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

201–210 of 358 posts

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#201

Post by treis »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #198
treis wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did google that and found nothing that said that steroids would cause a healthy 20 something man to lose a couple inches in height. Your quote is quite wishy washy and not really supporting evidence to your claim.

Try searching for "steroids osteoporosis." It's a known thing they can cause osteoporosis and osteoporosis can cause height loss.

Those are corticosteroids not anabolic steroids. If you search anabolic steroids osteoprosis you will see that there is some evidence they should be prescribed to help reverse osteoperosis.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#202

Post by qes »

Blikkentrekker wrote: post #164
zoover2020 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bo…

Just an anecdote, but I've had multiple dexa scans in the 8-12% range spanning across years of bulking and cutting and I've never had better than what I consider mediocre abs - probably much better than the average adult male in the U.S. but never magazine photo worthy or anything like that. Other people did comment on them at ~8%, though, so my own perspective may be negatively biased.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#203

Post by Kluny »

Guthur wrote: post #185
throw0101a wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 For women especially, as they age about one-third suffer from osteoporosis, and lifting (heavy!) weights forces body adapti…

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.

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.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#204

Post by toyg »

tomjakubowski wrote: post #165
Dma54rhs wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not everyone should be a "bomber" n.9 like Lewa...

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#205

Post by DoreenMichele »

treis wrote: post #201
DoreenMichele wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try searching for "steroids osteoporosis." It's a known thing they can cause osteoporosis and osteoporosis can cause height loss.

Those are corticosteroids not anabolic steroids. If you search anabolic steroids osteoprosis you will see that there is some evidence they should be prescribed to help reverse osteoperosis.

OP already stated they don't know what kind of steroids were used.

It's an anecdote and third-hand information, at best. Maybe OP misremembered something. Maybe the doctor was wrong or simply trying to convince the guy to stop using steroids. Maybe the guy lied about what really happened to protect their medical privacy.

None of us is in any position to determine what really happened. Facts as I understand them:

OP chose to not use steroids themselves because of scary story from person they knew.

Everything else is damn near wild conjecture as to "what really happened."

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#206

Post by lmm »

ashtonkem wrote: post #100
tyingq wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

> 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.

The way the anecdote is usually told is that Schwarzenegger was the only guy on set who could carry it at all, not that he was the only guy who could hold it out in front of him. Is that an exaggeration?

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#207

Post by Aerroon »

tkgally wrote: post #176
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…

I also found the article fascinating for the insights the author shows about her own thoughts and motivations. When I started working out at a gym, when I was in my early fifties, I barely knew that bodybuilding existed. But the gym I happened to join in Tokyo turned out to be popular with amateur bodybuilders, and I exercised near them most evenings for more than ten years. I became acquainted with quite a few of th…

>In my job, in foreign-language education, I think a lot about what motivates some adults to keep studying long and hard enough to become proficient in a foreign language, as relatively few actually succeed.

I'm not sure I would compare something like bodybuilding with foreign languages. At some point you become proficient enough in a language that you can simply consume movies, TV shows, books, news etc that the language learning becomes mostly effortless. Becoming really proficient at a language requires someone to immerse themselves in it (to use it for a purpose without easy fallbacks). The internet has been amazing for learning English.

I don't know anyone that became proficient at a language by studying it. It's always been through use. The studying just creates a base that allows a person to start using the language.

Exercise requires persistence. You can't really have gaps in it, because you lose your progress. Language learning is much more flexible in this. You might forget what you learned, but the next time you try to learn the same thing it's much easier.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#208

Post by Guthur »

Kluny wrote: post #203
Guthur wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

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.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#209

Post by Lopiolis »

Aerroon wrote: post #207
tkgally wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also found the article fascinating for the insights the author shows about her own thoughts and motivations. When I started working out at a gym, when I was in my early fifties, I barely knew that bodybuilding existed. But the gym I happened to join in Tokyo turned out to be popular with amateur bodybuilders, and I exercised near them most evenings for more than ten years. I became acquainted with quite a few of th…

> In my job, in foreign-language education, I think a lot about what motivates some adults to keep studying long and hard enough to become proficient in a foreign language, as relatively few actually succeed. I'm not sure I would compare something like bodybuilding with foreign languages. At some point you become proficient enough in a language that you can simply consume movies, TV shows, books, news etc that the la…

> Exercise requires persistence. You can't really have gaps in it, because you lose your progress.

Well, maintaining your current level of strength is far easier to do than maintaining continuous progress (especially at more advanced stages, which you have to do a lot of fuckery around programming/scheduling in order to realize any progress at all). You just can't do nothing, but the same goes for languages. If you don't use a language at all, your proficiency atrophies over time as well.

It's just not something people really think about. If you were to reach a level of strength you were happy with, you could just figure out a maintenance program and focus your physical energy on other pursuits, extreme sports, slacklining, bouldering, hiking, whatever.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#210

Post by valenterry »

Guthur wrote: post #185
throw0101a wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 For women especially, as they age about one-third suffer from osteoporosis, and lifting (heavy!) weights forces body adapti…

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.

Speaking in effective time, it is obviously more than 60 minutes, I would say rather 160 minutes in the beginning and then getter lower with experience and getting used to it.

Resistance training is great, but let's not oversell it to others! A beginner not only needs to buy stuff (or commute to/from the gym) and create their plan and schedule it, they also need to account for spending extra time to correct their posture, have a longer recovery time, shower etc.

Thinking to get away with 60min from the get go might be discouraging.

Post reply on HN