This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The article says "Kyle Richards (one of the few Asian bodybuilders)". When I looked it up at google, I couldn't find a bodybuilder with that name but a gay porn star. Is this a joke? The name also doesn't sound very asian. Maybe someone knows.
follow-up: I just realized that a bit further down the article says:
"Normally, this soreness becomes most apparent a day or two after a workout.th picture [sic!] accros is kyle after he hadnt done any weights for a few years"
But there is no kyle on the picture but Bodybuilder Markus Rühl. Maybe another hint for unnoticed vandalism.
I added a few male bodybuilders mainly to get attention to the articles although they're better than most bios... I feel this page needs a lot of work. The list isn't really necessary, all the links to BB erotica seem completely unnecessary for an encyclopedia. I suppose the basic content is OK though. Anyone else interested in improving Wikipedia's bodybuilding coverage? -- Slux 12:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I just saw the section "Female Bodybuilding Erotica" and had a similar reaction. That seems inappropriate, and I am going to remove it. I welcome any editor who'd like to discuss it. Cheers, - Willmcw 21:15, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not convinced this statement is worth keeping: "There is limited funding, so many female bodybuilders turn to female muscle pornography." While true, it is unfortunately also true of male bodybuilders (though not as well known). Some simple web searches will unearth plenty of it. The statement definitely applies to both genders, so at a minimum, I think it's misplaced in the female bodybuilding section. fbb_fan 00:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I believe its necessary to include nutrition details about nutrition before, during and after anaerobic or aerobic exercise. I already added a link to sports nutrition article but even it is still very incomplete. I would like to see all this info handled in this article but lack the knowledge to write it myself.
I am trying to keep the part on 'drugs' NPOV...
Have just made some edits to the introduction paragraph. Bodybuilding refers to the process of getting more muscle - not necessarily the sport. I've therefore added a separate section specifically for the sport of competitive bodybuilding. If you disagree please discuss/revert as you see fit.
On the subject of the list of bodybuilders i think we should start an article called List of professional bodybuilders and move it all there. In the main article we can then list "notable bodybuilders" and include why they are important to the bodybuilding scene (e.g. Ronnie Coleman, seven times Mr. Olympia). I know this creates more work in deciding who is "notable" but i feel the lists are too long at the moment and isn't necessary in an encyclopedia article. johnSLADE (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I have moved the list of bodybuilders to List of professional bodybuilders. IMHO the list was too long for an encyclopedia article and also encouraged people to add links to female bodybuilding erotica sites. As i have said before i feel the article needs a list of notable bodybuilders - but since i don't follow the pro bodybuilding scene i don't know who do add (would suggest arnie, coleman, yates, and hanly purely for winning mr olympia a number of times). Any suggestions? johnSLADE (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
A couple of small edits: I replaced references to good in "good nutrition" with "specialized". Diet is contorversial, and the bodybuilding diet is in particular. Calling it good is an opinion, and one that I share with some qualifications. For article purposes though, I think we have to be more careful. As for rest, I replaced "quality rest" with "adequate rest", since "quality rest" is both ambiguous and stylistically ugly. -Unknown
A few questions on the vitamins/supplement sections:
First, it is not clear how anaerobic excersize is "highly oxidizing" ... is there an source or explanation? Doesn't anaerobic respiration involve less oxidation of glucose and less generation of reactive oxygen species than aerobic respiration?
Second, doesn't glucosamine/chondroitin/MSM seems go in the supplements section?
Prithason 05:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Nutrition mentions 1-2 gm. protein for each pound of lean body weight but doesn't specify time period (I assume per day) and doesn't specify what lean body weight is.
