Jump to content

Talk:Bodybuilding

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 213.149.62.88 (talk) at 21:43, 29 October 2018 (→conjoint world championships and amateur bb: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article


Discussion of effects of cessation needed

This article is missing any coverage of what happens to the body after bodybuilding activities stop happening (i.e., when people get old, or have to stop for some reason). — Hex (❝?!❞) 03:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Health effects more generally need treatment, better sourcing

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


 A separate session in this article, or even a completely new page absolutely needs to be created exposing and giving detailed information about competition level Bodybuilding health related problems. There are pages providing them in some sports i saw before, but not in the most health hazardous one? From Palumboism, to Diuretics, along with endless cases of deaths and serious diseases. The heavy use of drugs, extreme diets and dehydration protocols put it at least at a doubled death or severe illness agent, compared to any other sport. This is not only useful in the wiki context, but absolutely important to warn newcomers on the dangers and (alleged) precautions of becoming a bodybuilding athlete, as it's simply not a sport/activity recommended to everyone. I Would attempt to create a whole page myself, but it would certainly not be approved due to my poor skills. I urge editors and administrators to work on this, it's simply vital to the whole article consistency, or subject of bodybuilding itself.

Rise and fall in popularity

Also, the article should also address the rising popularity of bodybuilding in the mid-1970's and 1980's when it was gaining national attention and getting exposure on shows such as ABC's Wide World of Sports and NBC's Sportsworld. And how that popularity nose dived in the 1990's as the drugs continued to ruin the sport. The inherent contradiction of trying to sell bodybuilding to the public as a 'healthy lifestyle' when the sport was full of competitors pumping themselves full of dangerous and (since 1990) illegal drugs led to the sport being relegated back to the underground from which it had just recently climbed. It used to be in the 1980's several times a month you could find bodybuilding covered somewhere on cable TV. Today? Not a chance. There's a reason for that and I think it should be covered on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.212.137 (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Coleman

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

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

Meal frequency

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

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

Study:

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

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

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

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

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

I'm aware of that. However that doesn't mean it's not what bodybuilders are currently doing. The article says "Bodybuilders usually split their food intake for the day into 5 to 7 meals...", and yes the study shows it's probably ineffective, however the prevailing trend is to still eat 5-7 meals a day. If you want to change the fact that bodybuilders eat 5-7 meals a day, you need to provide a source that shows that, not a source that shows what they're currently doing might be ineffective. I think the references that are currently there are ineffective at showing that bodybuilders do this. The goal with the refernce there should show proof that bodybuilders eat 5-7 meals a day, and why they believe this to be effective. It looks like the current references don't show this, which is flawed. --Yankees76 (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Studies may not (yet) show any link about basal metabolic rate, but I know from experience if you eat more often, you're hungry more often, especially if the meals are smaller in size. But even without that, there is another reason to eat that many times a day, especially for people of larger mass: maximizing protein intake, as you just can't intake enough protein on three meals a day, especially if you're over 200 lbs (I'm 260-265 and need 320g-400g/day, depending on which advice I take), as only so much protein can be absorbed at a time. Again, nothing proven (yet) to do with basal metabolic rate, but definitely protein intake is a factor in that kind of eating schedule, especially for larger men in particular.....Skookum1 (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain at all about the relevance of the study quoted above to bodybuilding:
Snacking in obese subjects is associated with higher energy and fat intake. By contrast, in normal-weight people, snacking does not necessarily lead to increased energy intake, while snacks often contain more carbohydrates and less fat than regular meals.
Bodybuilders don't "snack" like obese people: no chips, cheezies, hot dogs, candy bars, trips to Ronnie MacD's or other forms of high fat/high carb "grazing". To me such a comparison is not relevant at all; studies done on general populations, with uncontrolled diets, are from a completely different ballpark.Skookum1 (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intensity vs. volume

Regarding the following section:

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

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

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

Rusty Jeffers and Betty Pariso - posers?

