Who feels bodybuilding has ruined strength training in America??

[IronLion]

Hamstring is currently full of lydocaine and cortizone...lol it time to suck it up and let it all hang out. I guess if it rips off completely my career is over anyway.....lol

 

[guldukat]

First of all, I consider myself a strength athlete. I train for functional strength and to enhance my athletic attributes. I love Olympic Lifting, Strongman Comps, Powerlifting, and any kind of plyo or sport-specific stuff. I hae no problem with bodybuilding, I just never understood why anyone would like it, BUT to each their own, who am I to say BB is retarded??

You are you. If you want to say it, go ahead

I love functional strength, myself, but I'm a bodybuilder.

I realize that, now I'm out of school and am not a competitive athlete, I have no more use for being a great Olympic lifter than I do for carrying a bodybuilder's physique: the opportunities for both to open lots of doors for someone are limited. (I mean, really...when was the last time you had to clean and jerk a log to save someone's life? Conversely, when did a ripped "Christmas tree" help someone out of a murder rap?)

Naw, it's something we do because we love it. For both camps, I think that's reason enough

But, I am posting this because I read an article in Ironman (the only mainstream mag I will pick up because of the Bill Starr column). The article was by CS Sloan and it said BB has ruined strength training in America. I agreed with some points, and disagreed with others (mainly his ideas or lack thereof on nutrition).

I see.

I don't know that bodybuilding itself has ruined strength training...if it truly and fully ruined it, I doubt a bodybuilding magazine line Ironman would publish Starr's articles; similarly, I don't think there would be a large no. of guys who emphasize strength gains in training over all else, in spite of the fact that they're bodybuilders.

But CS probably wasn't talking about guys like Mike Francois, who was a powerlifter before he really got into bodybuilding. I imagine he's talking about the "masses."

To that extent, I think I agree...what the public regards as "bodybuilding training" has at least thrown a BIG monkeywrench in productive strength training.

Basically he was saying that mainstream publications and the Weider Principles, and HIT, while they may be effective BB tools, they do jack shit for a strength athlete. Also, the fact that people almost get brainwashed by this crap, including coaches and young athletes, leads to improper strength training progras all across America.

Perhaps.

Most of the high school and collegiate strength programs w/ which I'm familiar are based on a 5x5 system. And I can't fully agree with Sloan that something like HIT has no place for a strength athlete; Ken Leistner would probably feel differently about that, too.

But I'd say that's nitpicking; his central point, brainwashing of the masses, DOES stand, sad as that is.

I agree with him. Look across the country. How many high school football players do you see doing 3 sets of 10 all yr on bench?? How many do you see doing fucking cable crossovers?? or following some fucking retarded program in that rag Flex that Jay Cutler uses??

ROTF

I can't speak to the 3x10 year-long thought, since I know many schools in this area are, like I said, more 5x5 oriented.

However, every high school kid that trains at my Gold's does cable crossovers, concentration curls, and a host of other worthless exercises.

You know that crossover movement that some bodybuilders use as a curl, presumably for "peak," that resembles a front double-biceps pose?

I watched as two boys--one flabby black guy, one painfully skinny white kid, neither of whom needed to do anything for biceps other than the basics--did SET AFTER SET of those moronic "double-biceps curls." And they did them with DUMBBELLS!

One of them remarked that doing things with free weights was "better" (decent observation), so doing that "great cable exercise for peak was better yet" (BAD conclusion). Evidently they'd seen some jacked BBer doing these in a video.

Sigh...

Yep. We have bodybuilding to thank for that bullshit, in LARGE part anyway.

or how many so-called coaches have no fucking clue what these kids SHOULD be doing? How many kids think the ONLY meaning of a snatch is in reference to a part of the female anatomy???

You mean, it's...it's NOT?!



Yeah, I know. In fairness to my high school, the footballers there were required to do cleans, deadlifts, and other strength-oriented moves; but then again, it's one of the aforementioned schools that emphasized 5x5...as such, it is yet again one of my "exceptions," not the rule.

I don't know why this is. It could be society, a society where the majority of people value appearance or in my opinion, the illusion of strength over functional strength. I have heard so many people say something like "I don't care if I can squat the bar, I just wanna look like I can do a ton"....thats horse shit in my opinion.

I think it's a number of things.

One, yes, our society--most cultures for that matter--value style over SUBSTANCE. Guys who talk lots of shit to women frequently get laid. People who are funny are the center of attention. People who dress well are more employable than slobs, etc., etc., while some slightly introverted genius with a cow lick in his hair goes largely ignored by all.

