Talk:Bodybuilding

Added male bodybuilders

I added a few male bodybuilders mainly to get attention to the articles although they're better than most bios... I feel this page needs a lot of work. The list isn't really necessary, all the links to BB erotica seem completely unnecessary for an encyclopedia. I suppose the basic content is OK though. Anyone else interested in improving Wikipedia's bodybuilding coverage? --Slux 12:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be more appropriate for the List of bodybuilders article mentioned below? Tyciol 16:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Bodybuilding Erotica

I just saw the section "Female Bodybuilding Erotica" and had a similar reaction. That seems inappropriate, and I am going to remove it. I welcome any editor who'd like to discuss it. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:15, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

I see you added the list of bodybuilders back. I feel Category:Bodybuilders does the job quite well and only lists bodybuilders that have a wikipedia article and has the potential to be more comprehensive. I'm not certain of the way it should be subcategorised (at the moment by country) though. Do you think the list on this page is worthwile? I'd like to at least have it on a different page just like most sports that do have a list. --Slux 22:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removed porn links twice. Even if these were legitimate sites they'd still have no place in this article. Offending IPs (216.107.36.20 and 216.107.36.7) are from:

OrgName: NuNet Inc. (NNET) 26 Bethlehem Plaza Bethlehem, PA 18018

Monkeyman 16:34, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this statement is worth keeping: "There is limited funding, so many female bodybuilders turn to female muscle pornography." While true, it is unfortunately also true of male bodybuilders (though not as well known). Some simple web searches will unearth plenty of it. The statement definitely applies to both genders, so at a minimum, I think it's misplaced in the female bodybuilding section. fbb_fan 00:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Have you seen Super size she? I made a wiki for that and the girl in that had to do it to make income, it was just erotica and not porn, but same idea. Tyciol 16:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen Supersize She, but she does not "have" to do that - she could always try getting a "real" job like the rest of us, it's her choice. And as I said earlier, the women aren't the only ones doing that stuff...the male bodybuilders aren't as well publicized, but it's out there for those who care to look for it. fbb_fan 05:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The difficulty, mainly in the case of female bodybuilding, is that it's often viewed as a negative trait that might interfere with a 'real' job. She DOES need a job, she pays for her gym membership, food, travel expenses, etc. (and possibly housing to her parents) with her salary. While I agree she might find something else, physical labour can interfere with her persuit (ironically enough), social interaction jobs are limited due to her appearance, lengthly jobs are limited due to her constant eating requirements, jobs available are understandably limited. Tyciol 06:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Drugs

I am trying to keep the part on 'drugs' NPOV...

• Anabolic steroids - prescription medication (not illegal to posses in the EU but it is illegal to posses in the US. over the counter in many countries.

There is a massive difference between performance enhancing drugs and supplements the two should not be lumped together. Weightshead 22:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

