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

321–330 of 358 posts

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#321

Post by porb121 »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #292
porb121 wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

bodybuilding is far less injurious than other strength sports and those are far less injurious than any team sports. you are almost certain to sustain significant acute injuries doing gymnastics, football, basketball, etc over a long training career. the same cannot be said for bodybuilding - you might develop overuse injuries or wear and tear, but still less frequently than in other sports. it's really, really, real…

I think it really depends. I mean the extremes of bodybuilding also involve rigid diets (maximizing calories for maintenance and bulking out, minimizing them + dehydration around competition, down to dangerous levels of fat (people have fainted at competitions), or lifting to the point of tearing muscles, prolapsing, etc. A competition weightlifter can only go for a record attempt once, maybe twice a year - their ner…

no, it really doesn't depend. there is well-established research on the relative safety of bodybuilding [1]; you have to provide evidence that somehow the diets involved in contest prep increase the injury rate of bodybuilding by a factor of 10 (to be comparable to other strength sports), or >100x for other dynamic sports. such an increase would mean diet-related injuries account for 90/99% of bodybuilding injuries; anyone involved in the sport can tell you that's not even close to true.

you would be on the mark if you mentioned the anabolic agents in contest prep, especially fat-burners/diuretics/insulin. those absolutely shorten the lifespan of bodybuilders drastically, but natural bodybuilding is a perfectly healthy and popular alternative.

> A competition weightlifter can only go for a record attempt once, maybe twice a year - their nerves are fried after that.

it's unclear whether you mean a true olympic weightlifter or a powerlifter - neither is true. the bulgarian weightlifting team under Abadjiev famously competed dozens of times per year while training just as hard throughout the year. the IWF olympic qualification (before covid changed the timeline) required athletes to compete in 6 events from november 2018 to april 2020 - that's more than twice a year alone. a top american weightlifter might compete at pan ams, IWF worlds, and USAW nationals alone each year. in powerlifting, an elite american lifter at minimum has to do USAPL nationals and IPF worlds, but might also do the arnold or local meets.

[1] Keogh and Winwood, or Siewe et al.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#322

Post by noarchy »

gamblor956 wrote: post #220
noarchy wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>while Pratt spent nearly 6 hours a day, 6 days a week, for over 6 months on cardio activities to cut weight for the first Guardians movie (as he already had the muscle for the character underneath his excess bulk and just needed to reveal them). The problem is that they tell these stories, and people believe it. If he had really done six hours of cardio per day he'd likely disappear and have no muscle. Diet and exer…

If he had really done six hours of cardio per day he'd likely disappear and have no muscle. I suppose if you spend all of your day in front of a computer, you'll have difficulty understanding what the human body is capable of on its own with enough time and discipline and you'll just assume everyone is taking shortcuts. Najani isn't some special case; he's a prototypical example of "easy gains" that pretty much any g…

>I suppose if you spend all of your day in front of a computer, you'll have difficulty understanding what the human body is capable of on its own with enough time and discipline and you'll just assume everyone is taking shortcuts.

You're assuming an awful lot. I am sure there are more than a handful of people here who know when there is reason to be suspicious of someone's gains.

>Members of the military routinely do 12+ hours a day of physical exercise, including hours of cardio, and yet none of them have problems disappearing (and only about 2.5% of military personnel use steroids). Triathletes, similarly, can spend 6 hours a day or more on exercise.

Members of the military get very fit. But the body transformations we're seeing in Hollywood are emphasizing physique. Practical fitness is less of a consideration. And many bodybuilders do very little real cardio. Even when getting lean for competition, some do little more than fast walking.

Triathletes competing in the Ironman will obviously do more than 6+ hours on event day. I don't personally know of any who train like that. Three hours per day would be more like it, and not necessarily every day. There must be room for recovery.

I can speak more personally about road cycling. Six hour training blocks simply don't happen. Even six hour races are not that common even at the top pro levels.

>Cardio doesn't consume muscle unless you combine it with starvation. Muscles are the last-ditch choice of fuel. On a proper diet, cardio burns glycogen and fat.

Obviously the diet is key here. And my original point wasn't specific enough about this, but here goes: a lot of these Hollywood "transformations" aren't being honest about the diet versus the claimed exercise regimen. I don't want to take anything away from them in terms of their accomplishments - it is tough to nail all of this to achieve the body they're getting. And steroids help.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#323

Post by watwut »

Blikkentrekker wrote: post #316
watwut wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah. Bodybuilders are fat by mbi. BMI is or was used also in context that where it literally harmed bodybuilders - by BMI they are fat. Politicians doing these decisions dont go too deep. BMI is widely know, easy to calculate metric everybody knows. And that is all there is to it.

But the politicians aren't banning overweight models, only underweight models. I'm sure these same politicians have medical advisors, who advised them against using b.m.i. and also pointed out what I said here.

> I'm sure these same politicians have medical advisors, who advised them against using b.m.i. and also pointed out what I said here.

