Talk:Bodybuilding/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

How to avoid damaged joints[edit]

I'd like to add this to the 'strategy' section, but I'm quite sure that it will be deleted by some random idiot on this lovely site called Wikipedia, so I won't bother putting it there :-) Someone else can try it if they want to.

Joint care through cardio

Every time a joint is put under pressure during weight lifting, the hyaline cartilage gets worn down a bit, which can lead to a form of osteoarthritis. To counteract the effects of the wear and tear of weight lifting, many people do a regular cardio workout such as swimming, rowing and cycling. Any sport that moves just about all joints around their entire range of movement in a consistent motion will stimulate the growth and recovery of the hyaline cartilage, keeping the joints 'greased'.

Merctio (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice input! My main problem lies with the statement that " to coutneract the effects of the wear and tear of weight lifting, many people do a regular cardio workout...". Do you have a source that shows this to be true? I've seen hundreds of people in the gym over the years and have yet to meet one that is doing cardio for any other reason than cardiovascular fitness, sports training or calorie burning/fat loss. Maybe we can re-word it? Sources for this info are important too. --Quartet 20:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Protein is created in the body[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Animals do not need to eat other animals to get big and strong. They eat grass. All animals including humans create protein from within their body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talkcontribs) 09:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Source? --Yankees76 (talk) 14:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 'amino acid'. This is why animals are huge and strong and don't need other sources.

Ericg33 - that's probably one of the stupidest statements I've ever read - do you really believe that plants do not contain protein? -- (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I am saying you don't need to eat meat or supplements to build muscle. How do you explain strong animals? --Ericg33 (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed - someone clearly lacks a basic understanding of the subject. Only 12 (non-essential) amino acids can be synthesized in the human or animal body. Essential amino acids must come from food (meat, plants or otherwise).--Yankees76 (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
You misunderstand. I am saying you don't need to eat protein to build muscle. How do you explain strong animals? They don't eat meat nor supplements.--Ericg33 (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
It's simple. Strong animals, even if they're herbivores, eat plants - plants contain protein and carbohydrates - carbs are protein sparing. You couldn't be more wrong. You need protein to build muscle.--Yankees76 (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
My original point was you don't need to eat meat or supplements for muscle growth. Protein is fruits and vegetables. Thats why there are animals that don't eat any meat yet grow big.
Am I blind or does it plainly say above "you don't need to eat protein to build muscle"? And is the title of this section not "Protein is created in the body"? That's completely wrong. I'm not sure if User:Ericg33 is really adding anything to this talk page that is going to improve the article
Probably mistitled. The point is you don't need to eat meat or maybe even supplements for your body to create protein.
I think it's more resonable to say that now that your original theories on protein being created in the body have been soundly rebuffed you're changing your tune. If you had come out and said that you don't need to eat meat or take supplements to ingest protein, no one would have looked twice - however you made it pretty clear earlier that you beleived that the body created it's own protein and that you didn't need to eat protein to grow muscle - which is false. I'm going to close this section - as it's been a giant waste of time. --Quartet 14:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
This is the same user that claims there are no research studies that show protein supplements grow muscle on Talk:Bodybuilding supplement (when I posted 8 of them, he disapeared from the conversation), so take what is written here with a grain of salt. --Quartet 19:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
That's right. Where is your research to prove protein supplements build muscle.
8 published studies posted on Talk:Bodybuilding supplement. Again thanks for coming out.--Quartet 16:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
there are studies that prove otherwise. Ask a nutritionist.
Again you've added nothing of value here. You're wrong. Admit it. I could post even more studies that show your wrong, but I'd just be wasting my time and the time of people reading this. Here's my evidence that shows protein supplements build muscle. Published studies in top medical journals. Not some internet "nutritionist" Q&A column. Not some anti-supplement POV. Not some Wikipedia editors misguided knowledge of science - but published studies. Please stop using Wikipedia talk pages to argue made up theories. This isn't helping improve the article. --Quartet 14:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

False statement in article[edit]

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.

This has been fixed in the current version of this article. 00:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Resistance weight training[edit]

This section says:

micro-tears in the muscle contribute to the soreness felt after exercise, called delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS). It is the repair to these micro-trauma that result in muscle growth. Normally, this soreness becomes most apparent a day or two after a workout.

The article delayed onset muscle soreness says the cause of this pain is unknown. The article microtrauma seems to call into question the benefits of this practice. Does anyone have any medical references that can confirm the consensus medical opinion on these issues? I'm wondering whether or not these are just repetitions of popular myths. -- Beland 16:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Steroids refers to a chemical substance, the sex hormones are steroids but so are the hormones released by the adrenal cortex, among those: corticosteroids, these substances are NOT anabolic, but catabolic.

Dr. Peter van der Zon (over 35 years of experience in coaching athletes (strength & martial arts & track & field)

Protein timing[edit]

First of all, according to official policy, Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. This section is giving a lot of advice (and medical advice, at that) and that needs to be changed. Some of the material seems to be redundant with the "Nutrition" section. I'm reluctant to change any of it though. Most of it is not referenced and it's unclear to me that this material is medically accurate. Can anyone provide any medical references, or should this all just be removed? -- Beland 16:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There was no 'edit' link in Protein timing. I strongly dis agree with the low intake of carbohydrates. Every meal (6-8< a day) must contain protein & carbohydrate. To low levels of insulin will impair the uptake of amino acids and sugers by the muscle cell.

Dr. Peter van der Zon Over 35 years experience in guiding & coaching athletes. Specialized in strength sport martial arts & track and field.'

I think it's a lot more complicated than that. Insulin is a powerful fat-storing hormone, making carb and protein manipulation an essential aspect of dieting - especially for bodybuilding. There are many mechanisms by which the body can facilitate the update of amino acids to the muscles without the presence of insulin. Yankees76 13:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"Foods that contain a balanced combination of all the essential and nonessential amino acids in the exact amounts required by the body for growth are called "complete proteins." In order for the body to synthesize muscle, all the essential amino acids must be available simultaneously. Any non-essential amino acids that are in short supply can be produced by the liver, but if an essential amino acid is missing, the body must break down its own proteins to obtain it. To prevent muscle cell breakdown, dietary protein must supply all the essential amino acids. If your diet is missing any essential amino acids, protein synthesis will be inhibited. Carbohydrates have a storage depot in the body called glycogen. Glycogen can be stored in the muscles and liver and then drawn upon hours or even days later when it’s needed. Proteins can’t be stored in the body. There’s only a very small and transient amino acid pool in the bloodstream. To maintain the optimal environment for muscle growth (positive nitrogen balance), complete proteins must be eaten with every meal. This explains part of the rationale behind the common bodybuilding practice of eating six protein-containing meals per day (One every three hours or so.)" - Burn the fat, feed the muscle by Tom Venuto (B.Sc exercise science)

I wanted to run a couple of considerations by you guys. One, although the need to maintain a steady supply of protein to maintain a positive nitrogen balance is covered. It isn't made clear that protein cannot actually be stored in the human body (well, if you discount muscle tissue). Any excess aa's will be deaminated in the ornithine cycle. Second, does anybody think it's worth considering the effect of the times that hormones are released in the body on muscle repair and possibly the role of insulin production. i.e. Cortisol (4am -8am = lower insulin response) and Growth Hormone (8am - 4am = higher insulin response, important in growth and repair)? --Robbos 22:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


A friend of mine saw a documentary, and he told me Bruce Lee had instead of a quantity like most body builders, he had more "density" in his muscles, while he looked small, he was much stronger, is there some sort of scientific explaination behind this? Or, the different approach he took on building muscles?

Bruce Lee had very low bodyfat, which is an essential quality required for competitive bodybuilding. Bodybuilders also dehydrate themselves prior to a contest, which may be what's meant by "density". Sounds like mostly nonsense though. - 17:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
There is a difference between size of muscles and strength. Maybe this is what he is talking about. Bodyduilders go for size (among other things), not for strength - althought they naturally develop their strenght while using weights. - Matthew238 00:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
"strength" is an ambiguous concept. As for I recall from my physiology class at university, tensile strength of muscle tissue in trained athletes doesn't increase dramathically from the one in untranied subjects. There is obviously a range of variance between humans in tensile strength of muscle tissue but training doesn't act on raising that tensile strength in a significant manner, what rises whith training is the section of the muscle that so is capable of more strength. However, even this is not the key factor in what is called commonly strength, since the ability of performing an athletic gesture is mainly bound to neuromuscular cohordination. A trained athlete may break a brick or lauch a javelin or lift a weight much more efficiently than an untrained subject because the muscles involved are much more fine-tuned to perform that job (and bones and ligaments are tuned to support it rather than breaking or dislocating in painful ways!), allowing the full potential of the muscle to be expressed in the right form and with the right timing. Untrained muscles will otherwise react in non cohordinate ways, contracting in a non optimal way for the kind of job required and will often work each against others further reducing the effectiveness of the gesture. That's why in power sports as weightlifting usually few months are required to dramathically increase a novice's apparent strenght in performing simple lifting (as most exercises in bodybuilding) while years of practice are needed to perform much complex liftings like in competitios, involving the whole body, safely enough.

I don't believe the last statement in the above paragraph to be entirely true. Someone coming into a weight-training program, specifically someone with very little to no experience with strength training will se a nearly instantaneous, quite dramatic increase in strength, then will promptly reach their "plateau" phase. The method with which you train your muscles, power-lifting or strength training versus body-building (hypertrophy), dictates the qualitative muscular differences. Those who train for size get bigger, this effect is often aided by creatine, which (I don't dispute its effects on ATP) engorges the muscle with water, and newer substances like nitric oxide which makes your muscles "look" bigger via vaso-dilation. Training for strength gives... strength, but not necessarily size. I personally know guys that can squat over 700 pounds but don't look anything like a body builder. So yes, I believe your friend was right in that there is a marked qualitative difference in the muscles of someone who trained like Bruce Lee (for strength, or a particular purpose) versus those of someone who trained strictly for hypertrophy.