LOL. The IOC and the sports media do it all the time...what I mean by that is that whenever a star Oly-aimed athlete gets caught in a test, he/she, their doctor, and various media spinners and the associated IOC doctors for wherever it is go "it's the fault of the supplements he was talking for having steroids in them." The direct cite here that comes to mind is a triathlete here in British Columbia - Kelly Guest - who got caught with so many nano-nanos above the artificially/arbitrarily low limit for nandrolone; big scandal, usual finger pointing, consensus in the user community is that the guy was totally innocent because if he'd taken even one vial of Dec his levels would have been n00-n1000 times as much; higher nandrolone levels result from intensity training, which of course is what triathletes do. But hounded by the media and trying to protect his reputation, he scrambled and pointed at his bottle of protein powder, saying the drug must have been added to it. Yeah, right, like the supplement companies - already notoriously cheap and infamous for mismataches between what's on the label, and what's in the bottle (protein vs flour, figuratively speaking) - are going to spend money putting something in their products which (a) costs more and (b) could have their legit companies shut down. The clincher to this bizarreness was the IOC's medical chair in the province, who shot her mouth off about the same thing - but has anyone here ever heard of an oral form of nandrolone decaonate???? So if the IOC's doctor doesn't even know what substances there are on the market (black or legit; dec is available by prescription in BC, at about $65/2mL by the way - "gouge, gouge, gouge"), and she also doesn't know what the testing profile would be for someone on any "training dose" (200mL/wk and up, trivial though that is in bodybuilding terms), what the hell is she doing supervising the "anti-doping program". Y'see the spin in the language, too. These were hormone-derived pharmaceuticals; then they were branded "drugs"; then they get branded "dope". D-O-P-E. Which is also used to mean stupid, and in drug language for years specifically meant heroin, and (from the counterculture onwards) marijuana (but not coke or 'shrooms or mesc etc). But the IOC uses it to mean AAS; someone on Talk:Anabolic steroid asked me for an example of demonization, and this is a good example. And Guest wasn't alone in this kind of pointing-at-the-protein silliness; in his case and another (can't remember whose at the moment) the media (Canadian media, all two companies coast-to-coast, so in every paper; no need to cite any of them) did spreads on which countries banned substances could be found in store-bought supplements; banned substances here including a lot more than steroids; Norway was, apparenlty, one where things were found; but of course they didn't say WHAT was found, and that in Canada SOME where found, implying that what they found was steroids and not, say, ephedrine or other non-steroidal "banned substances". Anyway, I couldn't help but laugh at There is a massive difference between performance enhancing drugs and supplements the two should not be lumped together because the IOC types and the media do that ALL the time...and, in fact, accuse the supplement companies of doing exactly that. I spoke with one of the local manufacturers during all this, and there was talk of a lawsuit against the IOC spokesmen and the media for slander or libel or whatever; but the supp companies don't get along and are wary of further negative publicity; not that they have steroids in their stuff, but they have enough problems with Canada's Health Protection Branch trying to push even nutriceuticals and herbiceuticals off the market in order to consolidate the position of the Big Pharmaceutical Cos.Skookum1 16:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I will rewrite it so that supplements do not include drugs, like anabolic steroids or gh. Anyone have any objections?Cavell 04:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Cavell

I think it's imperative that the two be separated - as much as possible, that is. The issue is prohormones and "specialty additives" like the creatines and N02 enhancers; which are technically "supplements"; prohormones might rank as "drugs" once they're regulated ("hey, this stuff works! We'd better make it illegal!"). The "big issue" here is the wanton use of the term "drugs" in a pejorative sense. As per the recent comment here somewhere about "the ridiculous amounts of pharmaceuticals" bodybuilders put in their bodies for shows, there is a notion that "drug use" in bodybuilding is somehow worse than drug use in treating depression, mania, impotence, pain and so on; perhaps in quantity - and I say PERHAPS because I know people who are taking (daily) ridiculous amounts of Flexorall, Halcyon, Zyban, lithium and a few other things (plus, in the older guys, a trickle of Andriol) - and their doctors admit that they don't actually know what the interactions are but "take them anyway". In other words, the medical community is EXPERIMENTING on people with a lot worse "drugs" than steroid "drugs". It's all in the term; the way "drug" in the US has the same range of negative connotations as "liberal", and all you have to do is "say no to drugs" and all of a sudden you're some kind of saint. If the same people said no to the drugs their doctors gave them we'd be getting somewhere.....

My point is that you can't really mention "drugs" WITHOUT being POV; if NPOV means having to include the disinformation and untruths circulated by the DEA and the ignorance openly flouted by the medical colleges and the IOC, then that's just making a deal with the Prince of Lies and pretending that the result is Truth. I know Wikipedia's rules on this; but presenting both sides of a one-sided argument is copping out, period.

