Talk:Bodybuilding

Discussion of aftereffects needed

This article is missing any coverage of what happens to the body after bodybuilding activities stop happening (i.e., when people get old, or have to stop for some reason). -- Earle [^t/_c] 03:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Health effects more generally need treatment -- the effects on very young people, cardiovascular effects, metabolic results (there's a lot of undocumented physiological theory in the article at present). This needs serious attention from a specialist in physiology and sports medicien. DavidOaks (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, the article should also address the rising popularity of bodybuilding in the mid-1970's and 1980's when it was gaining national attention and getting exposure on shows such as ABC's Wide World of Sports and NBC's Sportsworld. And how that popularity nose dived in the 1990's as the drugs continued to ruin the sport. The inherent contradiction of trying to sell bodybuilding to the public as a 'healthy lifestyle' when the sport was full of competitors pumping themselves full of dangerous and (since 1990) illegal drugs led to the sport being relegated back to the underground from which it had just recently climbed. It used to be in the 1980's several times a month you could find bodybuilding covered somewhere on cable TV. Today? Not a chance. There's a reason for that and I think it should be covered on the main page.

Ronnie Coleman

Where's Ronnie Coleman? He ain't even mentioned in whole article, though he's one of the all-time greatest bodybuilders in the world. So I think that if there is mention about Jay Cutler, there should be also about "Big Ron". He won 8 Mr. O's like Lee Haney. Afroseppo (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Added him to the article in the section "Rise of anabolic steroids". --Yankees76 (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Meal frequency

"Bodybuilders usually split their food intake for the day into 5 to 7 meals of roughly equal nutritional content and attempt to eat at regular intervals (normally between 2 and 3 hours).

This method purports to serve 2 purposes: to limit overindulging as well as increasing basal metabolic rate when compared to the traditional 3 meals a day." Eating 6 small meals doesn't increase metabolic rate vs 3 big meals.

Study:

1. "The daily distribution of food intake can influence the regulation of energy balance and, in consequence, the control of body weight. Two aspects of this question must be considered: the daily number of eating occasions and their temporal distribution. Since the 1960s, epidemiological studies have reported an inverse relationship between frequency of eating and body weight, suggesting that a "nibbling" pattern could help to prevent obesity. This notion has later been put into question by the recognition of a high level of dietary underreporting in overweight individuals. [b]In addition, no difference in total daily energy expenditure has been documented as a function of daily meal number. Weight loss is not facilitated by high meal frequency.[/b] Snacking in obese subjects is associated with higher energy and fat intake. By contrast, in normal-weight people, snacking does not necessarily lead to increased energy intake, while snacks often contain more carbohydrates and less fat than regular meals. Obese people tend to eat little in the morning and much in the afternoon and the evening. In extreme cases, a "night-eating syndrome" is observed. Understanding the relationship between the circadian distribution of intake and obesity (or resistance to weight loss) seems critical for theoretical as well as clinical reasons."

Impact of the daily meal pattern on energy balance; Scandinavian Journal of Nutrition, Volume 48, Number 3, October 2004 , pp. 114-118(5)