Aaawesome, thanks. Though I happened to stumble upon 'myofibrilla hypertroph', which seemed like what he had, and the body's adaptation to tension. Bunch of stuff that pretty much explained it to be impractical, lol. Zerocannon 11:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Protein needs[edit]

Most dietitians claim that no more than 1g protein per pound bodyweight is needed for increasing muscle mass, so why does this page state that you need twice that? I suggest removing the current info in favor of something more scientifically accepted, like what ADA has to say about the matter for example. Jack Daw 01:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Your body creates it's own proteins. That's right. Our bodies make it. That's why Elephants and cows are huge only eating grass. They don't eat other animals. Why this is not mentioned more, I don't know.--Ericg33 (talk) 09:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Because it's completely untrue and just something you made up is the reason why it's not in the article. --Quartet 20:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the most heavily debated nutrition topics of the modern area. Even the definition of "need" is ambiguous. Are we talking what is necessary to prevent protein deficiency and malnutrition, what's needed to maintain muscle mass, what's needed to build muscle? All these are up in the air and depend on dozens of variables, only some of which are known. A lot of it is very likely individual. One thing you will find, however, is that successful bodybuilders consume a lot of protein. Additionally, the ADA is rarely the "last word" on nutrition; there are many other authorities with whom it disagrees. Frankg
I have yet to find a non-bodybuilding source that says you need more than 1g protein per pound. If you could find a substantial amount of counterstatements I'd be happy to read them, but those books I've read authored by RDs claim what I've cited. That top bodybuilders eat a lot of protein hardly is proof of its efficiency. Those guys would grow muscle if they were fed sand... Seriously though, it could simply be the extra calories they get from the excess protein, and so could be substituted with anything else that provides calories. Jack Daw 14:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Dieticians usually work in the realm of nutrition for hospital patients, diabetics, working families, etc. etc., not bodybuilders. The RDA is actually closer to 1g/kg bodyweight, not 1g/lb - even lower! Again, this is adequate for preventing diseases of protein deficiency. And yes, bodybuilders may not "need" the amount of protein they consume, but it likely has many benefits, not only for muscle growth, but for body composition in general. Similarly, in terms of carbohydrates, bodybuilders may only "need" somewhere between 0g (a condition under which life can be sustained) to somewhere between 50g-100g (the minimum necessary to support brain function). But some might consume up to 1500g/day, for example, depending on the season (ie. pre-contest or not), their current goals, and individual quirks they determine via trial and error. Again, this is the source of endless debate, and will not be resolved any time soon. This article might be of further interest. Frankg 16:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I haven't researched the sources of dietitians I have read so I can't tell exactly, but I have enough confidence in scientists to believe that when they make statements in their books and articles about the protein needs for athletes, they're citing what they've found in their research. Thank you for introducing the kilo, one never knows with English-speaking people... Yes, those particular books and articles I have read state that an athlete (not a sedentary person) needs about 1.5-2g/kg protein (Krause's 1.5, ADA 1.6-1.8). As you say there is little focus on bodybuilding and non-aerobic exercise in general with dietitians, yet they do however make statements that these limits are true for bodybuilders as well as other athletes (again, I have confidence that the authors simply do not assume this to be the case). As for "need", when I say need I mean optimal. What diet provides optimal muscle growth? What I have read it's 1.5-2g/kg protein and 5-10g/kg protein, which is very different from The Zone (40/30/30). Krause's even dedicates an entire page to that particular diet citing studies that showed greater recovery and glycogen stores for those on high-carb diets than The Zone. Books and articles I have read also claim that high-carb diets even when losing weight, as opposed to a low-carb diet. Thank you for the article, it was very interesting! Jack Daw 21:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I think we'll learn in the coming years that 1) these numbers may vary greatly among individuals, and 2) the issue is a lot more complicated than we understand today. Until then, a lot of it is up in the air. Incidentally, great discussion! Frankg 22:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. How about adding a discussion to the protein section? Currently it indicates that one needs at least 2.2g/kg bodyweight. I think it should include the wider spectrum that I cited, you know, just for the sake of impartiality. Don't you think? I'm a poor writer so I won't do it though :D Jack Daw 01:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I adjusted the wording a bit. Let me know what you think. Frankg 06:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Excellent, Sir! Jack Daw 19:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

According to this article from T-Nation the following variables are importent when relating to protein needs: Part 2: Protein Needs in Athletes

In this symposium, Dr. Tarnopolsky and colleagues discussed a number of studies examining how protein interacts with training to lead to increased strength, mass, and performance. While most of the data discussed in this talk is probably old hat to the T-mag audience, I wanted to bring up an interesting list that Dr. Tarnopolsky provided.

In response to his discussion of the protein needs in athletes, Dr. Tarnopolsky provided a list of factors one needs to know to decide just how much protein he needs. One look at this list illustrates just how complex this area is. Here are the factors:

   • State of Training (Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced)
   • Intensity/Duration/Frequency of Training
   • Other Sports Participating In
   • Total Carbohydrate Intake
   • Total Energy Intake
   • Biological Value of Ingested Proteins
   • Hydration Status
   • Gender

You can find more here --AF1987 16:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed "However it is important to note this practice may go against the body's natural biology that has evolved over thousands of years through our ancestry as hunter-gatherers. This could result in disruption of the digestive, and other related, systems leading to a decline in general health. [citation needed]". This statement is neither important nor factual. How many people live exactly as hunter gatherers today, bodybuilders or otherwise.


Hi! I was trying to add this link....

Muscle Beach Venice is an integral part of bodybuilding and produced many greats from there.--Webmistress Diva 09:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

POV - no criticism or mention of controversy[edit]

This page reads more like a bodybuilding guide/piece promoting bodybuilding than an encyclopedia article. Not a single mention of the controversies and criticism surrounding it? 14:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to make such changes if you have knowledge and references to do so. Check out WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV, the three main guidelines. And Be Bold! (Click the link!) Joie de Vivre 20:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
What sort of 'criticism' did you have in mind?Wikidudeman (talk) 11:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
You mean other than it being a drug-soaked sham?Henrydeutschendorf (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
So is politics (well, the drug of choice there tends to be booze) and a good three dozen OTHER sports and nearly all kinds/genres of music (where even God can be a drug/high...). What you've raised is a POV that can be represented in the article, but not as a judgement; just mentioning that it exists; your comment clearly displays your POV prejudice about this sport, though, so why bother?Skookum1 (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
"your comment clearly displays your POV prejudice about this sport" - That you refer to it as a "sport" clearly shows your POV prejudice.Henrydeutschendorf (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Henrydeutschendorf - POV much? The act of bodybuilding (training and eating to induce muscular hypertrophy) is not really that controversial. Remember that this article an overview on bodybuilding and does not focus solely on competitive and professional bodybuilding, which while not free of controversies, is not the focus of this article. One could hardly consider someone working out in their garage to build muscle and improve their apperance through training and nutrition a "drug soaked sham". Devoting space to professional bodybuilding controversies, drug related busts, deaths etc. and negative press would only be giving it undue weight in the context of this article. --Quartet 13:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The act of weight-training for increased muscle strength and size isn't generally considered controversial any longer, but though there's mention of some early era practitioners, the article is clearly biased toward the contemporary bodybuilding world and in relation to that it's not at all undue weight to tie it to the drug use that's rampant. Face it, the whole "professional" bodybuilding scene for a long time existed primarily to line the pockets of the Weider brothers and as a marketing tool for their snakeoil supplements. The top "name" bodybuilders - such as the three out of the four mentioned in the opening para use(d) drugs. You don't get the size needed for notoriety without them, period. How many drug-free bodybuilders do you figure have been featured on the cover of M&F in the last 40 years? The question posed by Wikidudeman was "what sort of criticism" - the drug ssue is an applicable criticism.Henrydeutschendorf (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The top "name" bodybuilders - such as the three out of the four mentioned in the opening para use(d) drugs. You don't get the size needed for notoriety without them, period. How many drug-free bodybuilders do you figure have been featured on the cover of M&F in the last 40 years? The question posed by Wikidudeman was "what sort of criticism" - the drug ssue is an applicable criticism.
The threshold for inclusion into the introductary paragraph was being a well-known bodybuilder. Unfortuneately it's a reflection of the general public who made these people famous over other "drug free" bodybuilders, as to why they're in the opening paragraph. If the public wanted to see smaller, drug tested athletes in movies and on the covers of magazines, they would purchase more of the items where those models are featured. They don't, hence the reason why the bodybuilders mentioned, are there. They're examples of bodybuilders the general public would recognize so that someone who's never heard of bodybuilding would a) know what a bodybuilder looks like and b) be able to easily identify someone who is known as one. If John Hansen was well known enough outside of those that follow natural bodybuilding, he would be a worthy addition to this list. Yet the average Wikipedia reader hasn't even heard of him and adding him to the opening paragraph would not be helpful. The same goes for the rest of the article. Devoting large sections of the article to niche fractions of bodybuilding would make the article long and confusing. Sure natural, masters and teenage bodybuilding exists, and yes, there is plenty of controvery and critcism, but to get back to a point mentioned on this page, the ice hockey article doesn't spend more than a paragraph talking about fighting, and doesn't delve into the calls for the banning of fighting in hockey. Nor does the American football article spend more than a few sentences talking about the dangers of practicing in the extreme heat (and doesn't mention player deaths like Kory Stringer once). Again because neither of those articles are the place for that - there are other articles (see Fighting in ice hockey) for in-depth articles on specific issues.
To me your critcism of this article, while having some merit, seems to stem more from your own personal distaste for bodybuilders who you believe use drugs than for any valid reasons aimed at actually making the article better. If your reasons were more than just your own POV, fixing the article would be easy, and would be something that any editor could do (and would have probably been done before). I would suggest that rather than pointing out that "drug use is an applicable criticism" and post rants about Weider and god knows what other issues you have, you start posting potential changes so that everyone can discuss these improvements and get them implemented. This is WP:NOTAFORUM for airing our own viewpoints on the issue of drug use in bodybuiding - it's a talk page for making improvements to the article itself. --Quartet 15:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
You've completely lost track of what was being discussed. The original point I was responding to was what are criticisms of bb'ing. I doubt there's much serious debate that the number one criticism is drugs. Steve Reeves, one of the legends of bb'ing wanted nothing to do with modern pro bb'ing because of it. Why not use a photo of Reeves - betcha he's better known than Dexter Jackson - particularly if we use your standard of the general public.
Okay, so make some edits w/citations that present criticisms of bodybuilding. I'm sure everyone in this discussion is waiting to read something tangible from you.
With regards to Dexter and Reeves -I'd take that bet. Dexter is the current Mr. Olympia, which makes him the top professional bodybuilder in the world - a claim that is also backed up with reliable sources. Not to mention he's in 10-20 pages of every major bodybuilding magazine every month. With all due respect to Reeves and his accomplishments 50 years ago, comparing Reeves with Jackson is like saying Rogers Hornsby is better known than Alex Rodriguez. With regards to Reeves pictures, there are no fair use images on Wikipedia (that I'm aware of), which show him as a bodybuilder that could be used on this page. Should you have taken one of him, I invite you to upload it now. It would be a welcome addition to the article.--Quartet 18:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Using the standard of "the general public" - you honestly think Jackson is better known than Reeves - who besides being an enduring bb'ing icon was also at one time the #1 box office star worldwide and whose movies are still popular? Hardly. Show a picture of Reeves and of Jackson to 1000 people on the street who aren't bb'ing aficionados and see if *anyone* knows who Jackson is. And then of course wait 5 years and see who's more recognized.Henrydeutschendorf (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Who cares? You'll both need a reliable source to prove it either way. Nobody under the age of 30 has even heard of Reeves, and Jackson is only popular amongst the 200,000 people who actually follow this fringe "sport". This is useless argueing a point that will not get proven either way. Dexter Jackson being the worlds current top bodybuilder is easily cited, and someone took a picture of him and released it to Wikipedia, which is why it's in the article and a shot of Reeves isn't. End of dicussion. Per WP:TALK, let's keep the topics to proposing corrections/deletions/updates that improve the article. --Yankees76 (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Now, you assert "The threshold for inclusion into the introductary paragraph was being a well-known bodybuilder." - Says who? According to Quartet, "Remember that this article an overview on bodybuilding and does not focus solely on competitive and professional bodybuilding, which while not free of controversies, is not the focus of this article. So what does that do to your assertion? If the article is about bb'ing per se, not competitive bb'ing what difference does it make if the bb'ers mentioned aren't household names. The fact is with seven mentions of Olympia, obviously the article is slanted to emphasize modern competitive bb'ing - more specifically the drug-enhanced circles of "pro" bb'ing. You want a suggestion? Okay, a separate article on Pro bodybuilding.Henrydeutschendorf (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Says who? See the discussion further down on the talk page with regards to the introductary paragraph!And no, it's not perfect, however the lead section of any article should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. If you feel you can improve it, go ahead. The bodybuilders listed in the introduction are merely examples of people who are well-known as bodybuilders - Arnold, Ferrigno, and Charles Atlas, without getting a huge bloated list of everyones WP:FANCRUFT addition. While the once sentence list is partly subjective, it's a list that an average reader who has no knowledge of bodybuilding could read and immediately understand what a bodybuilder is - even if the article had no images. They know Schwarzenegger et al, and could immediately understand what a bodybuilder is. That's why it says "People well-known for being bodybuilders include" (note the addition of the word "include").
In the body of the article there are 7 mentions of the Olympia, though I fail to see a problem with that. Criticizing that is like criticizing the tennis article for mentioning the Grand Slam tournaments too many times. Like it or not, the Mr. Olympia contest is the biggest and most well known bodybuilding show in the world. And it's weighted as such. There are introductory paragraphs to other facets of bodybuilding that link to those articles. Again, you're free to propose defined and executable improvements to the article anytime you want on here. If argueing viewpoints is all you're after, there are plenty of bodybuilding forums where you'll find eager participants... --Quartet 18:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
There's already a section drug use - in the article, and addition of reliably sourced material is always welcome. Again and as noted above, this article is an overview of bodybuilding and covers more than just the competitive aspect of it. Just like the article on ice hockey doesn't have an in depth section on the controversy surrounding fighting in the game [1], I don't see why this article should do anything more than just briefly touch on the drugs aspect of bodybuilding - which it already does. The article on professional bodybuildingis probably a more applicable article to add detailed sections on history, controversy, winners, losers, deaths, murders, supplement scandals and everything else related to that facet of bodybuilding. By the way, M&F really doesn't really feature pro bodybuilders on the cover all that often these days, so I would suspect that there are quite a few drug free individuals (bodybuilders, athletes, celebrities) on the cover. --Yankees76 (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
"this article is an overview of bodybuilding and covers more than just the competitive aspect of it" and of course it's just coincidence that the first photo seen is of a typical drugged-up contemporary bb'er - and Olympia winner - and the lead para makes prominent mention of several Olympia winners. In fact male and female versions of the Olympia - "Airbrushed Joe" Weider's creation and marketing vehicle synonymous with drugged-up bb'ing are mentioned 7 times in the article, not including the references section. As far as I can tell, only one other contest is even mentioned - a tiny mention of "Mr. Los Angeles" in the caption of the Ed Holovchik photo. Henrydeutschendorf (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I completely agree that mention of non-IFBB/NPC contests is more than called for, but taht's a USPOV issue, not so much a hysteria/stigma-POV one. NABBA/WABBA, the old AAU contests, the various natural-bodybuilding orgs, MuscleMania and the WBF all deserve mention; but that's an "improve content" issue. And I'd be very wary of accusing the IFBB and Mr. Weider of tacitly supporting steroid use - they have big lawyers. The IFBB, as already noted, is no more guilty of this than the NFL or singling out Weider Inc. and associated organizations is WP:Undue weight and also has WP:BLP issues, due to the implicit personal accusations.....the rise of bodybuilding in Russia since glasnost is worthy of a section, as also its illegality in states like Iran, where bodybuilders are persecuted by law, are all worthy expansion issues...if you think there's too much Weider-only here, then fix it.Skookum1 (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you point out the improvements you've made to the article? Just post some diffs here. You know, sourced content you've added, photographs you've taken and uploaded, corrections of errors and the like - things that provide Wikipedia readers with valid truthful information? Or are you just on here to push your POV, criticize content out of context, and bash pro bodybuilding and the Weiders? Just wondering because I see alot of generalized critcism, but not a whole lot of anything else.... --Yankees76 (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
If you'll go back and look my initial comment was in response to someone poo-poo'ing the following comment by an IP user at the top of the section "Not a single mention of the controversies and criticism surrounding it?" which I believe to be a valid observation, though should probably be in an article about "Pro" bb'ing.Henrydeutschendorf (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Again - post some diffs where you've improved the article - because I'm still just seeing general forum banter and now arguments over the perceived popularity of bodybuilders whose careers are 50 years apart, which isn't really working to improve the article. Not a whole lot of solid contributions there.--Yankees76 (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems worth mentioning that there is an article - Ergogenic use of anabolic steroids which addresses non-medicinal use of steroids, including bodybuilding and other sport/training activities. Major-league and also high-school and collegiate football are also "drug-soaked shams" if that epithet is applied to bodybuilding, which as I said above is still a harshly POV/moralistic judgement; but any discussion of that should be in that article, or a separate split-off article Use of steroids in bodybuilding and/or Use of performance-enhancing drugs in bodybuilding, since other drugs than steroids are involved (tamoxifen, mesterolone, IGF-1, insulin, GH, diuretics, even GHB and pot). Stigmatizing bodybuilding alone for steroids is an old, tired cliche....Skookum1 (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I notice notice there isn't a single photo of someone actually hoisting a weight.Henrydeutschendorf (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