Further point is back to the original theme in this section of drugs and supplements. During all the hoo-hah of steroid and prohormone scandals in recent years there were a number of individuals "busted" for having slightly-over-the-limit levels of nandrolone and hemoglobin etc; the limit being artificially set LOW by doctors who have made a point of NOT studying these products since they became taboo back in the '70s. Here in British Columbia, when high-ranking triathlete Kelly Guest got tripped up over a nandrolone result, he and his trainers fell back on the "it must have been in the supplements I took" excuse, which the IOC doctor in charge of this ill-gotten domain immediately pronounced to be the case. Surprise, surprise (but not to us) there's no such thing as oral nandrolone; so unless he was INJECTING a supplement......but the reality is that his levels were only marginally above normal, and 1/1000 or less of what a single shot of deca would have caused; But did that stop the IOC from making its pronouncements? The media from repeating them? The media hereabouts went so far as to publish a table of which countries' shelves had supplements which contained "banned substances", and Canada was somewhere like 17th on the list (of 20; Norway was at the top). But did they actually specify WHICH banned substances? No, of course not, because ephedrine and caffeine just aren't as racy as anadrol or d-bol; easier to lump them all together and claim that they're all the same kind of thing. Which is what the IOC does, what the AMA does (here in BC is the BCMCA), what the media. Pandering to ignorance, and furthering more.

Guest's good solid training is what produced his result, which is the same with those athletes at the recent Winter Olympics whose hemoglobin levels were "too high".

That's all from me for now; I usually don't contribute to this page but stopped by to see what's what; I'm 50, take 'roids for my longevity/vitality and just to feel darned good, and it's my business and nobody else's (the medical community wrote me off years ago because of a back injury that they wanted me to become a basket case over; I refused and now I'm contraband....). What I DON'T like is self-righteous "natural bodybuilders" who want to crap on "steroid users", and who behave as though steroids were somewhere something between immoral and criminal, when really they're just medical. To the self-righteous "you should be able to do it without drugs" crowd, you sound like bloody vegetarians in a butcher shop, trying to preach that other people should have the same limitations you've placed on yourself. Go ahead and be high and holy; but leave the rest of us alone. What I did - learning to walk again, to recover my creative energies (I'm a musician/writer) and sociability - I did "without drugs" and it was a long hard slog that needn't have been; if I'd know about what deca and test could do to improve my quality of life, I wouldn't have suffered under the cudgel of doctorial ignorance for the ten and more years that I did.Skookum1 00:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Introduction paragraph

Have just made some edits to the introduction paragraph. Bodybuilding refers to the process of getting more muscle - not necessarily the sport. I've therefore added a separate section specifically for the sport of competitive bodybuilding. If you disagree please discuss/revert as you see fit.

On the subject of the list of bodybuilders i think we should start an article called List of professional bodybuilders and move it all there. In the main article we can then list "notable bodybuilders" and include why they are important to the bodybuilding scene (e.g. Ronnie Coleman, seven times Mr. Olympia). I know this creates more work in deciding who is "notable" but i feel the lists are too long at the moment and isn't necessary in an encyclopedia article. johnSLADE (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure it refers solely to building muscle? I thought it could also have more to do more with shaping it, building it selectively for appearance rather than sole mass-pursuit. You find both variations within the pursuit, so we must represent both (I'm not sure if they are) Tyciol 16:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

List of bodybuilders

I have moved the list of bodybuilders to List of professional bodybuilders. IMHO the list was too long for an encyclopedia article and also encouraged people to add links to female bodybuilding erotica sites. As i have said before i feel the article needs a list of notable bodybuilders - but since i don't follow the pro bodybuilding scene i don't know who do add (would suggest arnie, coleman, yates, and hanly purely for winning mr olympia a number of times). Any suggestions? johnSLADE (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Nutrition and Rest

A couple of small edits: I replaced references to good in "good nutrition" with "specialized". Diet is contorversial, and the bodybuilding diet is in particular. Calling it good is an opinion, and one that I share with some qualifications. For article purposes though, I think we have to be more careful. As for rest, I replaced "quality rest" with "adequate rest", since "quality rest" is both ambiguous and stylistically ugly. -Unknown

A few questions on the vitamins/supplement sections:

First, it is not clear how anaerobic excersize is "highly oxidizing" ... is there an source or explanation? Doesn't anaerobic respiration involve less oxidation of glucose and less generation of reactive oxygen species than aerobic respiration?