If you go here: http://www.treningsforum.no/forum/index.php?topic=58770.0 Scroll a bit down. There are total of 9 studies showing that increased meal frequency does nothing for muscle gain / fat loss. Somebody should fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.209.120.150 (talk) 03:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that reference shows that bodybuilders don't split their food intake for the day into 5 to 7 meals. I think what they do and what is actually effective are two different things here. --Yankees76 (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The study I pointed too, shows that eating more often does in fact NOT increase basal metabolic rate, unlike what is stated in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.209.120.150 (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. However that doesn't mean it's not what bodybuilders are currently doing. The article says "Bodybuilders usually split their food intake for the day into 5 to 7 meals...", and yes the study shows it's probably ineffective, however the prevailing trend is to still eat 5-7 meals a day. If you want to change the fact that bodybuilders eat 5-7 meals a day, you need to provide a source that shows that, not a source that shows what they're currently doing might be ineffective. I think the references that are currently there are ineffective at showing that bodybuilders do this. The goal with the refernce there should show proof that bodybuilders eat 5-7 meals a day, and why they believe this to be effective. It looks like the current references don't show this, which is flawed. --Yankees76 (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Studies may not (yet) show any link about basal metabolic rate, but I know from experience if you eat more often, you're hungry more often, especially if the meals are smaller in size. But even without that, there is another reason to eat that many times a day, especially for people of larger mass: maximizing protein intake, as you just can't intake enough protein on three meals a day, especially if you're over 200 lbs (I'm 260-265 and need 320g-400g/day, depending on which advice I take), as only so much protein can be absorbed at a time. Again, nothing proven (yet) to do with basal metabolic rate, but definitely protein intake is a factor in that kind of eating schedule, especially for larger men in particular.....Skookum1 (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain at all about the relevance of the study quoted above to bodybuilding:

Snacking in obese subjects is associated with higher energy and fat intake. By contrast, in normal-weight people, snacking does not necessarily lead to increased energy intake, while snacks often contain more carbohydrates and less fat than regular meals.

Bodybuilders don't "snack" like obese people: no chips, cheezies, hot dogs, candy bars, trips to Ronnie MacD's or other forms of high fat/high carb "grazing". To me such a comparison is not relevant at all; studies done on general populations, with uncontrolled diets, are from a completely different ballpark.Skookum1 (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

intensity vs. volume

Regarding the following section:

"Weight training aims to build muscle by prompting two different types of hypertrophy, sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and myofibrillar hypertrophy. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy leads to larger muscles so is favored by bodybuilders more than myofibrillar hypertrophy which builds athletic strength. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is triggered by increasing repetitions, whereas myofibrillar hypertrophy is triggered by lifting heavier weights. [10]"

I know nothing about this, but after a cursory reading, the document [10] cited does not in fact seem to support this conclusion. It seems to say that the relationship is either still unclear and that it may even be up to an individual's genetics. I think some qualification of this statement would be appropriate.

99.28.214.196 (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Rusty Jeffers and Betty Pariso - posers?

I happen to like Rusty Jeffers physique quite a bit, but saying he's well-known for posing is a bit of a stretch when others more notable like Bob Paris and John Grimek (or for that matter Larry Scott and Dave Draper) are not mentioned, among various others (Frank Zane). So I went by his page to see what was said; what I found was this image which is the cover of his "how to pose" video, so it's pretty clear to me that this mention is by way of bait-spam; I removed the image from his article and don't quite know what to do with placing copyvio on it, which it certainly seems to be - as well as being spam....as for Betty Pariso, never heard of her; Rachel McLish, Sharon Bruneau and other women are much better known; it seems to me that Ms Pariso's presence in this paragraph is hype/personal/fan promotion, and there are better examples. Her article also reads like a personal bio/resume and needs harsh editing and better refs than the paltry one provided.Skookum1 (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You've never heard of Betty Pariso? Shame on you! While I didn't add her as an example of someone well known for posing, I still think it's a good fit. Articles like this [1] talk about how her posing has helped her earn better placings, and at the shows that I've attended where she's competed her posing was always the highlight.--Quartet 18:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever; she's still not as notable as McLish and Bruneau and many others; your analysis of "how her posing has helped her win competitions" still doesn't mean she's WELL-KNOWN for her posing.Skookum1 (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The Steve Wennerstrom article you've cited says this:

Laced with imitations of some of men's bodybuilding's most colorful characters (Ronnie Coleman, Mike Matarazzo and King Kamali), Pariso's efforts were enthusiastically received by the crowd and by industry insiders:

"imitation" is NOT "innovation"...even less so is it "artistry".Skookum1 (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I love how you omitted "Pariso's posing performance was sheer genius -- as innovative a routine as has been seen at the pro women's level in many years". I'm not saying she's a lock to be in there, however your own POV shouldn't come into play here - wether or not you've heard of her, or if you think that imitation is artistic or not. My point is, she is known for her posing. I may not have numerous reliable sources to back up the statement, however people who still follow the sport will know it's true. --Quartet 18:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

But KNOWN FOR HER POSING has yet to be shown (i.e. outside of Texasx, and outside the audience at that show), especially in comparison to others better-known; as with the inclusion of Rusty JEffers here I think this is pure promotion and not a reflection of fact in terms of truly well-known; there are other women who deserve mention first.Skookum1 (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's be honest, that whole sentence/section is purely POV and is completely unsourced. At least Pariso has a source that calls her routine "sheer genius". Ed Corney and Arnold wouldn't be at the top of anyone's list of great posers - or at least they're not "renowned for their skill and artistry" as the section currently reads. Just off the top of my head Melvin Anthony and Kai Greene are more suitable inclusions. Melvin has won numerous "best poser" awards at shows and at the 2009 Arnold Classic, Arnold told Kai Greene that his routine was the best posing routine he had ever witnessed. --Quartet 19:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

[undent]Quoting you: Ed Corney and Arnold wouldn't be at the top of anyone's list of great posers only demonstrates to me how shallow your knowledge of the history of bodybuilding is; Corney is widely considered one of the greatest posers of all time. I"m going to add a few much more notable names than either Jeffers or Pariso; I just did a google for Lenda Murray, Sharon Bruneau, Rachel McLish and Betty Pariso plus the word "posing" in each case; Murray's 9000+, Bruneau 7000+, McLish 11,000+, Pariso only 2000+...Bev Francis gets over 14,000, Cory Everson 22,000.... Not that that's a measure of quality of posing I've seen Ms Francis pose, she's not all that artistic), but it is a measure of "well-known'. "Shame on you" for never hearing about Corney's posing, I suggest you look some up (they're on youtube).....Skookum1 (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack much Skookum1? Can you please stick to the content of the article and not the depth of another editors knowledge of bodybuilders 25 years retired? Frankly I'm suprised that you're so hard up for sources to justify your choices of well known posers that you're adding bodybuilder names and the word "posing" together in Google and counting hits to justify the inclusion and exclusion of bodybuilders in one sentence of this article. 1) Posing is entirely subjective, and 2) Of course someone who won Ms. Olympia numerous times is going to have more Google hits. How many are reliable sources that talk about them being known for their great posing routines?

I'm sure Ed Corney was a good poser in his day (I never said I never heard of him), but so is Melvin Anthony, Kai Greene, and King Kamali. In fact, I've seen all three of them bring down the house with their routines - within the last decade too! Arnold Classic 2009 DVD, Arnold says Greene had the best routine he ever witnessed, and you can bet he watched Corney a hundred or more times. But notice how I didn't force them into the article though? That's because the threshold for inclusion is verifiability - plus I don't think we need to include a massive laundry list of every poser from all decades that someone might think is well known as a good poser - but that what you've just turned it into (only in your case it's a laundry list that stopped being updated when Wham! was still together). I'm sure Serge Nubret, Darrem Charles, Mike Matarazzo and countless others could easily be added to your own list of favorites.

Here's a solution. Why don't we count up the number of "Best Poser" awards bodybuilders have won at professional shows like the Mr. Olympia to determine who is actually known as great poser in real life? Each show awards one right? Ed Corney is there, and then add the guy with the most best poser trophies on his mantle? Seems simple and subjective objective enough. --Quartet 00:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"Objective" not "subjective" is the desired outcome; and your focus on more recent bodybuilders over a broader scope of the history of bodybuilding is a generational bias; and as for calling my criticisms of your position a personal attack, that's just pure hyperbole....Skookum1 (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected on "objective", however you can't make the claim of generational bias when you exclude those that I've posted above (including a reliable source for Pariso) because you either never heard of them or don't personally think they should be included. Don't call the kettle black Your own personal opinions on who deserves to be on this list is clearly not an editorially neutral point of view. BTW I added a source for Corney. I'll trust you have sources for the others? --Quartet 03:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As pointed out to me by someone else, the fact-challenged material, being inherently OR, I've removed completely, partly because it doesn't have directly to do with the subject matter of the section in question; I'm blockquoting it here:

Male bodybuilders renowned for their posing routines include Ed Corney, Arnold Schwarzeneggar, Larry Scott, John Grimek, Lee Labrada, Bob Paris, and Rusty Jeffers. Well-known female bodybuilders known for their posing include Lenda Murray, Rachel McLish and Sharon Bruneau. Some competitors are associated with specific poses, such as the victory pose of Lee Priest and the side single bicep pose of Arnold Schwarzeneggar.

In addition to your suggestion taht winners of Best Poser awards may form an objective basis for such a "list" (although I wouldn't limit that to the Olympia, and would insist that the old Universe and America and similar shows be included), that certain magazines may have lists of "ten best posers" or whatever. Bios of some athletes also make such references, and in Arnold's Encyclopedia there's discussions of some of them (including his kudos for Corney....), but I don't own a copy. What remains in the surviving passages of the section is also uncited, as is much of the article; but having this material "targeted" for OR/fact tags means that, until cites can be provided, it can't be displayed....and once those cites are found, they don't belong in this section anyway. Noting also that citations for "Best Arms", Best Legs" etc as used to be the practice are also out there, though those trophies are no longer awarded...Skookum1 (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Best posers can be from any show - what we need is something that is undeniable - not just one Wikipedia editors opinion. A search for "bodybuilding" and "best poser" dug up a whole list of people that were not even mentioned above. Guys like Mohammed Makkawy, Aaron Baker, Mike Quinn, Shawn Ray, Chris Dickerson and the list goes on and on. --Quartet 04:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Physique photography

To my sort-of surprise, there is no article on this; though this search turned up some interesting items....I was thinking of Herb Ritts' work with Bob Paris, as a tangent of my mention of him in the previous section, and then there's Frank Gorman, Caruso (B. Weider's fave), Bill Dobbins, Chris Lund, and many others; the distinction between bodybuilding-as-sport, bodybuilding-as-physique-study/analysis, bodybuilding-as-art, and bodybuilding-as-porn has become blurred, and some such as Sandow bridge two or three of those, but separate sections on those topics would seem to be called for. Should probably post this on WP:Bodybuilding, I just happened to be on this page and it also seems worth a mention here, especially when high-profile photographers like Ritts and Gorman helped make bodybuilding "stylish" through t heir works....Skookum1 (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

clothing?

Article includes two images of bodybuilders wearing a type of clothing (red piece in Jackson image and blue piece in Osladil image), but doesn't say what type of clothing they are. What is the name for those pieces of clothing? (bodybuilding shorts?) --EarthFurst (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

They're most commonly called "posing trunks" and they're worn in competition or during guest posing. I think inclusion in an article would be more suited to an expanded Professional bodybuilding article or a new article along the lines of Bodybuilding competition, as not all bodybuilders compete and therfore most will never wear them, so it's not typical bodybuilding clothing for the majority of people who consider themselves bodybuilders. Maybe a single sourced sentence would suffice here? --Yankees76 (talk) 13:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

spirulina for body building

Through some light on how Spirulina safe and helps for body building —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.74.136 (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Scientifically Questionable Sentence

"This is important as high-glycemic carbohydrates cause a sharp insulin response, which places the body in a state where it is likely to store additional food energy as fat rather than muscle"

This sentence makes no distinction between glucose, which provides energy, and protein/amino acids, which builds muscle, and seems to imply that carbohydrates (broken into glucose) can be used to build muscle.

Any assessments from those with an educational background in biology/physiology?--Edible1 (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)