So, fix it. Go down to a gym, take a picture of some bodybuilders training and post it. --Yankees76 (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Links to be considered...[edit]

Apparently there seems to be some objection to putting external links into this article so I thought I'd post a few candidate links here to be considered.


Wikidudeman (talk) 12:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts:

  • - yes
  • - no - (commercial site - first thing seen when clicked on - "Abcbodybuilding's Massive Sale on Muscle Building Supplements!")
  • - yes (what an ugly site though - nation of domination!)
  • - strong no - it's a link farm
  • - strong yes (I assumed this was already linked - wasn't it at one time?)
  • - weak yes even though site mostly exists as news updates and forum.

Thanks. Yankees76 14:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add the following as well:


Tony got his start in bodybuilding and since then became one of the most well-known public entities in the fitness industry. Jac for TL18:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Check this link out please. It's a new site for bodybuilding videos.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
Adds by google. A bunch of videos. Non-professional, you-tube style. I say no. WLU 14:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Another site to consider whose information is still relevant:

No sources, just some guy - no. WLU 11:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"Protein timing"?[edit]

This piece seems out of place and in complete lack of citations. Should I just erase it completely?Wikidudeman (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion protein timing is irrelevant to this article and should be removed. . In fact half of this article needs to be removed or intensely cleaned up to meet Wikipedia quality standards. Most of the material under "Strategy" is poorly written and sourced (the "resistance training" section barely discusses training at all), and full of POV and original research - not to mention absolutely littered with {{fact}} tags, to the point that it's unreadable and could be considered disruption if they were placed by one single individual. I'm actually debating on placing a {{cleanup-rewrite}} tag on this article. Yankees76 15:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. More of a major cleanup than a complete rewrite though.Wikidudeman (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Markus Ruehl picture?[edit]

That picture is particularly ugly and doesn't really represent the idea of 'bodybuilding'. Gaining mass as well as symmetry. His bulging stomach and asymmetrical physique simply isn't what bodybuilding is about. I think it should be removed and tried to be replaced by a better picture.Wikidudeman (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he is an IFBB Professional bodybuilder, whereas most other people can be a bodybuilder I think it depends on the context, but i have to agree with wikidudeman. A little something like Markus Ruhl, IFBB Professional bodybuilder wouldnt go a miss I suppose..after all, bloated bellies, i think is not the idea of a bodybuilder to everyone. It is to the IFBB, but article is not described as IFBB in particuler. --AF1987 21:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem if it was a better picture of Ruehl but this particular picture is simply ugly. Moreover the IFBB recently made rules that penalize contestants with extended bellies.Wikidudeman (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a picture of Frank Zane would balance the view of bodybuilders as BMI40+ ? Jack Daw 23:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a free fair use picture of Frank Zane?Wikidudeman (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately not. Perhaps if someone could ask the owner of this site Jack Daw 22:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I highly doubt the owner of that site has the copyright to any of those pictures. Most of those older pictures of bodybuilders taken in the 1970's and 1980's are copyrighted by their photographers and since the photographers are unknown so are the copyrights. You could ask Frank Zane himself by contacting him via his website. Send him an E-mail and ask him if he could provide a good copyright free image to wikipedia. I'm too busy to E-mail him and wait for a response though.Wikidudeman (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Teenage Bodybuilding[edit]

Can someone post a reason why this section is continually reinserted into the article? How is teenage bodybuilding notable enough that the information it contains can't be distributed through the rest of the article? After all there's no "Masters" bodybuilding section. And who is Alberto Rubinaccio,Umaar Ehsan, Jason Janov? I will be removing this section unless the notability of it is established. Yankees76 03:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt you'll get a response.Wikidudeman (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably not. I suggest we remove it. Thoughts? Yankees76 04:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree.Wikidudeman (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks like someone else beat us to it. Nice. Yankees76 06:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Amateur Bodybuilding section[edit]

I don't drop by here much, but happened to see the previous edit about the picture; I may have some others from old natural shows in the PacNW and/or Canada I could contribute; a few others of mine are around, though not of naturals. But in looking at the page I noticed that the "Areas of Bodybuilding" section moves from Professional Bodybuilding directly to Natural Bodybuilding. Suggestion is that the intermediary section be titled Amateur Bodybuilding, meaning the "semi-pro leagues" that lead to the IFBB pro card, i.e. the qualifying process up to the regional and open qualifiers for the nationals; maybe a List of IFBB nationals qualifying competitions (or however it would be better worded) would be useful. And aren't the state championships also national-qualifying? In the PacNW, there is or was:

There's also the Northwest Naturals Bodybuilding Championship Portland, usually) and the Vancouver Naturals Bodybuilding Championship (Vancouver WA, not BC). There might be more now, I haven't been following it. In Canada there's only the Nationals and the Canada Cup, in terms of pro-card qualifying shows, though Canadians can also go in the North American Bodybuilding Championships (IFBB) but that's a long story. There's extensive natural bodybuilding organization/competitions but I'm not familiar enough with them to name them; one is the Western Natural Bodybuilding Federation and that may be a branch of the Canadian Natural Bodybuilding Federation; I seem to recall shows that had both WNBF and CNBF on their materials, but I can't remember just now. The point of all this is that, especially in the United States, listings of shows/titles and also how they fit into the Amateur Bodybuilding hierarchy, what the national qualifier is (and what it's like...), and something about the general organization of local shows and how they fit into the national structure; same deal applies here in Canada only it's by province and not by state (and there's way fewer qualifiers, but also fewer athletes...Canadians do compete crossborder in US nationals, and sometimes win - but they remain unqualified, or ignored on stage no matter how good they look if they show up at the nationals; politely passed over; not sour grapes, and I know there's Americans that were always upset when a Canadian (usually a British Columbian, sometimes an Albertan maybe) Canadian displaced someone from qualifying at a Seattle or Portland show; but the Canadian guys just want more opportunity to compete, as shows are few and far between here, vs the regular calendar in the States.Skookum1 08:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If the discussion of potential lists and articles doesn't belong here, I'll move it to the project talkpage if desired; it was just a tangent off the lack of content of the "semi-pro" leagues, which are a BIG part of the bodybuilding culture and population, no? Obviously there's a ton of potential articles if all major regional qualifying shows in the US are listed, and not just the IFBB-related ones; but it could become a useful directory of shows, as some are notable in who's come out of them the Mr. California or California Championships, whatever its title is; or is none of those notable enough in an encyclopedic sense? Lots of work, and I know I don't have the time; it's all just a suggestion... Skookum1 08:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do. All of those pages you linked are red meaning they don't exist. Try to create some of those pages for those amateur competitions and I'll get some information from them to put into this article for an "amateur" section".Wikidudeman (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
From work/talkpages in other WikiProjects I'm in the habit of redlinking things that need to be, or might be good as, articles; I haven't really looked around this Wikiproject's talkpage yet but maybe there's an "article requests" section somewhere (see Wikipedia:WikiProject British Columbia, Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America and look for their article requests and to-do/work pages and such. I put a note about this note on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Bodybuilding talkpage, also. I'd imagine the place to start is to expand the National Physique Committee article with a listing of shows and the regions that go with them, and from their build out the US regional/qualifier contest info/articles; granted that's only the Weider/IFBB one but obviously the most notable; I'm not even sure what WABBA/NABBA is called now, or what its US arm is anymore, if there still is one. The notable Europeaan and Asian WABBA shows are equally deserving of articles; i.e. in Europe it's not just an IFBB playpen like it is in North America (the IFBB proxy in Canada is the CBBF, that in BC is the BCABBA, Alberta it's simply ABBA...not sure farther East.) Anyway, there's some more redlinks which I can at least partly stub up, plus what shows I know about, if not immense detail for now; a standard format for the show articles would be a good idea so I'll try and establish that in the stub layout. BTW do you realize that there's nowhere on the internet to index and look up the various US state/national shows, not easily and all in one place anyway? Generally there's only the Nationals, the North Ams, and the pro shows; so I'm thinking class winners, if not all placings, for each year would be appropriate. Does the AAU still have bodybuilding shows/titles, as they used to?Skookum1 22:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
BTW did you see my contributions at Sharon Bruneau?Skookum1 22:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
To tell you the truth I don't know much about the various Bodybuilding organizations. I only know the basics about the IFBB. It's probably best that you work on those pages. Not that I have the time anyway. Also, [[2]] and [[3]] would be a good start.Wikidudeman (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources of protien contentious[edit]

Bodybuilders usually require higher quality protein with a high BV rather than relying on plant protein such as soy, which is often avoided due to its estrogenic properties.

This is a bit contentious I think. See There are vegan body builders who don't seem to have a problem building muscles on anything BUT plant protien. Brentt 20:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well "Whey" is a plant protein with a very high BV value. So I removed the "plant" from the comment and made it just state "Bodybuilders usually require higher quality protein with a high BV rather than relying on protein such as soy, which is often avoided due to its estrogenic properties." How's that?Wikidudeman (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think its a good edit, BUT, Whey comes from milk. Its a byproduct of cheese production.
Another thing thats not quite right about the paragraph is the idea that soy is somehow the only source of plant protein. Almost all legumes and cereals are good sources of proteins (complete proteins when taken together). And lots of other stuff besides. I'm not sure what BV is, I'm pretty new to this stuff (I'm a vegetarian that just started working out), but I know there are vegan bodybuilders (whom are really buff) that get all their protein from plant sources and do fine, thats why I mentioned it. There seems to be a contention that the animal products are the only good source of protein is way overstated, and this article follows the meat as only source of complete protein bias.
I know I'm a bit biased being vegetarian, and a vegetarians in general (and vegan body-builders in particular) have incentive to downplay the value of meat (since the primary reason for most vegetarians isn't about health but about compassion) there does seem to be evidence that the value of meat is overstated, especially in body-building circles. Having seen a pictures of vegan body builder sthough, I'm inclined to believe they might be onto something. Brentt 23:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you that there are many plant sources of protein. If you have a better way to word the section just post it here and I'll see if I can work with it.Wikidudeman (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's some info on Soy protein. See if you can get anything useful from it. It contains some studies at the bottom that we might be able to source.[[4]]. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


The picture is of a famous bodybuilder known around the world. It is the perfect proportions and should remain. Wikipedia has become unprofessional and distasteful if it lets immature people ruin an important page.

The picture should remain. The picture is the ideal form of a bodybuilder.

Picture of natural bodybuilder[edit]

There is no documentation to support the claim that the person in the picture has not used steroids. I am deleting the picture on that basis. A picture of the winner of an officially drug-tested contest would be suitable. Ribonucleic 01:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop deleting it. Edit waring is against wikipedia policy. First of all, I have no copyright free images of "winners of officially drug tested contests". Secondly, That person has publicly stated that they have never used anabolic steroids. Unless you can find a picture that is 1. Better and 2. Copyright free DO NOT DELETE IT AGAIN. Thanks.Wikidudeman (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if I have the pleasure of addressing Wikidudeman, "True Adonis", or one his minions. But whoever you are, we are going to take a moment and review the facts. Heretofore, I have made exactly one (count 'em... one) edit to this page - for the reason I explained here. And your instant response is to threaten me on my Talk page with an admin? I find that, in a word, bizarre. But we're all here editing in good faith now, right? So let me point out that your claim that the person's natural status can be established "based on the comments of the person who the picture is of" is what we here call "original research" - and that's a no-no. So I am deleting the picture, again, on that basis. Constructive things you could do in response would be: 1) Quote here the relevant section of the reliable sources page that supports your claim that the person's natural status is verifiable, 2) find a copyright-free picture of someone who has won an accredited natural-bodybuilding title, or 3) accept that there is no suitable picture at this time. [Quite frankly: you seem to need that picture a lot more desperately than the article does.] And if you would like to bring an admin into this, you go right ahead. I think my behavior will stand up to scrutiny a whole lot better than yours. Ribonucleic 03:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Original research is where I use my own assertions in another format to backup my assertions on wikipedia.[[5]] I'm not doing that. I'm relying on the assertions of the person in question. Secondly, I apologize for my assumption that you had edited this in the past. Many people have tried to remove the image and I thought you were one of them. Thirdly, The image of that bodybuilder 1. Meets the criteria of verifiability because the person himself has stated that he is 'natural' and there is no reason to believe otherwise. 2. The image is public domain and a image is better than no image. 3. Even if that the said bodybuilder is not 'natural' then that doesn't mean the image should be removed. The only thing that should happen is the caption's mention of 'natural' be removed.Wikidudeman (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

TO prevent any more conflict I removed the "natural" from the image caption and switched the image in the "natural" section with the image of Markus Rühl and instead placed it beside the "Professional" section and then removed the picture of the thinner bodybuilder down to the section where the Markus Rühl image previously was. Therefore instead of going through the unnecessary conflict of whether that person is "natural" or not, I simply removed "natural" from the caption all together thus leaving no reason for justifiable opposition to the image.Wikidudeman (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The new caption resolves my "original research" objection. Ribonucleic 03:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Gooood.Wikidudeman (talk) 03:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a great shame[edit]

It is a great shame that wikipedia is being used for the purpose of self promotion. The individuel in the second photo, The True Adonis, is, by the authors own admission, only included because 'he promised he would get me some photos if I put him up'. This destroys the credability of this article and wikipedia in general. It is also an insult to competative bodybuilders all over the world. I cannot see any other sport on wikipedia treated this way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

There is heated debate over whether bodybuilding is a sport. See the arguments at :-) Ribonucleic 19:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I would hesitate to call him a bodybuilder. He is known almost entirely for one thing: losing a lot of bodyfat quickly and keeping his bodyfat low. he is not known for musculature, which is an essential feature for a bodybuilder. Further, he has never actually competed in a contest. He did submit digital (unverified) photos of himself to a web forum contest, but has not actually competed. I think it would make much more sense to choose a picture of a bodybuilder who is well known or at least who did not submit their own picture.

First of all, The only reason I included the picture of that thinner blond bodybuilder is because I have no good alternatives to use in this article. This article needed more illustrations and that person was the only person to provide a picture for me to use in the article. I asked numerous people and no one else provided any. Then the people who didn't care to help to begin with start whining when I use the only picture that I was provided. That person is definitely a "bodybuilder". "Bodybuilding" is defined as "the act or practice of exercising, lifting weights, etc., so as to develop the muscles of the body." [[6]]. You can argue that the person is not a "Especially muscular bodybuilder" compared to other bodybuilders but that doesn't negate the fact that he's a 'bodybuilder'. Moreover competing is not a prerequisite for being a "bodybuilder", its just something many bodybuilders generally do. However most people who bodybuilder do not actually compete. It would be unfair to only provide images of "competitive bodybuilders" in the article when the vast majority of people who body build don't even compete.Wikidudeman (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"The article needed more illustrations"? According to who? Ribonucleic 00:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The article only had 1 illustration to begin with. A particularly ugly one of a bloated Markus Ruehl. Anyway, Do you have any valid objections to the picture being used? Simply saying "The article doesn't need more illustrations" when it only has 1 of them isn't a valid objection. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I've made no effort to delete the picture since you removed the original-research "natural" claim. But I agree with the earlier commenter's point that its provenance is ethically dubious. And under those circumstances, I find your dogged insistence on including it - despite its negligible contribution to the article - equally suspect. Hope this helps. Ribonucleic 01:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, What do you mean by "ethnically dubious"? I don't understand that. Secondly, I have contributed significantly to this article.Wikidudeman (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I have nothing to add to what the first commenter in this section said. If you're satisfied with your behavior in posting (and, oh my, defending!) that picture, then I guess you're satisfied. Ribonucleic 01:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
That's good.Wikidudeman (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree that he's a bodybuilder by your definition. What makes him diff. from a Fitness Model? They have some degree of muscularity and are cut/ripped. Even the IFBB, the main federation of bodybuilding recognizes a difference there, as they have a male fitness model division. I think most people who consider themselves bodybuilders would argue that the person in that image has the muscularity of an average physically active person; he simply removed all the fat/water covering it. Simply getting ripped, which will always show some degree of muscularity, is not what it takes to be a bodybuilder. I agree that competition is not necessary, you're right on that, but this image should really be in a section on male fitness model. A site with a number of pictures, most of which have been used throughout the web (but I'm not sure of the copyright) is I think they have much better/more relevant pictures for use such as this one: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 6tr6tr (talkcontribs).