Second, doesn't glucosamine/chondroitin/MSM seems go in the supplements section?

Prithason 05:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Nutrition mentions 1-2 gm. protein for each pound of lean body weight but doesn't specify time period (I assume per day) and doesn't specify what lean body weight is.

I added clarification on this. Frankg 16:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Body Sculpting

What is body sculpting? How does it differ from bodybuilding? - Matthew238 04:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds made up to me. Bodybuilders trying to sound dramatic. TastyCakes 17:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Intro

Just out of interest, should Arnold be in the introductory paragraph? He's an important figure in body building, but it's not like he invented it or did anything particularly special other than draw attention to it. TastyCakes 20:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It's his publiciziing it which is what he did for it... that's all you can really do, other than developing theories on better bodybuilding, or winning competitions (which he has done too), or developing some kind of machine (largely useless) or selling food for it. Tyciol 16:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Ad Links and Magazines

I have removed the links to magazines. If you look up cars you don't have links to a bunch of car magazines, I don't think they can be justified as anything but advertisements for them. If they are important enough to have their own wikipedia articles then maybe, but I don't believe that was the case here. I removed some of the ad links on the basis that I went to them and got the distinct impression there wasn't any useful information that didn't relate to them selling me something. Some seemed borderline so I left them in. Does anyone disagree with these changes? TastyCakes 06:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I do! I disagree with you 100%. I don't know why some of you think that you can just go around deleting people's information without consulting with them first. You should ask or verify (the least) to get proper information on the link. I placed an external link for my website. The difference between us and some of the other magazines is simply this.... we have morals & values and we do not condone to "unnatural" ways to get into shape. We do not accept ads that sell viagra, or anything that is "sex" related. We are setting a standard which gains a respect in the industry. So if you don't mind, let us do our job by allowing us to set a good example to the readers that there are still good people out there who are not all about money, sex, and power. Thank you kindly for reading. --Webmistress Diva 10:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

As per the Wikipedia:External links policy, "Links that are added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates" should not be added. I've removed the link to your website based on this. Please do not add commercial links — or links to your own private websites — to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You've been warned about this in the past. Furthermore, Wikipedia is a resource that anyone can edit. Your consultation is not required when adding to, or removing information that is either uncited or deemed inappropriate based on Wikipedia guidelines. You're welcome to contribute to our encycolopedia by adding relevant information to the article. If you need further clarification on what Wikipedia is and isn't please refer to Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines. Thank you.Yankees76 14:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with Yankee here, magazines are usually biased and sell things. Mind and spirit, while definately complimentary with bodybuilding, aren't really the main focus. Even so, I'll check your magazine, but it doesn't belong on the main page, what mainly belongs is articles directly about it... although your site could be perfect, I haven't looked yet. Tyciol 16:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Spam Links

There is an incredible amout of linkspam in this article. I've just gone through several of the external links and the overwhelming majority of them are commercial sites offering products to sell with nothing to contribute to this article. Two were dead links and one was in Spanish. Monkeyman 04:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on some obvious spam (like whey protein, or things selling stuff like books) as well as the foreign languages. There are still a couple that may require reconsidering though, especially bodybuilding.com. That's the #1 site, and contains guides to muscle groups, exercises, methods of exercising, the psychology behind bodybuilding, as well as a huge forum. While they do use advertisements, it's still a worthwhile resource. I linked to the page within for the exercise database rather than the main page so it would bypass the market.

