Talk:Bodybuilding woo

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Article name[edit]

As this article is entirely about supplements, I propose a rename to "bodybuilding supplements" - technology such as toning tables and hand-held massagers can go under "bodybuilding devices", perhaps. Totnesmartin 07:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a rename. Maybe some extra redirects to get here but there may be scope for more general -non suppement orientated- stuff to expand it (I'm a skinny t**t so I probably can't comment too much). Scarlet A.pngpathetic 09:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


On doing a quick literature search, there does seem to be some evidence e.g. [1] that electrical muscle stimulation improves strength. Pseudomonas (talk) 12:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be standard for bodybuilding woo: come up with something vaguely plausible based on something true, carefully neglect the step where you test if your idea actually works - David Gerard (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


"On the illegal side, anabolic steroids and HGH are very effective, but have serious side effects"

This statement seems too vague. As far as I understand; 1. The side-effects of steroid use tend to be based in anecadotal evidence, 2. Most of the scientifically studied side-effects occur from taking steroids orally rather than injecting, 3. There are really very few side-effects that scientists will attribute directly to steroid use, rather than the lifestyle that often accompanies the (ab)use.

There is some weak evidence that liver / heart damage may occur and of course there are some less appealing but hardly 'serious' side effects such as bitch tits (Gynecomastia). All in all I wouldn't say the current statement is incorrect, but it is vague enough that -when combined with popular attitudes towards steroids- it gives the impression that taking steroids might be as or more dangerous to your health than say smoking or drinking alcohol, which it almost certainly isn't.

I'm not at all educated on HGH, perhaps someone else is?

If no objections are raised here then I will change it at some point in the future to be a little more specific. Tielec01 (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It's been a while, but I just noticed this. 1. That's because there are no real studies on 'roids because they're a controlled substance. The same is also realistically true with meth 2. True, and a comment in the article about this could mention that the side effects (and effects) would be different 3. Again, that's also true with meth. It's an issue of "we need to do controlled studies where we don't have issues to deal with like 'what else is in this'?" but that raises ethical considerations since you'd be giving a possibly dangerous drug to someone to see what happens--Logic and Empricism (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

photograph and caption[edit]

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.--"Shut up, Brx." 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. AceModerator 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--"Shut up, Brx." 00:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
So would a picture of a man body-builder with same caption be OK with you? AceModerator 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.--"Shut up, Brx." 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. AceModerator 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?--Green mowse.pngGodotTut 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! AceModerator 00:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


"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? (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


Are these [2] and similar devices the ancestors of the gadgets mentioned here? (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


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 [3]. Anna Livia (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)