🚀 go-pugleaf

>>In article <1k6dfuINNi49@mojo.eng.umd.edu> georgec@eng.umd.edu (George B. Clark) writes:
>In article <C1Hnyw.5zy@csn.org> pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt) writes:


>Eating clean is not unhealthy.  And just because they eat more than normal
>people doesn't mean that it is in some way unnatural.

Bodybuilders eat a low-fiber diet. If they instead ate a high-fiber diet,
they would be unable to meet their need for calories because
fiber adds bulk without adding calories. In addition, bodybuilders
who are unsupervised often have silly ideas about their nutritional
needs. 


>          What I am trying to say is that I am not convinced that there
>is not *some* way to take performance enhancing drugs in a safe manner.

If that's "what you are trying to say," then I agree. But I'm talking
about world-class bodybuilders, i.e. those who risk their health to earn
that distinction.


>Whats your point?  Sex is dangerous if not done safely.
>If you're saying that lifting heavy weights is in itself dangerous, then
>I say that you are dead wrong.  As a matter of fact, there have been
>many studies that indicate improving muscle mass is a very healthy
>pursuit.

My point is that to become a world-class bodybuilder, you must walk a
thin line between what is safe and what is unsafe. It means risking
permanent disability to cartilage, muscles, ligaments, tendons, bones, and
nerves. Surely you've met former bodybuilders with permanently disabled
backs, and you haven't seen how awful bodybuilders look after they get older?
In fact, persons involved in bodybuilding in their youth who become sedate
as they age, have shorter life expectancies than persons who are sedate all
their lives.



>>In addition, world-class bodybuilders have weak hearts relative to their
>>body sizes because the intensity of their strength training leaves them no
>>energy for aerobic training.

>This is stupid, unfounded and quite possibly one of the most ridiculous
>things I've heard in a good while.

Divide a group of bodybuilders into two groups. One group does
bodybuilding. The other group does bodybuilding and aerobic
exercise. The group that only does bodybuilding will be stronger. As a
consequence, world-class bodybuilders should not do aerobic exercise,
since strength is their only goal. Therefore, their heart may become weak
relative to their skeletal muscles. This means they can perform physical
feats too dangerous for their heart to endure. In extreme cases, they can't
even walk a flight of stairs without losing their breath.


>>By the way, "fitness or being fit" by definition refers only to the heart,
>>and since bodybuilders are focused on their skeletal muscles, fitness is 
>>inappropriate terminology.

>Maybe only in George Clark-land does that definition apply.  
>But as I said above, there is no
>evidence that bodybuilders have small and weak hearts.

In sports medicine, physiologists define fitness as the strength of your
heart, and it is measured by your VO2 max and by your recovery pulse rate.
These measurements can become dangerously low for bodybuilders who must
necessarily avoid aerobic exercise. They literally have no endurance. You
will never see a world-class bodybuilder out jogging, for example. Their
heart can't handle it. The V02 max of a competitive athlete whose sport is
sprinting or swimming can easily exceed the VO2 max of a bodybuilder twice
his weight. That should be enough to make anyone think twice about
becoming a bodybuilder.

                                  . . .

I think we are discussing two different things. You are discussing
bodybuilding, in general, whereas I'm discussing those bodybuilders who
strive to be world class.

General bodybuilding is great, and I train with free weights myself.
Furthermore, this is essential for anyone to be competitive in sports.
I also think everyone young and old, male and female should be involved
in strength training.

However, the people I'm talking about are those who are willing to risk
it all, so they can be the strongest person in the world. Perhaps had I
made my point more clearly, you would have been more receptive.