• Ironmagazine.com Bodybuilding resources
• The Robot Bodybuilder A very unique performance
• Bodybuilding.com - The top site for bodybuilding with hundreds of articles and exercise guides
• Body-Building for You Bodybuilding facts and tips
• BodybuildingPro.com Bodybuilding encyclopedia
• Fit GFX Bodybuilding community

I'm uncertain about the others, they may indeed warrant exclusion. We can take time to go through I guess. Tyciol 16:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the bodybuilding.com link because the site exists primarily to sell supplements. And in fact they are a supplement company now as well. See Wikipedia:External_links and look under what links to avoid. BB.com falls under 2 or 3 of these categories. I would also question the accuracy of many of the articles on these websites - especially sites like IronMagazine.com. See Rule #1 on the External Links page under Links to normally avoid. Plus I'd even question the the neutrality of them. Remember, Wikipedia has a NPOV and is not supposed to be a link farm - let's try to keep the links down and bring up the content of the actual article (which is weak). Yankees76 17:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but many sites do normally promote something in exchange for their information. I doubt Bodybuilding.com could host the plethora of articles and guides without some form of income to support the site. I linked the free articles, which do not necessitate or rely upon buying supplements to be beneficial. I think by removing the link we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There are articles of all times, including those that discourage buying the very products the site sells, so I consider it neutral. Tyciol 16:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

They don't exist to host articles for education. They're a supplement distributor with their own brand of supplements. The articles exist to draw site users and ultimately to sell products. I've pulled the link - again review the policy. Under links to normally avoid, Bodybuilding.com fails on Rule 1 (potentially contains factually inaccurate material and unverifiable original research), Rule 4 (Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services) and Rule 5 (Sites with objectionable amounts of advertising). You could also make a case for Rule 2. Yankees76 17:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think t-nation.com ("Bodybuilding's Think Tank") would be a good link addition - it does sell some products, but their regular articles are by highly qualified authors on topic, who are not trying to sell products. It also has one of the biggest forums around on bodybuilding, strength sports etc and has less focus on "competitive" bodybuilding than alot of other magazines and web sites.

I disagree. That website is a link to a supplement company - it's a corporate site disguised as an online magazine. The sole purpose of it's existance is to sell supplements. Same with bodybuilding.com - it's an online store and supplement company that uses value added articles that are loaded with links to buy products. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a form of advertising. Yankees76 17:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yankees76 is 100% correct, they are both sites masking advertorials as articles. Now that ABB are no longer affiliated with getbig.com they would qualify perhaps? My bad, just checked and they're there. Nice. - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 18:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

How about adding mindandmuscle.net? It is an online magazine, but doesn't sell supplements and looks at bodybuilding from a very scientific angle. It certainly is one of the more informative sites out there. [After reviewing the link guidelines I have found that mindandmuscle.net actually does seem to be a good fit so I added it as a link. If this is inappropriate please remove it until further discussion. I'm new to editing articles and don't want to act out of turn, but I also don't want to withhold a potentially useful resource]

You might want to look at your "online magazine" more closely - it's a magazine run by Avant Labs - a supplement company. Again, Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for advertising. If you find information that is useful there, please write it in your own words and add it to a Wikipedia article, citing the reference. Yankees76 13:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is incorrect, as Avant Labs no longer runs Mind and Muscle Magazine. I guess I don't understand what seperates Mind and Muscle from something like GetBig.com. At what point is the line drawn? Like I said I'm new to editing so be patient if I'm missing something obvoius :)

No worries. Run a whois on the domain to clear up any confusion you have on who runs what on that site. If Avant Labs isn't running it, I'm curious as to why their site admin would have an @avantlabs email address. Getbig has a unique advantage of posting up to date contest results on bodybuilding competitions and being nearly all about the sport of bodybuilding (what this wikipedia article is about) while having no advertising and not being run by a supplement company. Mindandmuscle.net is simply a training, supplements, steroids resource , run by a supplement company containing information that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose. Adding a link to that site does nothing but generate additional revenue though click-throughs on banner ads on that site. Again if you find information on there that works here, re-write it in your own words and add it to the article. Yankees76 01:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, just to clarify, I asked around and I guess Avant Labs and Mind and Muscle are run by the same parent company though they are trying to seperate themselves. I see how there could be a conflict of interest however. Thanks again for helping me figure out the policies :)

