u…
No need to worry, I don't plan on aiming for that level by a long shot. I'd be happy to hit 4 plates on my squat and would probably go into maintenance mode at that point, although not sure if I'll ever even hit that. Sounds basic but the comment I replied to is exactly my issues, consistency and staying injury free - college years consistency was a problem with homework/sleep, post college years I seem to be injury prone in my non-lifting athletic activities (I'm convinced my knees hate me), and obviously this past year I've also lost a ton of progress with no access to weights. Hoping to come back with a vengeance once gyms reopen.
Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think people are quite aware of how prolific steroid usage in bodybuilding is. It's the movie actor physiques that people aren't as aware of.
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…
Even elite professional endurance athletes don't do 36 hours of cardio training per week so I suspect that part is an exaggeration. The practical maximum is something around 25 hours. More than that is counter productive because it doesn't allow for enough recovery time. Over training actually makes people weaker.
Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding
#170I 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…
Because it's objective. Strangers, in the aggregate, have little incentive to modify their gut reaction to how you present yourself.