Fitness Models are Bodybuilders. If you Build your body by weight lifting then you're a bodybuilder by definition. You don't need to compete in bodybuilding competitions to be one. TO my knowledge that person is not a "male fitness model" or a model of any kind. It's just a person who lifts weights to build their body, thus making him a bodybuilder.Wikidudeman (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is an alternative to the natural bodybuilder re the imagethat's under dispute, and isn't actually somebody posing so much as torquing during a front relaxed....and is a nobody. Jason is at least somebody, has one shows, is 100% natural (his twin bro's a naturopath and is also a bodybuilder) despite having all the AAA genetics that, well, differentiates the men from the boys. I don't to slag so-and-so who's been so kind as to foist his own image as representative of natural bodybuilders, and I've seen innumerable physiques like this win classes at small-region novice shows, but as someone above notes the guy really only knows how to diet, and/or is part of the "thin is beautiful" anti-muscle aesthetic some natural bodybuilders affect (because they're hard-gainers). I can also come up with a nice pic of Corey Holley, who has even better shape than Jason; and is so natural he won't wear bronzer at shows, which is a tough go as he's whiter-than-white, almost pink and platinum blond...he's also a homeopathy enthusiast, another tell-tale sign of "no steroid bodybuilder" - at least Corey has good genetics, which I can't say for the guy portrated. Anyway, Jason's a good guy and if he was approached to donate a picture to this article I'm sure he'd be flattered; mine of him, on whichever CD or stored hard drive they are (maybe in webmail "sent" storage...hmmmmm), are only in black and white, as with my shots of Corey. My opinion on this is just because someone is a natural bodybuilder doesn't mean they have to look like a scarecrow; natural bodybuilding attracts guys like Jason and Corey who don't NEED steroids and have the right mix of genetics and lifestyle/training that's allowed them to look the way they do. On a scale of 1 to 10, all points categories considered, I'd give the guy in the pic currently up no more than a 3. Sorry, dude, it's the way it is. It's competition, and there's people who look better than you do. No matter how much you get the hardening diet "down". It's about the beef, not the shrink-wrap.Skookum1 (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


This article could use some better images. Currently the two images that are up there seem to be the only ones that are copyright free or fair use. We need better images in this article and we need to find copyright free or fair use images of the articles of pro bodybuilders as well. Most of them don't have images of any kind. I'm trying but I don't seem to be getting any help from anyone. You other editors should E-mail some of the professionals and ask them as well.Wikidudeman (talk) 03:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely someone has been to a show or an expo and snapped some pictures? Yankees76 03:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Not me. The people who have gone don't seem to be willing to let me use their photographs for Wikipedia either.Wikidudeman (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The professionals themselves don't seem to take it seriously either.Wikidudeman (talk) 04:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Most of them don't even own their own images - as they're likely property of the photographer or the magazine they're signed with. I have to go through my pictures and scan some - however my scanner is out of commission so this could take some time. I'll look for free images in the meantime. Yankees76 20:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
A lot of athletes, at the lower ranks, think they own their pictures, and sell them or use them for advertising without permission to do so, but that's another story :-| At the pro or nationally-ranked level, most of these guys/gals know what's going on with the images, and that, basically, who has the negatives is who has the copyright (pro forma if not de facto); and that the only permission required of an athlete is if their face is used in a commercial photo contract; body parts require no release; which is to say, photos taken during contests implicitly require no release from the athlete, as it's a public event and they're "on display". Typically magazine photos - especially from certain mags - are copyrighted, especially from feature articles. There are others that fall de jure under public domain, and there are things to note like one-time editorial buyouts (a whopping $25/image) that do not preclude the original photographers' copyright - if he/she has reserved any. There is a precedent somewhere that old magazine photos and newspaper photos are inherently public-domain, but I don't know the specifics; pics from old, old Strength & Health and Muscular Development and other vintage mags are probably all fair game, like that classic shot of Oliva (and there is no better illustration of his physique IMO), as unless their copyright holdings were bought out by a successor company/mag, there is no copyright holder - except in those cases where original-photographer copyright might apply. As for the stuff on the darkwoods site (linked below), there's no copyright indication on those but I know from experience that pictures are up there "for free use" where the photographer has still retained rights (as with my own of K.O'Toole and others on that site, which were culled from Usenet postings from years ago, apparently...and yeah, because I put them on UseNet it's pretty much a release into the public domain; but there's a better pic on Kevin O'Toole anyway). There are also other sites which have presumed to claim, even label, copyright on images which were already copyrighted (re another site about my own photos, although I put up with a changed credit and a "free membership" as compensation; these were pay-for sites which is why I went after them, at least with dentures rather than fangs, though...). But some of the images floating around webspace/UseNet are public domain, and there are amateur photographers out there who'd probably contribute if they knew of the effort here; and who in fact might know the public domain particulars of different categories of photos; if someone has personally placed their own photos on a UseNet space, that's implicitly a donation to pd unless the image bears a copyright, or the message attached to it does. Certainly "fair use" is going to apply a lot of the time; it might also be possible to get releases from Kennedy or Dobbins or whomever for some of their backfiles, pre-1990 or 1980 or whatever, if written and asked, that is. Rationale is this is not a commercial site under construction, but a basic indexing of important/notable bodybuilders as part of a larger encyclopedia, with bodybuilding given the respect it, wants ;-). Whatever; just some thoughts based on previous experience and discussion with other photographers; images from Weider magazines you can forget about, unless there's a copyright-expiry for magazine photos which might open up those before such-and-so-a-year.Skookum1 22:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's incredibly important that images be used to illustrate the individual athlete articles, with an eye/mind to representing their particular genetics/physique and, in the case of guys like Corney or Paris, their posing styles/flavour. This isn't meant to make Wikipedia's bodybuilding articles like the many online galleries, but rather a one-two-maybe three-image representation of the athlete; the series of articles will be incomplete without it, obviously, given the highly visible nature of the sport/discipline/artform/whatever you want to call it (I saw the "is it a sport?" discussion and will stay out of that...).Skookum1 22:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure of the copyright, but this site has been widely used, and on the web, since before the internet boom. Perhaps you can replace the pictures on this page with more relevant ones from here. Example Picture: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 6tr6tr (talkcontribs).

All of those images are copyrighted either by the photographer or by the website. If any of them are indeed public domain, It's impossible for me to figure which. Thus impossible for me to use on wikipedia.Wikidudeman (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, some pros I could donate photos of, but they're all off-season, non-competition photos from guest posing; still good sometimes, like those Sharon Bruneau ones; Shawn Ray in a steam of fake fog and dramatic lighting in a kneel-pose, no details visible; various ones of a bulked-up Dorian Yates in Seattle and Portland, Bob Paris and Mike Heaney guest-posing at a seminar, Phil Hernon doing a most-muscular front-crunch in heavy overhead lighting, Aaron Maddron when he was still just barely a heavweight etc. Ideally pro photos should be representative in-shape photos and also pro-level physiques or I'd have put some of these in already.Skookum1 22:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Yankees, A lot of Bodybuilders take pictures of themselves working out at the gym etc. Lee Priest for example. They post them on various message boards or on their own websites, but none of them respond to my E-mails requesting to use them for wikipedia.Wikidudeman (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Skookum1, Let's see some of the photographs that you have. They might be good for wikipedia.Wikidudeman (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any of the pro pics on my hard drive at the moment; have to dig out some CDs; might be a couple yet but for now here's some of my local-contest action shots to give you an idea of my work; some of Maddron are on there I know. I can dig up some de Mayo, Yates, Hernon, Palumbo, D. Hughes, more Maddron, and others later on. I've also wound up with a bunch of pictures of eastern European athletes, which appear to be point-and-shoot personal shots thrown onto the internet, can't remmeber at which site or what its copyright disavowal was. But I think the situation with net pictures from other countreis may be different, not because of different copyright laws but more different circumstances by which the images have come into visibility/publication/circulation.Skookum1 03:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Some of those look alright. Upload the best of them and we'll see what articles we can put them in. Post the uploaded image links here so I can see what you choose. They could be helpful for the bodybuilder articles.Wikidudeman (talk) 09:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI I've been looking for my CDs that have all my contest TIFs but haven't found 'em yet; they're here somewhere; I think the Yates and certain others I mentioned I may not have scanned already so may have to scan 'em directly; my flatbed's toast so I have to rely on negative scans (my $800 Polaroid neg scanner works, my $100 flatbed crapped out during the last move from not having its carriage locked down, which is shitty because it could also scan 120 and 4x5 negs....sigh). I know I have some early Flex Wheeler, from 1992 so I guess he was about 22 still, and there's some guest-appearance stuff from Matarazzo, deMayo and others, though they weren't, as I said, in all that great a shape. Think I've got some in-shape Chris Cormier shots though....Skookum1 20:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Re your reply above I'm not sure which of the images on that page are suitable; they're all rather generic and other than K. O'Toole and D. Hughes are all also-rans; the mixed pairs shot is nice, I guess, to illustrate any section on Bodybuilding posing, which maybe could be an article huh (?!). That page is a fragment of a once-much-larger site so I'll look through and assemble some "classic" shots, even of also-rans, e.g. illustrative of major poses or representative physique/bodypart shots, or maybe a line-up like that one from the IronOre novice show (I have lots of others). I hadn't really considered any of these also-rans for article illustration but I suppose some could be useful. What I popped back here for just now was to suggest that a Bodybuilding area be established in Wikimedia Commons if it's not already; I don't know my way around the Commons much although I have a user account there; if you'll set up the section I'll load into it the shots I care to make public domain; major Canadian faces fropm 1999-2000 Canads, e.g. Scott Milne, Mike Platz, Freddie Antwi, Ron Dufresne and other national-level contenders/winners I do have on file for sure; but Wikimedia Commons might be the best place to put 'em all, no?.Skookum1 20:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Probably.Wikidudeman (talk) 11:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


I Think this article is seriously lacking in pictures especially since this sport is so visual, theres no women, no group pics, no pic of the ah-nold either, theres lots of room for them too.T ALKQRC2006¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 23:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Go get some free ones we can use in the article.Wikidudeman (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Enough already with this guy in the picture[edit]