Body builders, especially female body builders were completely irrelevant to discussion about fashion models. They were not the ones who were ever shown in those magazines. In terms of body shape, they are not actually thin despite having low fat.

Female body builders are not contemporary beauty standard and never were.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#324

Post by airhead969 »

Forget that and forget runway modeling. They told a friend (former with benefits now actual friend) of mine, who is demonstrably a cute and hot girl she "could never be a runway model because her butt is too big." while her French friend has an imperceptibly-slightly smaller behind is acceptable. TBH, she has a perfect, bitchin bottom. What the actual? That industry's standards are beyond insane.

Let's suspend societal expectations, dispel myths, and look at different types of exercise.

Diet and exercise alone will never make any woman "look like a man." Only steroids or seriously-unlucky endocrine dysfunctions can do this. Not working out at all makes a woman subjectively appear less healthy, less defined, and less attractive, IMHO.

The stereotypical "flat-bottomed, upper-income, undefined physique" etiology is the result of excessive "more is better" cardio, yoga, and so forth is offset by a lack of significant and efficacious weightlifting recruiting type IIB muscle fibers, and converting IIB into IIA. All that running on the treadmill or elliptical doesn't lead to strength or muscle mass, it leads to endurance and joint degradation. IIA is tiny in volume compared to IIB. "More is better" is worse.

Short duration, high-intensity weightlifting until failure is the most efficacious activity to classify as exercise, with a limited amount of cardio to maintain practical endurance without converting too much muscle fiber. This applies to both adult men and women. If anyone wants to be healthiest with least cost, time, and net effort, this sort of approach is preferable. And tell the gymrats: Pain and time don't win merit badges, results do. Hopefully, they'll respond: "do you even lift, bro?" :]

That's my (100-80)/10 cents.

PS: Body by Science by Little & McGuff (2009) obliterates many gym tradition superstitions, factoids, and popular misconceptions with evidence, experience, and studies.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#325

Post by darkerside »

robocat wrote: post #218
darkerside wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say you probably don't even need to be attractive physically in terms of having a pretty face. If you've got a charming personality and you are reasonably in shape, you'll get plenty of attention. You're signaling that you have value and people act accordingly.

> you'll get plenty of attention But qualitatively different attention IMHO. Great looking guy with zero personality: shallow attention e.g. one-night stands or pure accessory. Ugly guy with great personality: veer towards long-term relationships or maybe friend-zoning.

Disagree. If you think that is true of you, then maybe you don't have as great a personality as you think you do. Women love funny, confident guys.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#326

Post by Aerroon »

Lopiolis wrote: post #209
Aerroon wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>If you don't use a language at all, your proficiency atrophies over time as well.

I don't think it's quite comparable. I was fluent in German more than a decade ago. I've not really used it since. It's difficult for me to speak or write in it, because I simply can't think of the words - I'll remember them in English instead. However, if I listen to German or read German text then I have no trouble understanding it.

This same thing did not happen with exercise for me. The strength I once had is gone.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#327

Post by Herodotus38 »

kevinarpe wrote: post #304
Herodotus38 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This magazine is a great one for getting me to read long articles about things I didn’t think would be interesting. It seems like they attract writers that are more honest and human about their motivations than you see in other places.

Thank you to share. If you have time, can you add links to other stories that caught your attention? I would like to read more!

I used to have a paper subscription to it 16 years ago, so most of my memories are from then.

See if you can find links to the audio-visual cds/dvds too.

I am working a lot for the next 2 days but I’ll try and reply, check back in 3-4 days.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#328

Post by wmeredith »

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.

The weight of the gun would also help immensely with the recoil.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#329

Post by driverdan »

nsajko wrote: post #127
driverdan wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It mostly boils down to people pumping themselves full of steroids up until a week or so before the competition so they test clean. This is wrong. None of the pro competitions do drug testing and no one stops using a week out. If they did test there wouldn't be any competitors.

There are some competitions with testing. However, seeing the physiques of the competitors on the relevant websites, I'm convinced they do indeed use anabolics or at least something to cut fat: https://naturalbodybuilding.com https://www.worldnaturalbb.com I guess the testing may be somehow fraudulent, or maybe it's just a fundamentally misconcieved procedure: maybe it's not possible to test for use of all or certain…

There are tested orgs but most, if not all are not considered pro. They do lie detector tests. I don't know if any do actual blood tests. Steroids, especially test, are hard to check for.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#330

Post by CydeWeys »

audiometry wrote: post #189
CydeWeys wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's annoying but there's one obvious reason they don't talk about it: Not only is it cheating in their sport, but it's even flat-out illegal. So of course they don't talk about it. Even though it's completely obvious from everything else they're talking about. Hell, just listen to her voice! The testosterone use is undeniable.

I don’t think she competes in a tested federation, so it’s not a problem.

You completely skipped over a highly relevant portion of my comment re: the illegality of steroids for this purpose.
Post reply on HN