Talk:Bodybuilding woo

	This Food woo related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
Editorial notes There's a lot of pontification and talk, but many paragraphs and claims in them lack proper citations. Tagged since May 2023

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

photograph and caption

While having an image of a bodybuilder is natural for an article on bodybuilding, I think that the caption on the image in question is demeaning and not in the spirit of the wiki.--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Because it's a woman? I think the picture of the mans belly could also be in the same category. Ace^Moderator 00:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

No, the man's belly pic is used to illustrate the futility of electrodes as well as the man's unhealthy lifestyle--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

So would a picture of a man body-builder with same caption be OK with you? Ace^Moderator 00:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. It wouldn't have the same implications as it does with a woman, but I do think disparaging someone for being a bodybuilder is a bad idea, as well as unnecessary.--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

"but I do think disparaging someone for being a bodybuilder is a bad idea" replace the word body builder with libertarian. Or Neo-Conservative. Or Catholic. You are going to be busy. Ace^Moderator 00:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I truly do not get the problem. "this is what you could look like" if you wanted to be that level of body builder. looks disgusting to me, and that's what i think the captian is saying. If you talked about plastic surgery extremes and showed the Tiger Woman, would that be sexist?--GodotTut tut, looks like rain 00:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Its just Brx being Brx. "This is insulting towards woman! Just like Ace when he wanted to lynch niggers like a cranky conservative!" Heh, ZING! Ace^Moderator 00:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

? Vee (talk) 05:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

evidence?

"Any electrical stimulation device capable of providing substantial muscle mass and tone would require a painfully high and possibly dangerous electrical current." Is there any evidence on this? Like "a study conducted by the medical school of the Fancy Faculty of Smartopolis concluded that the maximum current used provokes only a muscular tension equivalent to that of lifting 7 ounces, anything above that results in pain and collateral damages".

From this

“”Companies claim that EMS is an easy and painless method for improving muscle strength, body composition, and appearance. These claims were unsubstantiated in the current study. Several factors, including the poor quality of the stimulator itself, probably combined to produce the results seen in this study. Subjects tolerated EMS amplitudes that produced discomfort but still were not able to achieve a muscular contraction of sufficient intensity to induce strength gains. Additionally, although manufacturers claim that workouts can be conducted quickly, workouts in the current study averaged 45 minutes in duration. Workouts using units with fewer stimulation channels would take even longer. Thus, EMS used under the conditions studied here does not appear to be a pain-free, quick method to increase muscular strength and is not recommended for the apparently healthy consumer.

Close enough? Bad Faith (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

What were those Victorian 'devices' with wires and glass tubes in various shapes which distributed electricity to various parts of the human body on the basis of similar woo? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Gadgets

Are these [1] and similar devices the ancestors of the gadgets mentioned here? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

History

Should this be added, for the historical perspective? Anna Livia (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Anna Livia, it could be added, but it falls more generally into early naturopathy crank ideas. Electricity woo might be worth a page of its own or perhaps an expansion of magnetic therapy into electromagnetic therapy. Bongolian (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Put it wherever it suits (I was looking at the electrical shock section here) - there are other devices including devices with 'assorted glass shapes and violet lights' (such as [2]. Anna Livia (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Bodybuilding

Isn't bodybuilding more an artform than practical exercise? Having almost no fat really isn't healthy. Vee (talk) 05:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

General strength training certainly is practical exercise. But yes, "bodybuilding" usually refers to the hyper-muscular aesthetic side. (An aesthetic I personally never got, but hey.) BobJohnson (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

there are dozens of different training protocols depending on your goals - muscle mass, mobility, maximum strength, stamina, etc that all include lifting weights. the extremes of competitive body building are just that - extremes, but it is not so much the exercise regimes employed that are unhealthy, rather it is the nutritional aspect of the cutting phase than can be seen as unhealthy if taken too far or incorrectly. it should also be noted that the exercise and accompanying nutrition is not constant year round. it will change depending on the phase of your training - bulking or cutting, or in competition or not.

art form is also a stretch tbh. i dont think you get points for creativity in bodybuilding competition but from how close to an 'ideal' body you have. a sport is probably the best description, in that you still need to be dedicated and train rigorously to succeed. it is practical exercise. it is practical for the practice of competing in body building competitions. practicality is dependent on your goals. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)