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

You've never heard of Betty Pariso? Shame on you! While I didn't add her as an example of someone well known for posing, I still think it's a good fit. Articles like this [1] talk about how her posing has helped her earn better placings, and at the shows that I've attended where she's competed her posing was always the highlight.--Quartet 18:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever; she's still not as notable as McLish and Bruneau and many others; your analysis of "how her posing has helped her win competitions" still doesn't mean she's WELL-KNOWN for her posing.Skookum1 (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Steve Wennerstrom article you've cited says this:
Laced with imitations of some of men's bodybuilding's most colorful characters (Ronnie Coleman, Mike Matarazzo and King Kamali), Pariso's efforts were enthusiastically received by the crowd and by industry insiders:
"imitation" is NOT "innovation"...even less so is it "artistry".Skookum1 (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I love how you omitted "Pariso's posing performance was sheer genius -- as innovative a routine as has been seen at the pro women's level in many years". I'm not saying she's a lock to be in there, however your own POV shouldn't come into play here - wether or not you've heard of her, or if you think that imitation is artistic or not. My point is, she is known for her posing. I may not have numerous reliable sources to back up the statement, however people who still follow the sport will know it's true. --Quartet 18:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But KNOWN FOR HER POSING has yet to be shown (i.e. outside of Texasx, and outside the audience at that show), especially in comparison to others better-known; as with the inclusion of Rusty JEffers here I think this is pure promotion and not a reflection of fact in terms of truly well-known; there are other women who deserve mention first.Skookum1 (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be honest, that whole sentence/section is purely POV and is completely unsourced. At least Pariso has a source that calls her routine "sheer genius". Ed Corney and Arnold wouldn't be at the top of anyone's list of great posers - or at least they're not "renowned for their skill and artistry" as the section currently reads. Just off the top of my head Melvin Anthony and Kai Greene are more suitable inclusions. Melvin has won numerous "best poser" awards at shows and at the 2009 Arnold Classic, Arnold told Kai Greene that his routine was the best posing routine he had ever witnessed. --Quartet 19:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Personal attack much Skookum1? Can you please stick to the content of the article and not the depth of another editors knowledge of bodybuilders 25 years retired? Frankly I'm suprised that you're so hard up for sources to justify your choices of well known posers that you're adding bodybuilder names and the word "posing" together in Google and counting hits to justify the inclusion and exclusion of bodybuilders in one sentence of this article. 1) Posing is entirely subjective, and 2) Of course someone who won Ms. Olympia numerous times is going to have more Google hits. How many are reliable sources that talk about them being known for their great posing routines?
I'm sure Ed Corney was a good poser in his day (I never said I never heard of him), but so is Melvin Anthony, Kai Greene, and King Kamali. In fact, I've seen all three of them bring down the house with their routines - within the last decade too! Arnold Classic 2009 DVD, Arnold says Greene had the best routine he ever witnessed, and you can bet he watched Corney a hundred or more times. But notice how I didn't force them into the article though? That's because the threshold for inclusion is verifiability - plus I don't think we need to include a massive laundry list of every poser from all decades that someone might think is well known as a good poser - but that what you've just turned it into (only in your case it's a laundry list that stopped being updated when Wham! was still together). I'm sure Serge Nubret, Darrem Charles, Mike Matarazzo and countless others could easily be added to your own list of favorites.
Here's a solution. Why don't we count up the number of "Best Poser" awards bodybuilders have won at professional shows like the Mr. Olympia to determine who is actually known as great poser in real life? Each show awards one right? Ed Corney is there, and then add the guy with the most best poser trophies on his mantle? Seems simple and subjective objective enough. --Quartet 00:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Objective" not "subjective" is the desired outcome; and your focus on more recent bodybuilders over a broader scope of the history of bodybuilding is a generational bias; and as for calling my criticisms of your position a personal attack, that's just pure hyperbole....Skookum1 (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected on "objective", however you can't make the claim of generational bias when you exclude those that I've posted above (including a reliable source for Pariso) because you either never heard of them or don't personally think they should be included. Don't call the kettle black Your own personal opinions on who deserves to be on this list is clearly not an editorially neutral point of view. BTW I added a source for Corney. I'll trust you have sources for the others? --Quartet 03:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out to me by someone else, the fact-challenged material, being inherently OR, I've removed completely, partly because it doesn't have directly to do with the subject matter of the section in question; I'm blockquoting it here:

Male bodybuilders renowned for their posing routines include Ed Corney<ref>http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/drobson309.htm Posing with the Master</ref>, Arnold Schwarzeneggar, Larry Scott, John Grimek, Lee Labrada, Bob Paris, and Rusty Jeffers.[citation needed] Well-known female bodybuilders known for their posing include Lenda Murray, Rachel McLish and Sharon Bruneau.[citation needed] Some competitors are associated with specific poses, such as the victory pose of Lee Priest and the side single bicep pose of Arnold Schwarzeneggar.[citation needed]

In addition to your suggestion taht winners of Best Poser awards may form an objective basis for such a "list" (although I wouldn't limit that to the Olympia, and would insist that the old Universe and America and similar shows be included), that certain magazines may have lists of "ten best posers" or whatever. Bios of some athletes also make such references, and in Arnold's Encyclopedia there's discussions of some of them (including his kudos for Corney....), but I don't own a copy. What remains in the surviving passages of the section is also uncited, as is much of the article; but having this material "targeted" for OR/fact tags means that, until cites can be provided, it can't be displayed....and once those cites are found, they don't belong in this section anyway. Noting also that citations for "Best Arms", Best Legs" etc as used to be the practice are also out there, though those trophies are no longer awarded...Skookum1 (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Best posers can be from any show - what we need is something that is undeniable - not just one Wikipedia editors opinion. A search for "bodybuilding" and "best poser" dug up a whole list of people that were not even mentioned above. Guys like Mohammed Makkawy, Aaron Baker, Mike Quinn, Shawn Ray, Chris Dickerson and the list goes on and on. --Quartet 04:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Physique photography

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

Clothing?