Adam Abeles - bless his heart for donating his picture - is not a notable person. Consequently, there is no reason other than inappropriate self-promotion to include his name in the caption. I have removed it. Ribonucleic 19:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added the image and caption back. Apparently someone erased it after you removed the caption. As for the caption itself identifying the bodybuilder, NOWHERE on wikipedia does it say that you can't identify individuals used in pictures simply because they are not notable. It says you should refrain from making articles concerning non-notable people however identifying them in the picture isn't prohibited and it helps progress the article by identifying the subject in the picture. Please read WP:CAP where it clearly states "One of a caption's primary purposes is to identify the subject of the picture." as well as "clearly identifies the subject of the picture, without detailing the obvious." Also please see WP:MOS which sets detailed rules for wikipedia manual of style which of course this image would be conforming to. The fact that you don't like the person in the picture is wholly irrelevant to wikipedia standards. This person is a bodybuilder, this is the only viable image that can be used where it's being used. For more information see [[7]]. Your objection that his name in the caption should be removed thus isn't justified.Wikidudeman (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed image due to person in picture never having competed in any bodybuilding contest.WikiBodybuilding 03:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This has already been discussed. Stop deleting it. This article is about "Bodybuilding" not competitive bodybuilding. This "Bodybuilding" page is not a "competitive bodybuilding" page but a page concerning all of bodybuilding. Wikidudeman (talk) 03:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because you have come up with some rationalization for this pic it doesn't mean it's valid. A bodybuilder is someone who has competed in a competition or participated in a bodybuidling event. BY definition Adam Abeles is NOT a bodybuilder. Please stop adding the image back as Wikipedia is not an outlet for promotion. Thank-you WikiBodybuilding 03:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

By "rationalization" is legitimate because by definition it is correct. Let's take a look at some dictionaries and see if they agree.
Oxford- noun. a person who strengthens and enlarges their muscles through exercise such as weightlifting.
Infoplease—n. a person who practices bodybuilding. a person who practices bodybuilding.
Moreover, If I remember correctly this person DID compete in an online bodybuilding competition last year placing 2nd.
I'm going to ask you to put the image back and not remove it again.Wikidudeman (talk) 03:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

His muscles are not enlarged and there is no verifiable evidence that he lifts weights. Please do not add the image again. WikiBodybuilding 03:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

His muscle look large to me. His bodyfat is low enough to see his striations. Physiologically it would be impossible to be that developed without lifting weights. By definition he is a bodybuilder. By all definitions. Your reasoning is quite laughable. Anyone with ANY experience in weight lifting can see that this person is a bodybuilder and a weight lifter. Please stop using personal motivation to edit wikipedia. It's against policy.Wikidudeman (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmm.....Wikipedia is not about opinions it is about facts. Please provide facts that he lifts weights. Also it most definitely is possible to look like that without lifting weights. Someone who studies bodybuilding should know this. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. WikiBodybuilding 03:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This person has stated that they lift weights and given no-contrary evidence this is enough.Wikidudeman (talk) 03:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Your definition of evidence doesn't hold any water. This person also claims that they eat ice cream and twinkies all day, has invented a gravity suit, has deadlifted 225 pounds 112 times. I think we can consider him a non-credible source, don't you agree? WikiBodybuilding 03:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No. It's the only viable source considering the information. The persons diet is irrelevant. If the person says that they lift weights then we can believe it based on the claim itself. Moreover, The claim itself is hardly that exceptional to require exceptional evidence. The person is muscular and looks like a bodybuilder and the only way to become so muscular is to lift weights. The person says that they lift weights therefor the claim is accepted. Please see [[8]] for further information. Since I do have actual evidence you must provide evidence to the contrary that is more reliable. Please see WP:NOR for more information. Wikidudeman (talk) 03:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the image is OK. It is to illustrate body-building, it doesn't matter if the guy is not notable. The image has proper copyright information. I'm restoring it. Bubba73 (talk), 04:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The image is a perfectly adequate illustration of somebody who looks like they are a body-builder. This image does not contravene any policies and does not make any claim past illustrating what a body-builder looks like. TimVickers 04:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea who Adam Abeles is, but the picture suits the article as a portrayal of the subject of bodybuilding. I don't know anything about the "sport" but I assume that there is some competition for publicity among bodybuilders. If there is a sizeable dispute which maintains that the photo constitutes a biased promotion of Adam Ables, then one or two options could be tried. One, remove his name and replace it with the phrase, "a bodybuilder". Or two, all agree that this photo is acceptable until there is wide consensus that some other available image is better for the article. (Added: A quick Google and I see that Abeles is NOT engaged in competitive bodybuilding, and as such, is a perfectly neutral choice for a photo to illustrate the article.) - LuckyLouie 06:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
"Adam Abeles" is some guy on a bodybuilding message board that allowed me to use his image for this article. I signed up to a bodybuilding board and made a thread asking for bodybuilders to provide images so that I could use some for this article and he was the only person to provide one. Since it was the only image that I received it was the only one I could post. Apparently this person is disliked on that message board and all of this controversy is apparently from some of those people on that message board who don't want his picture in this article, but they themselves refuse to provide a better alternate one. As far as I know he has nothing to gain by having his picture on this page or his name. He was nice enough to provide an image when everyone else refused and now they are angry that I am using his image. Wikidudeman (talk) 07:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I looked at the image and read all of the discussion. Here was my thought process:

  1. Is it a pictire of a body builder? Looks like it to me.
  2. Does it matter that he is not notable? No. For example. a picture of a typical kid playing little league baseball would be OK (for an article on baseball).
  3. Does it matter if he isn't in competitions? No.
  4. Are there copyright issues? No, it is OK. Most photographs can't be used on Wikipedia because of copyright restrictions. This one is OK.
  5. The user who deleted it was new and had made only a few edits, and they were to this article. I WP:AGF, but the new user may not be familiar with how WP works, especially about what images are OK to use.

Therefore, I think the image is OK. Bubba73 (talk), 12:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. - at most I would take out the name and replace it with "a bodybuilder" as someone suggested, or replace it with a better image. Bubba73 (talk), 12:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There are several pictures on Commons that might also work. --OnoremDil 13:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Someone put one of those pictures at the top which is probably the best quality one of them (aside from the one I had up there) so I kept that picture at the top and moved the one I had up there down to a new section. The page should have a good amount of images and I think 3-4 is a good number. Wikidudeman (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I've decided to move the image with the black background to the top for the reason it is more generic with it's empty background and seems to be a more encyclopedic image. Pertinence and encyclopedicity is a very important aspect of images on Wikipedia and the one with the black background fits that to a tee. Moreover, Since this isn't specifically a "Competitive bodybuilding" article, I find the image of the competitive bodybuilder puts false emphasis on the subject of this article. Bodybuilding encompasses wide ranges of areas and doesn't simply include competitive bodybuilding and a generic image with an empty background profiling a bodybuilder is more suitable. I put the image of the competitor down in the "Sport" area since it profiles an individual competing in a competition and I've also added an image of a female bodybuilder for the female area.Wikidudeman (talk) 09:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC) it not obvious that Wikidudeman *is* this bodybuilder? He's aggressively added this picture to the following articles:

   * Human abdomen
   * Bodybuilding
   * Muscle
   * Muscular system
   * Physical exercise
   * Skeletal muscle
   * Physical fitness
   * Muscle tone
   * General fitness training
   * Muscle hypertrophy

I don't see any other reason why he would be so insistent on keeping this one photo up on all these articles. In conclusion, take them down! 02:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the picture always carries some sort of self-serving caption describing the "toned abs" and "well-defined muscles" of the bodybuilder. 02:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not that person. That person gave me permission to use the image, it's a good image, So I'm using it for several articles. Nothing else to it. Moreover, Even if I was that person, that's not a justification to take it down as far as I know. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I've edited the captions in the past as I did find them inappropriate - perhaps you could do the same if you find them objectionable, anon. It's a good photo with no distracting background and a high level of hypertrophy that doesn't look like it's steroid-assisted or induced. The guy doesn't look like a freak and it's appropriate to have a natural-looking bodybuilder as well as the ones that look like they're adding horse testosterone to their coffee in the morning. There's more types of bodybuilders than just the enormous monsters at the competitions on TV, so the pic is appropriate. WLU 12:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the picture as the description says "bodybuilder posing". There is no pose being demonstrated in the picture which is another reason for it being inappropriate amongst the many that have been posted here. Please stop adding the picture and stick with the rest on the page whcich are more appropriate. WikiBodybuilding 03:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a pose. That may not be an official "Bodybuilding pose" however it's still a "pose" by definition none the less. I'll pull out the dictionary if you want. Moreover, An error(if it is even one, which it isn't) in the caption is NOT a reason to remove the image all together, just to reword the caption. But even doing so wouldn't make sense since by definition it's not in error. Wikidudeman (talk) 03:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

See also[edit]

WP:MOS states that the see also section generally should not duplicate links already embedded in the text, and that the preference is for the links to be appropriately contextually embedded. I'll trim the few that I know are duplicates down, but if anyone wants to help, it's an issue. WLU 12:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Photo and Steroids[edit]

That photo is of someone on steroids. It's characterized by paperthin skin. Google natural bodybuilders and you can see the difference in size too. Take down the photo. And by the way, excess calories help build muscle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

There's 5 photos in the article, you're going to have to be more specific than that. Excess calories support muscle hypertrophy caused by bodybuilding, just eating a bag of chips or ten raw steaks won't do much if you're on the couch. New comments should be posted at the bottom of the talk page. WLU 11:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Gustavo Badell. That is the epitome of steroids. The others don't have huge bulk but look more natural but not sure especially second one from top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
This article isn't soley limited to natural bodybuilding. Wether or not an individual in the article is suspected to have used steroids or not is inconsequential. The individual in the picture is a professional bodybuilder - which makes him a logical and encyclopedic choice for an image an encyclopedia article on Bodybuilding. You're going to need a better reason than that to have the image removed. --Yankees76 (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Not solely limited to natural bodybuilding? Then the summary should be changed.