What is body sculpting? How does it differ from bodybuilding? - Matthew238 04:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Just out of interest, should Arnold be in the introductory paragraph? He's an important figure in body building, but it's not like he invented it or did anything particularly special other than draw attention to it. TastyCakes 20:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the links to magazines. If you look up cars you don't have links to a bunch of car magazines, I don't think they can be justified as anything but advertisements for them. If they are important enough to have their own wikipedia articles then maybe, but I don't believe that was the case here. I removed some of the ad links on the basis that I went to them and got the distinct impression there wasn't any useful information that didn't relate to them selling me something. Some seemed borderline so I left them in. Does anyone disagree with these changes? TastyCakes 06:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
There is an incredible amout of linkspam in this article. I've just gone through several of the external links and the overwhelming majority of them are commercial sites offering products to sell with nothing to contribute to this article. Two were dead links and one was in Spanish. Monkeyman 04:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm uncertain about the others, they may indeed warrant exclusion. We can take time to go through I guess. Tyciol 16:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I think t-nation.com ("Bodybuilding's Think Tank") would be a good link addition - it does sell some products, but their regular articles are by highly qualified authors on topic, who are not trying to sell products. It also has one of the biggest forums around on bodybuilding, strength sports etc and has less focus on "competitive" bodybuilding than alot of other magazines and web sites.
How about adding mindandmuscle.net? It is an online magazine, but doesn't sell supplements and looks at bodybuilding from a very scientific angle. It certainly is one of the more informative sites out there. [After reviewing the link guidelines I have found that mindandmuscle.net actually does seem to be a good fit so I added it as a link. If this is inappropriate please remove it until further discussion. I'm new to editing articles and don't want to act out of turn, but I also don't want to withhold a potentially useful resource]
I have posted a link to African Bodybuilding www.ntpowerhouse.com a few weeks ago, and it has been removed. Since no one has given any reason why, I post it again. Here are the reasons why I think this link should be included in the Bodybuilding article. According to Wikipedia External links policy N. 4 & 5 should be linked sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article... and sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article. This African Bodybuilding www.ntpowerhouse.com site thoroughly meets these guidelines. Bodybuilding in Africa is practiced in a different way. Most African bodybuilders have started in their backyards with improvised equipment and limited means. We are here in a totally natural environment where people really train for their love for the sport. The site shows original pictures and articles on Bodybuilding in Africa. Its aim is to promote fitness and bodybuilding in Africa and it does not exist to sell products or services. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, but unfortunately I do not have the time to do so right now, may be in a near future. In the meantime Wikipedia should at least leave that link to African bodybuilding as a reference. –— Yembi 05:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Im Steve from Miami and I defintely agree with Yembi. Yankees76 is comparing Africa to Argentina. Africa is not a nation, Africa is a big continent. Bodbybuilding in Africa is practiced in a different way, there should be a mention of it on wikipedia. Since nobody has yet written any article about it, a link to a site about it should be left (... External links policy: should be linked sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article). If Yankee find another site about africa bb than replace ntpowerhouse.com. In the meantime Ive put the link back..
Note: This matter has been discussed extensively to the point of sheer exhaustion here and on user talk pages and whilst I admire Yankees76's patience, mine has officially run out. The site does not qualify per
WP:EL. Period.
I trust this is the end of the matter. Glen 06:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Can we add a section discussing the ridicilous amounts of pharmacy products bodybuilders use to build their physiques? - 85.76.45.14
I'm sorry but the heading Anabolic supplements just had to go:
There's really no option but to put a drugs section. I'm sorry if some think it's POV but the fact is those that choose to use these substances are using drugs! That's life people! §τοĿĿ€Ŗγ Ť č 00:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
"Like most sports, some bodybuilders choose to use drugs to gain an advantage over results due to natural hypertrophy, especially in professional competitions."
This is misleading. Anyone who knows anything about Professional Bodybuilding knows that 99.999% of contestants (probably 100%) use Anabolic Steroids, among dozens of other drugs. Steroids, GH, Diuretics are rampant in Professional Bodybuilding.
For this reason, maybe "Professional Bodybuilding" should be separate from "Bodybuilding."
People who live healthy lifestyles and "build their body" hate Professional Bodybuilding.
Bodybuilding is healthy...whereas Professional bodybuilders are walking science experiments.
Just my .02.