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

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

Spirulina for body building

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

Scientifically questionable sentence

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

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

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

Agreed - I think I know what the writer is getting at, however the way it's presented is wrong. I've fixed it. --Yankees76 Talk 13:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More generally, I'd really like to see some mention of assessments and critiques of popular exercise, nutrition and supplementation strategies from the realm of academic exercise physiology and nutrition, if such material is out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.98.145 (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about bodybuilders

I've noticed that articles about bodybuilders are regularly deleted at AfD. I have raised the issue at [[2]] and am trying to defend Michael Kefalianos at AfD. Is there anybody out there who is interested or agrees.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 10:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lifespan

This article needs a section detailing medical studies on how bodybuilding and regularly-performed bodybuilding activities affects the lifespan of people, whether negatively or positively. Wsmss (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muscle stimulant machines

Can someone add a section on machines that use electrical pulses to stimulate muscles to grow? These are usually worn in contact with skin, and manufacturers say they are a good alternative to muscle training in gyms. Wsmss (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Electrical muscle stimulation machines are not really specifically created for or marketed to bodybuilders, but seem generally marketed to soccer moms looking for muscle tone or pain relief or to athletes to aid in rehabilitation and recovery. It may be worthy of 1 or 2 sentences in this article if sourced with reliable sources, but that would be about it. Yankees76 Talk 20:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 9 May 2012

Please change "Myofibrillar hypertrophy is triggered by increasing repetitions, whereas Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is triggered by lifting heavier weight.[9]" found in the Weight training section of the article to " Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is triggered by increasing repetitions, whereas Myofibrillar hypertrophy is triggered by lifting heavier weight.[9]" because not only does the page that is referenced to the statement prove there is a need for the change but there are several other pages that support would this change. This statement also contradicts the logic of the sentence immediately preceding it.

184.74.8.236 (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Good catch. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas vs Weider

The uncited sentence, "Bodybuilding became more popular in the 1950s and 1960s with the emergence of strength and gymnastics champions joining the culture, and the simultaneous popularization of muscle training, most of all by Charles Atlas/Joe Weider, whose advertising in comic books and other publications encouraged many young men to undertake weight training to improve their physiques to resemble the comic books' muscular superheroes." is more accurately speaking of Joe Weider than of Charles Atlas. Atlas began selling his course in the 1920s and he flourished until the early 1950s. He never advocated weight training, and in fact his ads specifically warned against them. Weider advertised in the same venues and he advocated progressive weight training for bodybuilding, as opposed to Bob Hoffman, who advocated weight training for strength. After World War II bodybuilding took precedence over strength training, largely as a result of Weider's advertising and promotion. See John Fair's Muscletown USA: Bob Hoffman and the Manly Culture of York Barbell (1999). And by the way, Hoffmen needs a WP article if anybody wants to take that on. He's known as the "Father of World Weightlifting". Tom Reedy (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone elaborate on the whole “gracilian” part?

Can't find anything else about it. EIN (talk) 10:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of linking to Golden mean, perhaps that sentence should link to Golden mean (philosophy). EIN (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting

Is the "Cutting" in Bodybuilding#Cutting and bulking related to Weight cutting? If so, we can wikilink the articles back and forth. As it is, I was trying to understand what "cutting" is, and how it's done, from a bodybuilding perspective and found the "Weight cutting" article first. It did not have what I wanted and so I looked up bodybuilding.

I was reading Schwarzenegger's "Total Recall" bio and from that it seems like the order is "bulking" first and then you "cut" just prior to a competition. Why is the section on this article called "Cutting and bulking?" Should it be "Bulking and cutting?"

The "Clean Bulking" section starts out with "Many non-competitive bodybuilders choose not to adopt the conventional strategy." What is the "conventional strategy?"

