The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding • Hacker News Board

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#231

Post by Guthur » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 4:59 AM UTC

Lopiolis wrote: post #211

valenterry wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pos…

> 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. I seriously disagree with this. 60 minutes is more than sufficient if you aren't screwing around. I also think it's baffling that people are still recommending Starting Strength when there are far more efficient and productive programs to sta…

I've never spent that long in the gym on starting strength.

For beginners i doubt there is much variation in progress from one program to the other, and remember SS is for beginners.

The benefit of SS is its simplicity, 4 basic lifts with simple programming. Beginners benefit from such simplicity.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#232

Post by viceroyalbean » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 5:06 AM UTC

asiachick wrote: post #214

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…

RE language acquisition, I often wonder how much is circumstance. I have an engineer friend who on the one hand is making excuses but he points out his job doesn't really require him to talk to anyone, further, his programming job is almost entirely in English, looking up API docs or language docs in English, writing code while thinking in English, further he's somewhat introverted. So, his language skills are not so…

You are definitely correct, but you need to factor in the actions that puts someone in a place to get that environmental effect. If your friend had motivation to learn the language they would presumably seek out ways to practice it (e.g engaging more with their colleagues or actively seeking documentation in the foreign language).

One directly practical example, since I'm also an engineer living in a foreign country: a lot of the times when I first interact with someone they will ask me if I prefer to speak in English or in their language, and I will always take the opportunity to speak their language to get the practice in.

Since this thread is about the similarity between learning languages and bodybuilding, I guess you could make the comparison between someone working a job that leads to natural exercise (e.g construction) and someone who works a more sedentary job but seeks out exercise on their own.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#233

Post by cccc4all » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 5:11 AM UTC

TeaDrunk wrote: post #123

cccc4all wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The competition look is wringing out that last 10%. Women can maintain the 90% look indefinitely with basic maintenance diet and exercise. The basic Instagram model plan. The extremes is what’s interesting, that they only go through the cycle if there’s competition. And, it’s fascinating to see in person how their bodies can balloon up so fast.

> Women can maintain the 90% look indefinitely with basic maintenance diet and exercise. The basic Instagram model plan. Is this actually true? I was under the impression the Instagram model was only available to women of certain body types and compositions + photoshop and makeup.

Google (Bing, DDG) pictures of women in the past, 50s - 90s era, before photoshop and heavy makeup.

The "average" women had body shapes that would place her in top Instagram model lineup today. Their basic maintenance diet was eating normal food at the time. Most didn't exercise much, but they walked everywhere.

These days, Instagram photos can be manipulated drastically. But, videos are more difficult to manipulate. Look for videos without obvious filters and with them swimming or similar activity, where they can't use much makeup.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#234

Post by adrianN » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 5:12 AM UTC

pengaru wrote: post #93

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.

It's really hard to become overweight from muscle without steroids.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#235

Post by adrianN » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 5:15 AM UTC

nashalo_nighly wrote: post #163

RealityVoid wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You need to compare the rates of success, not the absolute numbers. I bet there are more homicide attempts on men than there are homicide attempts on women.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#236

Post by OminousWeapons » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 5:17 AM UTC

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…

I'm not a body builder, but I was a competitive powerlifter for awhile and still am a serious lifter now. In my experience, serious lifters of either gender (including myself) tend to have trauma from the past that got them into it and helped the hobby stick. Typically they were either fat, underweight, short, or weak; they felt looked down on; or some combination of these things, and they were angry about it. Alternatively, they felt powerless for some reason and they felt that lifting empowered them and gave them control.

As George Leeman (an accomplished powerlifter) once said: "to lift these kinds of weights is not a happy thing...you do not try and pick up 800 lbs and fucking look like you're going to fucking kill somebody before you do it because everything is fucking great".

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#237

Post by karateka » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 5:32 AM UTC

Lopiolis wrote: post #211

valenterry wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pos…

> 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. I seriously disagree with this. 60 minutes is more than sufficient if you aren't screwing around. I also think it's baffling that people are still recommending Starting Strength when there are far more efficient and productive programs to sta…

Would you care to share any recommendations for alternative programs?

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#238

Post by 3131s » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 6:02 AM UTC

Dma54rhs wrote: post #144

toyg wrote: post #117

Earlier 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.

They're wrong. The reason that every athlete should train every part of their body is because it raises overall testosterone and promotes blood flow throughout the entire body, which speeds development and healing of the muscle groups that are predominantly used in whatever sport... e.g. I'm a sprinter, so I train my upper body as well because it helps my legs grow and heal faster.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#239

Post by 3131s » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 6:07 AM UTC

Blikkentrekker wrote: post #101

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.

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…

Nonsense, if your abs aren't visible as a man then you are carrying too much fat.

What's unhealthy about body bulding, beyond the direct effects of the roids, is that these guys are like 300+ lbs. That and becoming severely dehydrated from taking diuretics before competitions.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#240

Post by 3131s » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 6:16 AM UTC

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…

> to achieve 10% one must in general consciously malnutitrion and avoid eating food that the body can use to synthesize fat.

No, no! If you are eating foods that humans should eat and exercising about an hour a day, you will naturally fall below 10% no matter what else you do.

I never limit the amount of food I eat and in no sense am I "malnourished". I am 80 kilos at around 8% body fat and I still have a lot to spare before it would start to affect my athletic performance as a sprinter. Go take a look at the typical 100m sprinter physique and tell me that any of them are malnourished!