Bodybuilding is a kind of style over substance, depending on the bodybuilder--looks vs. performance in the case of the juice-loaded pumpers.

But secondly, I think bodybuilders have just as much a right to emphasize looks as strength athletes do, strength. For one thing, I've never met a HUGE bodybuilder that wasn't also strong (and I think even Paul Dillett COULD be strong if he tried...he's the only exception that comes to mind).

Additionally, it's a matter of pragmatism: how often will someone really NEED tons of strength outside sports? It's nice to have, certainly, but it's a rare occassion that we're lifting buicks off of poor old grandma. Lots of muscularity is arguably just as generally unnecessary, but from the standpoint of getting attention--style over substance--bodybuilders at least have a lot of positive reinforcement; e.g., six-pack carrying models on magazine and book covers, soap operas, in cinema, and so on.

These actors/models/whatever garner some attention because of what they look like, or so most bodybuilders think. Since "fame" is an ad hoc virtue in American culture, they believe that being muscular can make them famous too.

It's not terribly logical, no...but there are some areas in which bodybuilding makes more "sense," you could say, for practical application--or so bodybuilders want to believe.

I'm a bit sick and not putting a fine point on this...look at it this way. With a great effort, an Olympic lifter cleans 400 lbs., then presses it overhead in front of a small crowd. That's pretty neat.

Then a bodybuilder comes around. He's flexing and smiling, enjoying showing off. His "performance" does more than entice these people visually, though. Some might want to feel his arms. It fires the imagination of others, who will equate muscles with strength; i.e., "I bet he's stronger than that Olympic lifter."

In short, it has a kind of circus sideshow appeal on a couple of levels beyond lifting a heavy weight overhead. I'm not saying that's "right"...just that, in our culture, the guy on the "style" end of the spectrum is going to be more rewarded than the dude squarely in "substance."

Another reason could be what is just pushed down people's throats. Go to any news isle and what do you see....FLEX, MuscleMag, Mens Fitness.....What will you never see? MILO. It could be just what most people are exposed to, these kids don't know any better, and neitherdo their coaches.

Yes. Exposure is everything. If you show people anorexic women with pumped-up tits long enough, that will become the new ideal.

Whoops! That already happened Thankfully there's some backlash against that.

It also goes back to appearances vs. capability. Some of the guys on the cover of MILO are shouting as they're trying to come out of the hole with 800 lbs. (or whatever). They're generally some tough-ass looking people. They usually don't look real happy when they're going for a PR, and many of the top guys are built like refrigerators (yes, even fat). They don't look inviting next to other magazine covers. A typical headline would read, "Capt. Kirk SQUATS 1000!"

A perfect example would be that bald Militia powerhouse that t-mag interviewed. He looks like Tank Abbot or some nasty biker motherfucker!

Contrast that to a cover featuring grinning Gunter Schlierkampf, who's a handsome guy and is big and ripped. He looks happy, even comfortable, almost as if being in his body made it so. The magazine promises BIG ARMS! and other such positively-worded things...no scary, huge numbers.

It's a shame, but MILO would probably not sell well to the masses, and their first exposure shall remain someone like Uncle Joe :rollseyes: That's a double shame since MILO would be a far better guide to getting a big-ass, muscular physique than most of the BBing rags out there.

I am not knocking bodybuilding, but BB has VERY different goals that sport-specific training and strength training, and I see so many athletes training like bodybuilders and thinkng like bodybuilders just simple because they don't know any better and the people they look up to know even less.

I don't want this t turn into a flame fest, it is something I have always thought on some level, and the article I read made it click and legitimized it.

So....I wanna hear eevryone's input....no matter who you are or how you train.

That's about the extent of mine. I've gotta go continue to be sick...hopefully some of this made sense. "I largely agree with you" is the short version

 

[Alucard]

I feel that the information is readily available if you're willing to look and think critically, so it is not ruined and, since it is not ruined, Bodybuilding hasn't ruined it. Each individual makes or breaks his own progress by what he or she chooses to do.

Or...we can look for a scapegoat.