No section on the 'risks' of Bodybuilding?[edit]

I'm just putting this out there, I know how zelous bodybuilders can be, but shouldn't there be a section on the risks of bodybuilding? I know it's not a very well researched area, but there are several reports of increase blood pressure, aortic distension/regurgitation and other cardiovascular abnormalities(Am J Cardiol. 2007 Aug 1;100(3):528-30; Cardiology. 1998 Oct;90(2):145-8). Also the frequency of anabolic steroid use in bodybuilders relative to the normal population indicates that bodybuilding is a risk factor in anabolic steroid use(Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006 Sep;38(9):1578-83; Pediatrics. 1995 Jul;96(1 Pt 1):23-8.). Other studies indicate that the diet of bodybuilders puts them at risk of several disorders(J Am Diet Assoc. 1990 Jul;90(7):962-7). I'm not arguing that these things are neccesarily the truth, but don't you think they should be covered? Bilz0r 04:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's an iffy issue. Some of the studies you cited seem to be contradicted by other studies for instance those showing no relation between RT and LV thickness and mass. link The studies dealing with diet seem to be limited due to the fact that the diets among bodybuilders is especially variational that I doubt there are any hard rules as to how bodybuilders eat. The study concerning diet might be useful to mention that some diets "associated" with bodybuilding are unhealthy, while at the same time mentioning which diets aren't. The Steroid studies are helpful, though they could easily be placed in the section in this article on "Performance enhancing drugs". Wikidudeman (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm coming a bit late to the discussion, but I think it'd be a good thing to write up either here or in a sub page. Anything with references can only enhance the page, even if it's to say the findings are controversial. WLU 04:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I just did a semester long project on the risks of bodybuilding, I was going to update the page on some of the information I found, but most of my sources are primary sources (interviews) and I don't think that is allowed on Wiki. It is a good topic and I wish I could post some of the stuff I discovered. I don't know how this could be added though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codysowa (talkcontribs) 06:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriateness and Censorship[edit]

Many of the pictures on this article are very inappropriate. Please let us work on making them more appropriate or not using pictures at all. I would not let my children see this. This is a public encyclopedia and it needs to stay that way with the public in mind. (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Which pictures are inappropriate for a bodybuilding article and why? If you feel offended, you can always turn off image support from your web browser. --Bork (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored. WLU (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

last sentence in nutrition section[edit]

The sentence in the nutrition section saying that eating 5 to 7 meals a day does not increase BMR compared to eating 3 meals is incorrect. The citation provided to support that statement is very shaky, they didn't even spell the word "artifact" correctly. Eating less frequently causes many of the calories ingested to not be used and stored as fat, and a while after eating a meal your blood sugar drops and you become sluggish, less energetic, and you burn fewer calories. Eating smaller, more frequent meals causes your blood sugar levels to stay relatively even, giving you more energy throughout the day, thus you burn more calories. Also, the calories ingested are used in a timely fashion and not stored as fat. These are facts that any nutritionist knows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, Artefact is a correct spelling - it's simply not the American spelling. Also there are two citations supporting this claim - not one. By the way, your argument that "eating less frequently causes many of the calories ingested to not be used and stored as fat" is only applicable in the case of a calorie surplus. Other than a small increase in diet induced thermogenesis, there is no advantage with regards to BMR in eating frequent meals. In fact, if I'm eating 5-6 times a day I am going to be stopping lipolysis every single time I eat because I will get a rise in insulin which stops lipolysis. In other words, you cannot burn fat or more calories if you are eating all day. Nutritionists may recommended this type of diet to help aid in satiety, and bodybuilders may use this simply to ensure they are able to consume the amount of protein/carbs/fat required to build muscle - but if you're spiking your insulin 6 times a day by eating, the claim that "the calories ingested are used in a timely fashion and not stored as fat" is rubbish. --Quartet 18:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The two references are pubmed journals, the preferred and most reliable available for wikipedia unless someone writes and publishes a review or international research position statement. The 'eat more often' might just be a bit of bodybuilding apocrypha that has no real merit. WLU (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Picture of "Bodybuilder Posing" is not a Pose[edit]

I think this picture should be removed or changed. This picture is not an actual bodybuilding pose (as determined by the most well known bodybuilding organization's mandatory poses). Perhaps if a more well-known pose was used to convey the image description.

I edited the image sub-title to say "Bodybuilder flexing" instead of "Bodybuilder posing". Problem solved. Kutulus (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

where are the steroids mentioned? / Can we at least TRY for NPOV?[edit]

come on, this is such a totally biased article. In the summary it claims that Arnold Schwarzenegger is a famous example of a bodybuilder, and that a bodybuilder is someone who maximizes hypertrophy through the right amounts of exercise, caloric intake, and rest. Nonsense. Everyone knows Schwarzenegger maximized hypertrophy through STEROID USE. So do almost all other body builders. Schwarzenegger is not an example of someone who did what the article claims to be the definition of bodybuilding, Schwarzenegger is an example of a steroid abuser. Wikipedians should think long and hard of how skewed a perspective this article is giving from the truth.—Preceding unsigned comment added by PyroGamer (talkcontribs)

Guess you missed it, but there's a section on Performance enhancing substances in the article already. --Quartet 12:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I totally disagree with the anon user above. Arnold is perhaps the most well known example of a bodybuilder in the world and arguably the most successful at the sport. Arnold also used steroids at a time in the 60's, 70's and 80's when they were legal. Not to mention that he undertook intense training programs that are now considered by many to be overtraining or too hard. To say that he is not an example of a bodybuilder is simply mis-informed and ludicrous. --Yankees76 (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, NPOV, WP:OR and WP:BLP concerns all. But mostly OR and an idiosyncratic definition of what a bodybuilder is. WLU (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
This is POV:
Schwarzenegger is an example of a steroid abuser.
The NPOV term is "steroid user". Any argument put forward that "any use is abuse" (which is a common refrain of any anti-drug campaign, but particularly heard among the ardently righteous anti-steroid faction) is just plain POV and nothing more; complaining that this article doesn't represent the truth as such people want it presented is just more POV. Arnold used steroids; saying he abused steroids is a judgmental and also WP:BLP-related issue, and evinces a moral "perspective" that likes to see itself as objective but which is implicitly subjective. Likewise "So do almost all other body builders", which gets close to a stereotype/generalization that isnt' all that true (speaking from experience, natural bodybuilders may outnumber "non-natural" ones in recent years; and re others who say they don't use, saying that they do is verging on group slander. But, again, that's not a long reach for anti-steroid campaigners; any old exaggeration will do, and misrepresentations and generalizations are even more handy. I haven't read the article contextually in a while; I suppose that the neutrality it had on the subject is offensive ot those who would rather see the article used to condemn steroid use. But last I looked, it wasn't Wikipedia's business to be in the business of condemning anything or anyone. Including Arnold and all the other bodybuilders the poster above clearly has a bad attitude about. If I have an axe to grind here at least I'm admitting it; and part of the edge on my axe is seeing various acquaintances over the years suffer because of the crminalization of steroids that saw the market flooding with fakes and counterfeits, or people who had their cycles seized by authorities and suffered "crashes"; the health problems with many illegal drugs, whether steroids or heroin or pot or whatever, have been shown by various studies to be more the result not of the drugs themselves, but of the effects of teh policies which criminalized them. That's beyond the topic matter of a bodybuilder article, except to the degree that bodybuilders whether steroid users or not have become the scapegoats and whipping-boys of those who need something to be self-righteous about....and so "steroid use" becomes "steroid abuse" and "bodybuilders" becomes "almost all other bodybuilders"....really just a form of mild hate propaganda when you step back and consider the true "perspective" behind complaints such as that above. That poster should read the NPOV section of "What Wikipedia is Not" and other pages.....Skookum1 (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I never advocated calling Schwarzenegger a steroid abuser on Wikipedia. My point is the current definition of bodybuilder we have on Wikipedia should not present the naive idea that bodybuilders do everything "naturally".
The mention of steroid use was in the header because I put it there, and since then it has been quickly removed, not because I used some NPOV term (I DIDN'T), but because people editing this article want to present the biased and essentially propaganda idea that there is not widespread steroid use among body-builders.—Preceding unsigned comment added by PyroGamer (talkcontribs)
I fail to see any evidence that backs up those accusations. The reason it was removed was clearly stated in the edit summary: "removing some text to stick with the basic definition- "how" this is achieved is discussed later on". This made the lead sentence short and straight to the point - free of the POV that tends to creep into these articles from editors with strong opinions and agendas on certain subjects. --Yankees76 (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I tried to tag all the unsigned comments. PyroGamer, please sign your posts, it makes the discussion easier to follow. WLU (talk) Wikipedia's rules(simplified) 14:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ronnie Coleman omitted in the introduction[edit]

I don't want to edit the article as I am newbie to Wikipedia and don't want to mess it up.

Famous bodybuilders include Arnold Schwarzenegger, Lou Ferrigno, Franco Columbu, and current Mr. Olympia Jay Cutler.

This sentence from the introduction needs correction. Arguably the most known bodybuilder of modern era is Ronnie Coleman (8 wins in Mr Olympia competition) and should be mentioned in the introduction in my opinion.

Zenmaster82 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenmaster82 (talkcontribs) 16:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