Maybe the entire "Preparations" section is a mess. Should the subsections be

  • Bulking
  • Clean bulking
  • Pre-competition cutting

--Marc Kupper|talk 00:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fairness/accuracy of "Rise of steroids" section

As mostly uncited conjecture, I feel that mentions of specific bodybuilders careers in the "Rise of Steroids" section should be deleted, unless those bodybuilders have been a)Busted for doping, or b)Admitted to steroid use. While I, like many, know that it is common knowledge that steroids have plagued bodybuilding for years, it is unfair to name a bodybuilder as a general contributor to the "Rise of Steroids", and it is unfair to name bodybuilders that have never been caught or have not admitted use, especially without sources proving guilt or showing quotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.38.185 (talk) 04:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I hadn't notice that sect-title, been busy elsewhere.....this is a BLP issue though not a BLP article....and POV also, as "steroids" is a media shibboleth of the first order.Skookum1 (talk) 05:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see my attempt to fix that doesn't fit with the chrnology of the other sections...and that the section is a bit WP:SOAP and needs line-cites for each statement......this subject in general is hard to cite because "reliable sources" don't cover it as much as "unreliable" ones do, and when 'reliable' sources talk about steroids, it's usually heatedly POV and often false.....Skookum1 (talk) 05:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contests and associations

Neither this article, the specific articles nor the official websites make it clear what the relationship is between the International Federation of BodyBuilding & Fitness (also known as the IFBB according to the lead there) and the IFBB Professional League.

There appear to be several more organisations in addition to these, such as NABBA International, see Category:Bodybuilding competitions, Category:Bodybuilding competitions and Category:Bodybuilding.

As an overview article, this article should list all the organisations (and perhaps also competitions) notable enough for their own individual articles, and make it plain what the various relationships are... citing sources of course.

There is a general cleanup required in most if not all articles in this area, to separate external links out of the text and generally improve navigation, and to remove promotional material. Andrewa (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there are not enough references to external sites on "External Links" section, Bodybuilding is a broad subject and the internet is flooded with good information regarding this subject.

furthermore there is a Link there that is of low value and seems like a commercial Link. (this one:http://www.bodymassbionics.com/)

there should be references to sites which provides necessary information regarding bodybuilding and exercises (suggestion: http://www.exrx.net/) which provides everything on each exercise, or sites which provide good information on the subject. YifatAmichay (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please review WP:EL and WP:ELNO before adding any additional external links. Wikipedia is not a link directory. Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links. Thanks. Yankees76 Talk 17:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1960's–1990's

This section is extremely inappropriate for this article. 30 years of bodybuilding history is completely ignored (not a mention of the Mr. Olympia winners or any other industry advancements). Instead, it's entire focus is on Anabolic/Androgenic Steroid (AAS) use and regulation. This needs to be addressed. Gregrium (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Bodybuilding

There should be more on Indian Bodybuilding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flowing Creek (talk • contribs) 12:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about Indian bodybuilding should be included? Meatsgains (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Post-1960s bodybuilding

It would be beneficial to include some information about bodybuilding in general past the 1960s, this would include things such as all winners of the Mr. Olympia competition up to this point, as well as the introduction of the Sandow trophy in the Mr. Olympia competition, or where the name Olympia came from. Furthermore, the second biggest competition for bodybuilding, The Arnold Classic, should be introduced along with its winners — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeerdman (talk • contribs) 03:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than including it in this article, that material would be better suited in the pages of Mr. Olympia or Arnold Classic. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

non weight use building/ snythol section

The non weight lifting section of the article talks about site enhancement oil. If i want to find out what synthol is, it brings me to a totally different page that is not site enhancement oil. Also, because their is no page for synthol the section under body building pertaining to site enhancemet oil does not say the mechanism of action of how it works. Just what the usual composition of the materials involved are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayan1222 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bodybuilding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should clarify steroid use began in 1935 or 1945, rampant by 1960

The article says nothing about steroids until suddenly in the "late 60s" the "mass monsters" appeared. From nowhere. I think three things should be clarified:

  1. Steroids didn't exist before 1935, so everyone before then was 100% steroid free (the general public doesn't know this, or at least not the dates)
  2. Steroids thus existed from 1935 onwards, and apparently widely available by 1945
  3. Steroids were so rampant by 1961 that, for example, according to most of his biographers, even 15-year-old Arnold Schwarenegger was on them (source: Arnold Schwarzenegger: A Biography; by Louise Krasniewicz and Michael Blitz, page 21)

I can't work on this now, but I think these should be clarified, and it would be great if the article contained more information about pre-steroid-era bodybuilding. Great floors (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bodybuilding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bodybuilding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

conjoint world championships and amateur bb

1.) It seems to me that the article is more orientated towards pro bb. I feel there should be better distinction made between amateur and pro (especially federations), and more words about amateur bb. Maybe divide the article into Amateur and Pro bb.

2.) Also a word about conjoint World championships / competitions. An example is NABBA/WFF World championship. (They also hold their own W Chs.) How does that affect the rules, categories? Does that mean that there isn't a World championship in those federations in those years, but just one conjoint championship? 213.149.62.88 (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bodybuilding&oldid=866360762"