I have posted a link to African Bodybuilding www.ntpowerhouse.com a few weeks ago, and it has been removed. Since no one has given any reason why, I post it again. Here are the reasons why I think this link should be included in the Bodybuilding article. According to Wikipedia External links policy N. 4 & 5 should be linked sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article... and sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article. This African Bodybuilding www.ntpowerhouse.com site thoroughly meets these guidelines. Bodybuilding in Africa is practiced in a different way. Most African bodybuilders have started in their backyards with improvised equipment and limited means. We are here in a totally natural environment where people really train for their love for the sport. The site shows original pictures and articles on Bodybuilding in Africa. Its aim is to promote fitness and bodybuilding in Africa and it does not exist to sell products or services. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, but unfortunately I do not have the time to do so right now, may be in a near future. In the meantime Wikipedia should at least leave that link to African bodybuilding as a reference. –—Yembi 05:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like and advertisement for Powerhouse Gym and it's loaded with ads. I'd say external link spamming all the way on this. I don't see how this link provides a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article. I vote remove. Yankees76 16:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The advertisement for NTPowerHouse GYM must count for 1% of the site www.ntpowerhouse.com, the rest is filled with exclusive pictures, articles and interviews with African bodybuilders that cannot be found anywhere else. Unless Yankees76 knows any other site in the web that deals about African bodybuilding, please let us know and the link to www.ntpowerhouse.com will be replaced. But please let the world know about bodybuilding in Africa. Do not remove that link. Thanks. Yembi 18:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

But the article isn't on African Bodybuilding - it's on bodybuilding in general. Create an article on African Bodybuilding or a section within this article that dicusses bodybuilding in Africa and use the info from your website to write that article. Wikipedia isn't a link farm or collection of links. m:When should I link externally

I'm not the only Wikipedia editor who has removed this link from the article- it doesn't belong. (BTW I just checked the site again, 1% advertising?, you mean "Meet Fit Singles", "African Women for Dating", "Ghana Holiday Villas" and the other numerous Google ads littering the site are actual editorial content? How is this page vital to this article: [1]? Or these? [2],[3]. The whole site is made to acquire memberships to this particular gym). I'm sure they're nice facilities, but we don't need to link to them. Yankees76 19:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Yankees76, Wikipedia DOES NOT belong to you Americans. If the site uses Google Adsense to pay its survival, this does not mean that the ads you are talking about are part of NTPowerHouse GYM advertising. The GYM advertising is less than 1% of the whole site. The site is not intended at all to acquire memberships to the gym. The site promotes Bodybuilding in all Africa and the guestbook shows that most of the visitors are not from Ghana, where the gym is located. If Yankees76 is not the only Wikipedia editor who has removed the link, please let us know from some other ones who ARE NOT from America. Hey USA please have a bit of respect for other continents, Africa is not rich like you, but we have the right to express ourselves. Thank you Yembi 19:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Drugs section?

Can we add a section discussing the ridicilous amounts of pharmacy products bodybuilders use to build their physiques? -85.76.45.14

I would not say they use a ridiculous amount. Many bodybuilders use no pharmacy products at all. Tyciol 15:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

A NPOV addition of this is already in the article. Yankees76 18:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

And see above for my opinions of the ridiculous amounts of pontificating coming from the anti-drug crowd.Skookum1 00:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I am not against the use of anabolic steroids whatsoever. They're significantly safer than tobacco or alcohol. However, fact remains that bodybuilding is about drug use, who is the best chemist, specifically on the top levels (IFBB Pro's). -85.76.45.14

That concept is still highly under debate. While perfecting the chemistry of steroid supplementation is a concern, you can only improve upon it so much. The capabilities possessed are still greatly depended on other factors like nutrition, rest, lifting habits, genetics, nad hard work. Tyciol 15:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Paul Dillet was the laziest bodybuilder, but also one of the biggest. He did lateral raises for shoulders biting down on a towel, that was his shoulder workout. He was a pretty good chemist and managed to freeze himself up by cramping onstage due to diuretics abuse. Top level pro-bbing is not about genetics or hard work, it's about jamming 7 grams of test in your pipes supported by 30ius of GH, slin, IGF-1, cytomel, t-3/4, masteron, deca, and other crap week in week out. 85.76.45.14