From my viewpoint, Ronnie is a virtual unknown to anyone outside of the few hundred thousand people who actively follow the sport, and being retired, he's nearly completely out of the spotlight. Schwarzenegger and Ferrigno both acheived lasting mainstream fame (as did Columbu to a minor extent) through acting and politics, while Cutler is the reigning champ and is plastered throughout magazines and Supplement and Vitamin stores in MuscleTech ads. The list in the opening sentence should by no means include every and any bodybuilder that has acheived any level of success or notpriety, but should provide a few quick examples that even people who do not follow the sport of bodybuilding would know. Like Dorian Yates, Coleman has done little to capitalize on his years of being Mr. Olympia and does not have any sort of mainstream celebrity. One might argue that Roland Kickinger is a more famous bodybuilder than Coleman.--Quartet 20:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I've definitely heard of Ronnie Coleman and I definitely don't follow the spot. I can barely recognize the name Jay Cutler, and I've never heard of Franco Columbu.—Preceding unsigned comment added by PyroGamer (talkcontribs)
I agree with Quartet, the opening paragraph is not the place for a long list every bodybuilder who might have some degree of noteriety. That's why I removed alot of the "fan" entries of retired bodybuilders or bodybuilders who's celebrity is questionable - including Ronnie Coleman. Who is Coleman now? A retired ex-Mr. Olympia. There are 7 other bodybuilders who also fit that bill (Bannout, Dickerson, Yates, Haney, Zane, Oliva, Scott). Coleman really isn't notable for anything else. Cutler is the current Mr. Olympia and I left Columbu in mostly because of this prominence in Pumping Iron and his acting career [9] that included roles in Conan the Barbarian, Stay Hungry, The Running Man, The Terminator and Big Top Pee-wee. People like Kickinger (mentioned above and an actor currently filming the new Terminator movie with Christian Bale) or even Lee Labrada and Rich Gaspari, two bodybuilders turned succuessful businessmen, are more notable than Coleman, Levrone, and some of the others who I removed. --Yankees76 (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't want the intro paragraph to include a massive dump of everyone who has ever competed or won, but it would be good to have a short list that features famous bodybuilders, famous people who are also bodybuilders and bodybuilders who are not really that famous but are notable within the bodybuilding world. Arnie has enough success and pop culture cachet to warrant a mention, but a notable classic bodybuilder would be good - Charles Atlas perhaps, and the bodybuilder with the most world-wide wins should also be there. If it's a tie, the third should be the one with the most public exposure. I've never heard of Cutler, Columbu or Coleman FWIW, but I don't really follow bodybuilding. I would trim to Arnold, Charles Atlas and the most-wins guy. Perhaps Cutler because he's the current Mr. Olympia, but if he gets knocked out, then replace him. WLU (talk) Wikipedia's rules(simplified) 14:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I would add Lou Ferrigno to Schwarzenegger, Cutler and Atlas. --Quartet 16:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Adds one more to the list but doesn't add much beyond what having Arnie on the list does, but I also understand the merits. Fine with those four. WLU (talk) Wikipedia's rules(simplified) 11:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Arent we talking about notable bodybuilders in the bodybuilding world, not notable bodybuilders who have had film careers? Portillo (talk) 10:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
This isn't a bodybuilding magazine, it's an encyclopedia. Being notable to a niche segment of the population who follows a fringe sport doesn't imply they're notable to a reader who is looking up bodybuilding - the process of maximizing muscle hypertrophy, in an encyclopedia. This isn't just an article about Professional Bodybuilding as a competitive sport. It's only a coincidence that bodybuilders that have had successful film careers are more well known. The exclusion of Yates, Coleman, Zane, Dickerson, Cutler, Oliva, Scott, Draper etc. etc. etc. from the first paragraph will not significantly harm the factual coverage of bodybuilding as a whole in this article - and their inclusion is more fancruft than encyclopedic. And as noted above, there are other bodybuilders (Gaspari, Labrada, Kickinger) who have achieved more fame than the two retired Mr. Olympias that are continually being inserted in the first line. How is Yates, who, other than making a few appearances at bodybuilding shows every year, but otherwise living in quiet retirement more notable than Lee Labrada who as a successful entrepreneuer and author received widspread mainstream media coverage as Houston's "first fitness czar", during the Get Lean Houston! program? --Quartet 13:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Haney, Coleman and Yates all have fantastic records in Mr Olympia. Thats why i added them, not because after they retire, lets see how famous they can get with business ventures, i dont really care about that. Portillo (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Those guys might have won the Mr. Olympia multiple times, but to the average person they are unknown, someone who doesn't follow bodybuilding wouldn't cite any of those three as an example of a bodybuilder if they were asked to name one. -- (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
But were talking about which bodybuilders are notable in the sport of bodybuilding, or bodybuilders who have gone on to find fame outside the world of bodybuilding? Portillo (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Neither. We're talking about what bodybuilders are notable overall - how they acheived their fame isn't really relevant. The lead of a Wikipedia article is to be a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic - which is why a short list of notable bodybuilders are included. Arnold Schwarzenegger was a bodybuilder, and is the Governor of California. Lou Ferrigno was a bodybuilder, and was established as one through roles on TV - notably in King of Queens and Incredible Hulk. Franco Columbu, besides being Arnold's sidekick, has appeared in numerous movies and acheived success as a strongman. His inclusion provides a worldview. Dexter Jackson, as current Mr. Olympia, is currently the world's top bodybuilder, and has current news stories and other media which show this.[10]. Should he lose the title, his successor would be placed in the lead. Yes, Yates, Coleman, Haney and a large number of bodybuilders from the past are notable in the bodybuilding world, have their own Wikipedia pages and appear in various articles on Mr. Olympia etc., however their notability to an average person searching bodybuilding on Google and turning up the Wikipedia page is limited. People likeLee Labrada, Rich Gaspari, Craig Titus, Roland Kickinger, Charles Atlas, Steve Reeves, and Cory Everson have acheived far more coverage than Yates, Coleman and Haney, are better known; and in my opinion are even better candidates to be included in the WP:LEAD section of an article.
By the way, please stop edit warring. Constantly reverting edits by other editors is not going to get the edit you want inserted or removed and is disruptive. --Yankees76 (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Portillo if you're going to continually delete and add people against the consensus, could you at least form some valid points or cite a Wikipedia rule or guideline that supports your cause? Deleting and saying "see talk" when you've barely outlined anything here on the talk page to support your case other than your own POV is not constructive editing. --Quartet 00:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand. So why has Ronnie Coleman been added to the list? Portillo (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

"Denzel Rice" was added too[11]. Doesn't really mean he belongs. --Quartet 15:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I've reworded the introduction to be more clear and concise, and to hopefully end the edit warring, 3RR violations, sockpuppetry etc. --Yankees76 (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The list is just a list of ppl known for what they did after bodybuilding. Not ppl who are famous within the sport of bodybuilding, which is what the article should be about. Portillo (talk) 08:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's not. --Quartet 15:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. The reason Arnold and Lou were added was because they became famous in the mainstream after they left the sport of bodybuilding. Other bodybuilders like Ronnie Coleman and Lee Haney whos Olympia records are better than Arnolds, are not added. Portillo (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not buying your argument. By your reasoning Arnold and Lou weren't already famous while they were competing. Guess you've never seen Pumping Iron. Schwarzenegger and Ferrigno actually competed and won their titles when bodybuilding was mainstream (or as close to mainstream as the "sport" will ever get). They are well-known because of their roles as actors, but they got those roles as actors because of the popularity they acheived as bodybuilders. Coleman, Haney and Yates, once they stopped competing, stopped being relevant because outside the small community of bodybuilding fans that are left, they're just regular people who look like they might workout or in Ronnie's case play football. Coleman's made more headlines for getting linked in the BALCO case than for bodybuilding. Arnold gets national attention, as a bodybuilder or ex-bodybuilder, almost monthly - especially around the time of the show that bears his name. Your parents could run into Haney, Yates or Coleman at a grocery store and wouldn't know them from Adrian Peterson or Paul Posluszny. Funny thing is, an anonymous IP contributer said it best in February - those guys might have won the Mr. Olympia multiple times, but to the average person they are unknown, and the vast majority of the world wouldn't cite either of those as an example of a bodybuilder if they were asked to name one. --Yankees76 (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

My question is this, if Arnold and Lou didnt become Hollywood actors, which bodybuilders would be added as bodybuilders that are famous within the sport of bodybuilding? You would think that it would be the likes of Arnold, Haney, Yates and Coleman. Since theyve won the world cup of bodybuilding so many times. You know what i mean? Portillo (talk) 05:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but "What ifs" do nothing to improve the article. Since the opening paragraph of any Wikipedia article is supposed to be concise - fancruft additions are not really necessary to get the point across. It's not a list to add everyone's favorite bodybuilder and considering arguments that are just as strong could be made for Sergio Oliva, Larry Scott, Lee Labrada, Rich Gaspari, Greg Kovacs, Chris Cormier, Jay Cutler, Mike Mentzer, Lee Priest and a number of other semi-popular "flavor of the moment" bodybuilders, the opening paragraph should be kept to just those that are easily recognized by anyone reading the article to learn about bodybuilding. Again, this isn't the Professional bodybuilding article. --Yankees76 (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Is this debate still going on? Portillo, you're bringing up the same tired points that were rebuffed months ago. Why are you pushing so hard for the inclusion of just IFBB pros? Why not natural champions like Skip LaCour or old timey guys like Steve Reeves, Reg Park, Dave Draper and Mike Katz? Hard to argue that Dorian Yates is better known than Steve Reeves. Heck, let's just list every single Mr. Olympia, Mr. Universe and Arnold Classic winner ever that way nobody gets their feelings hurt. Oh and that skinny guy that Arnold teachers to pose in Pumping Iron - and "Mike" the guy behind the desk that Arnold says hi to on his way into Golds in the movie.
This debate is a joke. Yates' name shouldn't even come up - he basically did one show a year, had zero personality, never promoted himself and is barely known at all outside the bodybuilding community. He hasn't appeared on a bodybuilding magazine cover since 2006. Who would think to name him as an example of a bodybuilder? Maybe someone in England since he's about the only British bodybuilder who has won something. And Haney and Coleman? Only on the merit that they share the record for most Olympia wins, even though Kevin Levrone and Vince Taylor both have more career professional wins than Haney, making his inclusion questionable. He's had just 1 magazine cover since 1993. Arnold's been retired since 1980 and has been on more bodybuilding magazine covers (3) in the past year than Haney has had since the early 90's. Even more than Coleman this year. And Ferrigno has been on 2 covers this year (IronMan and Muscular Development) as well and he retired for the first time in 1975 and then again in 1994. That leaves Coleman. We've alredy got a contemporary bodybuilder in the first paragraph - Jay Cutler. He's the current champ, and arguably gets the most coverage of any active bodybuilder (5 covers in the last 2 years vs. 2 for Coleman). Coleman hasn't stepped on stage in nearly 3 years.
Schwarzenegger has been on the cover of a bodybuilding magazine 134 times in his career. Frank Zane is second with 61. Reeves is third with 59. Cutler and Ferrigno both have 41. Coleman has 34, Haney 25 and Yates 22.[12] Even Corey Everson has more than Coleman, Yates and Haney.
So you asked - if not for their movie careers who would we choose? Well - there you go - Arnold, Frank Zane, Steve Reeves, Corey Everson and the current Mr. Olympia. That's who the bodybuilding world and the mainstream public has been exposed to the most. Magazines who live and die based on their covers and putting the right person on at the right time have chosen who the bodybuilding world and the general public got to see as bodybuilders. Right there at the end of the grocery checkout or magazine rack at the 7-11. Winning shows is meaningless because no sports channel or newspaper covers it - magazine covers are the true way of measuring who is commonly known as a bodybuilder - and the 3 people you listed are pretty far down the list. --Quartet 18:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You should use paragraphs. I dont care about adding any names into it anymore. Portillo (talk) 04:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

And you could have used a valid, well thought out case for your position. Might have helped others see your point. Guess that was too much to ask for. --Quartet 12:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

My point was that Mr.Olympias are notable. But i guess i was wrong. Portillo (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

1970s section needs work[edit]

A one-stop mention of Arnold making bodybuilding big-time barely cuts it; I'd say there needs to be another section for the post-war era when bodybuilding took root in popular culture through Charles Atlas, Venice Beach, and Steve Reeves movies, plus things like Dave Draper's appearances on the Beverly Hillbillies and in teh Beach Blanket Bingo movies (Muscle Beach Party in particular). William Smith, Reg Park - it's not like Arnold was teh first lifter to get on the big screen. The role of MD, S&H and other early mags should definitely be here; the 1970s ended with Arnold's ascendancy and the associated NPC/IFBB consolidation of the activity as a sport; The Grimek vs Reeves face-off for the Universe and other bits of history are all missing here; I don't have old mags to use as cites and maybe I'll try and add some items to this section; I just won't be able to cite most of them, other than asserting they're true; I'll try to be NPOV when I do but hopefully somebody else around here might take an interest in this issue. The "Golden Age" of bodybuilding wasn't Arnold's era in Venice; it was Reeves' and Park's and Grimek's and Scott's Larry Scott even mentioned in this article? Bill Pearl? Or for that matter Mickey Hargitay?Skookum1 (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a History of Bodybuilding article should be started for all of that. I think the line between competitive bodybuilding as a sport and bodybuilding as an activity is too often blurred. Much like the Ice Hockey article doesn't delve into Gordie Howe, Wayne Gretzky and Sidney Crosby eras, this article should talk about bodybuilding as an activity, and mention the professional side in passing with links to other articles that have indepth information on much of what you've mentioned above. Thoughts? --Yankees76 (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)