 

[clc315]

I prefer strength training over bodybuilding myself. Not that there is anything wrong with bodybuilding per se, but one tends to get tired of being bombarded with all these supplement companies adverstising the latest new thing to come up. What's funny, is if a supplement is supposedly 200-300% more effective how come we don't have more steroid free "mass monsters" hulking around in the gym? I also don't really like the "look" of bodybuilders anymore. They just seem to look like a clump of bodyparts. Whereas I much prefer the athletic muscular look of sprinters,weightlifters in the smaller classes etc. There IS a difference. I also think the look is more attainable. Also, if one wants to bodybuild to improve their looks,more power to you. Personally why don't you both. Strength training to build the strength of ones body and bodybuilding to improve one's appearance. As much as I love strength training.I kind of get upset when you have a fat/overweight strength trainer knocking bodybuilding and on the flip side of the coin, you have a well built guy that can barely full squat 225! Not reason to use strength training as an excuse to "look" like a slob and also looking muscular if your engines can't perform. In other words, do both!

 

[louden_swain]

Nope. . .bodybuilding hasn't ruined anything.

You can still get strong using a bodybuilding routine. I don't know why people think that bodybuilders don't train for strength as well. There are pros who are repping with 455lbs on incline presses.

For the person who is interested in gaining strength, blame them for not conducting research on strength training . . . not bodybuilding.

And yes, the mags are designed to sell supplements.

 

[SofaGeorge]

Reading through this thread... the thing that it makes me remember is HOW LITTLE WE KNEW.

There was nothing but BS bodybuilding info all through the '60, '70s, and '80s. Powerlifting info? Good luck. Unless you personally knew a successful powerlifter or coach there weren't many good sources for routines, training techniques, etc...

"Bodbybuilding" was a small word in the '60s and '70s. Back then we were "weight lifters." We didn't differentiate between training for muscle mass and strength. We lifted weights because we wanted to get big and strong... but, unfortunately, nobody knew Jack sh-t about optimal routines... and the routines published in the Weider mags were the WORST things you can do.

This is going to amaze most of you... but I don't think I started seeing really factual information about bodybuilding or powerlifting until the mid-90s. Why then? Because that is when the internet came into play. Finally there was a medium where people could share knowledge about bodybuilding and powerlifting where money and marketing wasn't the motivating factor for shaping the message. People were sharing their knowledge and ideas soley to enhance other people's efforts.

It's remarkable to me that it took so long.

 

[Backlash]

Whatever those guys are doing over in Scandanavia - they know something about training for strength. I'm not even going to try to spell their names, but you know who I'm talking about - they are always appearing in TWSM finals.

 

[Thaibox]

My intention is not to knock BBs, but to state my opinion here.

1) People are lazy

Bodybuilding is easier than powerlifting, period.

Don't get me wrong, becoming a professional bodybuilder takes incredible dedication and heart, and the big boys have my respect(most of them). But, the level of pure pain and nuts it takes to shatter the body's limitations and accel into world class levels of strength is a rough fucking road, and takes a special person to follow that road.

Any schmuck off the street can put a decent amount of meat on his frame. Gyms are crowded with thick-ass bodybuilders all over the country. How many guys are throwing up world class weights in a cloud of chalk with bleeding shins and are only concerned at the bloody palms because its fucking up their grip?

2) People are pre-occupied with their appearance

The majority of the population is more worried about how they look than anything else. Dudes want to get laid, and they want other guys to think they're cooler than them. So they hit the preacher bench and walk around in tank tops. They follow the programs in mags in order to look like the fruitcake on the cover. The average dude could care less what he can actually do. He simply wants other people to think he can.

For example, when that arrogant idiot Nclifter6ft6 called out b-fold and challenged him to a double bi pose. B could give a fuck, as long as he can throw vehicles with ease. For his body, b-fold has disproportionately small upper arms(they're still big), and he's acknowledged that, and readily accepted it as part of his game. A game which he is dominating.

The BBing media has capitalized on this vein mentality. Therefore, we have the corruption of lifting.

 

[Backlash]

I don't think BBing is the corruption of lifting. BBing and PLing are just different. To me, that's like saying sprinting is the corruption of running because distance running is much harder. Just two different (though similar) things. One of the problems is that average people don't realize the difference, so they lump the two together and call it weight lifting.

 

[Mike_Rojas]

For his body, b-fold has disproportionately small upper arms

I often think people have a distorted perception of how big the biceps should be. I think most bodybuilders have biceps that are disproportionately large to the rest of their body, but that is so common it becomes the "norm". Look at Arnold for instance.

Anyway, in regards to the topic at hand, I don't think bodybuilding has ruined strength training, but I think the endless fascination with bicep training keeps a lot of people from ever getting strong.