Please sign your comments, and getting an account rather than an IP (since you're a regular contributor) makes communication easier. I am unsure who Paul Dillet is, but please don't apply his training methods to all of bodybuilding. Besides, how much did he lift for his shoulders? I do lateral raises with 15lbs... he probably did it heavy, and a lot more than 6 slow reps that I manage. Tyciol 15:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't contributed anything except on this talk page, no need for an account. Paul used the 45lbs dumbells for his raises. I used more weight when I wasn't doing roids. Here's monster Dillet

Again, there is already an NPOV mention of drug use in the article. Also 85.76.45.14, please cite a valid source of your information (or provide a link). If you can't then it doesn't belong here. Wikipedia including talk pages is not a gossip forum. With regards to the orginal request for the addition of steroid use by bodybuilders, remember that any information you post will require the ability for other editors to verify it. (see policy on verifiability The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.) Good luck in verifying much of the information discussed above in any place other than someone's blog or forum, which do not qualify under the Verifiablity policy. Yankees76 15:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait, you want me to cite written word for someones ILLEGAL drug abuse? Are you out of your mind by any chance? Do you seriously think these guys reveal this crap in some magazine? I've been with the industry for a dozen years now, the guys do some horrible shit to themselves. I don't know any pro that has not had insulin shock due to slin abuse, most have had to be treated at the ICU for that crap.

I don't want you to cite resources, Wikipedia does. Read the policy. Plus there are a number of editors here, including User:Stollery and myself who are even more involved in the industry than you are, and none of what you're talking about is particularly new or even worthy of mention beyond what is already included in the article. Again, if you want to add more to the article be prepared to cite your references. Saying every pro has had insulin shock from insulin abuse is not only untrue, but you'll never be able to prove your statements. Yankees76 18:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Performancing enhancing drugs

I'm sorry but the heading Anabolic supplements just had to go:

1. It's misleading and shows POV (there is no evidence creatine is anabolic for example)
2. Steriods/GH etc. aren't supplements!

There's really no option but to put a drugs section. I'm sorry if some think it's POV but the fact is those that choose to use these substances are using drugs! That's life people! _{§τοĿĿ€Ŗγ}^Ť_č 00:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above sentiment -- except that the distinction between "drugs" and "supplements" is an artificial one based on regulation. Exogenous growth hormone is both supplemental and a drug, while almost all supplements are drugs, in the technical definition of the word. I suggest using "hormone" instead of "drug" to be more specific and avoid any disagreements over the non-technical meanings of the word "drug". Prithason 05:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You are correct the difference is merely a legal distinction but unfortunately that IS the distinction and although my preference is not to use the "D word" there's little choice. The problem withthe use of the word hormone is that only steriods fall under that category. GH, insulin, clenbuterol etc are not hormones... I prefer hormones over supplements but still is misleading and I feel drugs is still the only really true term. Does anyone else have any thoughts? _{ĢĿ€Ñ §τοĿĿ€Ŗγ}^Ť_č 08:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yea, there are a lot of drugs that fall into that gray area where they aren't steroids but just claim to be natural drugs where in fact they just boost testosterone. that case with the baseball star stirs a lot of contraversy with enhancing preforming drugs and the drug he used wasn't illegal at all and he openly admitted that he used it and it had very similar affects to steroids.

As written, the paragraph includes only hormones: steroids, growth hormone, and insulin are all hormones. I do agree with your point that additional drugs could be added to the section that would not qualify as hormones. Prithason 15:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence says "Some bodybuilders may use drugs to gain an advantage ...". So why does the title say hormones and not drugs? The word "drugs" or even the more all-inclusive "substances" reads better than "performance enhancing hormones". Just my 2 cents. Yankees76 17:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Performance enhancing substances? I'll change whilst we're discussing as it's much less misleading than hormones _{ĢĿ€Ñ §τοĿĿ€Ŗγ}^Ť_č 17:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

And less political/propagandistic than "drugs".Skookum1 03:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The Elephant in the room

"Like most sports, some bodybuilders choose to use drugs to gain an advantage over results due to natural hypertrophy, especially in professional competitions."

This is misleading. Anyone who knows anything about Professional Bodybuilding knows that 99.999% of contestants (probably 100%) use Anabolic Steroids, among dozens of other drugs. Steroids, GH, Diuretics are rampant in Professional Bodybuilding.

For this reason, maybe "Professional Bodybuilding" should be separate from "Bodybuilding."

People who live healthy lifestyles and "build their body" hate Professional Bodybuilding.

Bodybuilding is healthy...whereas Professional bodybuilders are walking science experiments.

Just my .02.

That's nice. This isn't a message board though - wikipedia is NPOV, and all "facts" must be verifiable. Yankees76 20:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

False statement in article

Quote from the section 'Performance enhancing substances':

"Most steroids allow the human body to be in a more anabolic state."

According to the Wikipedia article 'Steroid', the statement which that sentence makes is false. Maybe the literal meaning of the sentence does not follow the intent of the author, but I don't see any minor grammatical changes that could make it both truthful and informative.

Natural Bodybuilding

I think there should be a small section devoted to natural bodybuilding in this article and a redirect for "natural bodybuilding" that at the minimum points to the bodybuilding article if not a separate article. 129.74.141.230 17:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Why? Don't we assume that bodybuilding is "natural" and that use of steroids is an exception? Jack Daw 18:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree Jack. Although, I think she/he was was indirectly confirming what some of us suspect, and that there is a general consensus that IFBB bodybuilders are steroid-induced monsters, whereas "natural" bodybuilders are not. However this is a great source of endless controversy --AF1987 02:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm having trouble understanding some of the POVs here. On one hand, Yankee76 says "I disagree. That website is a link to a supplement company - it's a corporate site disguised as an online magazine. The sole purpose of it's existance is to sell supplements." -- which may be factually incorrect, just BASED on advertising supplements alone[they're not gonna advertising knitting needles are they?] and is POV, from my POV, however. Then you go on to mention earlier, that

"They don't exist to host articles for education. They're a supplement distributor with their own brand of supplements. The articles exist to draw site users and ultimately to sell products." but in fact, what if the content of the articles can be verified, to be scientifically correct[for the sake of argument, "creatine may cause dehydration" -- thewebsiteinquestionhere.com]. Isn't that educational?

If the New York Times is advertising a book, does that mean the sole purpose of it's existence is to sell books? I could argue so, people who read newspapers a lot, might read books also. same with insertbodybuildingsitehere, you workout and eat alot, and thus purchase supplements to aid in the digestion of certain ingredients, which would otherwise greatly reduce your bank balance, or various other reasons, and thus nytimes.com should not be linked in any way on Wikipedia, nor CNN. does this seemingly normal way of paying for bandwith and making a living harm the integrity of the site, and it's articles? of course not. While I do obviously agree there are some definite all-hype and no research stuff floating around, undoubtedly there are some very popular websites, with educational info, yet do advertise, it is inevitable and really shouldnt exclude them from encyclopeda.

However if that is the policy, then its a damn shame i guess :( :) :( --AF1987 03:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Forums category

I added a "forums" category text, with two external links for examples of bodybuilding forums. Please do not remove these, they are not spam.

Thank you.

I removed them. The Bodybuilding.com forum is blacklisted, I removed the other because it falls under the category of "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research" see Wikipedia:Reliable sources and because it is a "Links to foreign-language sites, unless they contain visual aids such as maps, diagrams, or tables; per the foreign-language sites guideline." Thanks. Yankees76 16:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)