I think there should be a small section devoted to natural bodybuilding in this article and a redirect for "natural bodybuilding" that at the minimum points to the bodybuilding article if not a separate article. 129.74.141.230 17:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree Jack. Although, I think she/he was was indirectly confirming what some of us suspect, and that there is a general consensus that
IFBB bodybuilders are steroid-induced monsters, whereas "natural" bodybuilders are not. However this is a great source of endless controversy --
AF1987 02:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, I'm having trouble understanding some of the POVs here. On one hand, Yankee76 says
"I disagree. That website is a link to a supplement company - it's a corporate site disguised as an online magazine. The sole purpose of it's existance is to sell supplements." -- which may be factually incorrect, just BASED on advertising supplements alone[they're not gonna advertising knitting needles are they?] and is POV, from my POV, however. Then you go on to mention earlier, that
"They don't exist to host articles for education. They're a supplement distributor with their own brand of supplements. The articles exist to draw site users and ultimately to sell products." but in fact, what if the content of the articles can be verified, to be scientifically correct[for the sake of argument, "creatine may cause dehydration" -- thewebsiteinquestionhere.com]. Isn't that educational?
If the New York Times is advertising a book, does that mean the sole purpose of it's existence is to sell books? I could argue so, people who read newspapers a lot, might read books also. same with insertbodybuildingsitehere, you workout and eat alot, and thus purchase supplements to aid in the digestion of certain ingredients, which would otherwise greatly reduce your bank balance, or various other reasons, and thus nytimes.com should not be linked in any way on Wikipedia, nor CNN. does this seemingly normal way of paying for bandwith and making a living harm the integrity of the site, and it's articles? of course not. While I do obviously agree there are some definite all-hype and no research stuff floating around, undoubtedly there are some very popular websites, with educational info, yet do advertise, it is inevitable and really shouldnt exclude them from encyclopeda.
However if that is the policy, then its a damn shame i guess :( :) :( -- AF1987 03:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I added a "forums" category text, with two external links for examples of bodybuilding forums. Please do not remove these, they are not spam.
Thank you.
A day ago I posted a link to www.fit-world.net Though this site seems to be still in the process of being developed, the raw information I found there on exercises and other bodybuilding-related advice was particularly useful. It's obvious it isn;t a commercial site since they show no intention - on the existing pages - of ever wanting to sell anything. I Emailed their webmaster and he told me the site was being built ONLY for the purpose of providing useful information especially for beginner bodybuilders.
Please check it out and consider reposting it.
I don't really care if you repost or not. All I'm asking is to check that site out. From what I've read here and seen on the site it seems to suit your profile perfectly. No ads, no commercial activities, no affiliation and it does contain info not listed in this here wiki article. Quite a lot actually.
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The article says "Kyle Richards (one of the few Asian bodybuilders)". When I looked it up at google, I couldn't find a bodybuilder with that name but a gay porn star. Is this a joke? The name also doesn't sound very asian. Maybe someone knows.
follow-up: I just realized that a bit further down the article says:
"Normally, this soreness becomes most apparent a day or two after a workout.th picture [sic!] accros is kyle after he hadnt done any weights for a few years"
But there is no kyle on the picture but Bodybuilder Markus Rühl. Maybe another hint for unnoticed vandalism.
I added a few male bodybuilders mainly to get attention to the articles although they're better than most bios... I feel this page needs a lot of work. The list isn't really necessary, all the links to BB erotica seem completely unnecessary for an encyclopedia. I suppose the basic content is OK though. Anyone else interested in improving Wikipedia's bodybuilding coverage? -- Slux 12:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I just saw the section "Female Bodybuilding Erotica" and had a similar reaction. That seems inappropriate, and I am going to remove it. I welcome any editor who'd like to discuss it. Cheers, - Willmcw 21:15, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not convinced this statement is worth keeping: "There is limited funding, so many female bodybuilders turn to female muscle pornography." While true, it is unfortunately also true of male bodybuilders (though not as well known). Some simple web searches will unearth plenty of it. The statement definitely applies to both genders, so at a minimum, I think it's misplaced in the female bodybuilding section. fbb_fan 00:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I believe its necessary to include nutrition details about nutrition before, during and after anaerobic or aerobic exercise. I already added a link to sports nutrition article but even it is still very incomplete. I would like to see all this info handled in this article but lack the knowledge to write it myself.
I am trying to keep the part on 'drugs' NPOV...
Have just made some edits to the introduction paragraph. Bodybuilding refers to the process of getting more muscle - not necessarily the sport. I've therefore added a separate section specifically for the sport of competitive bodybuilding. If you disagree please discuss/revert as you see fit.
On the subject of the list of bodybuilders i think we should start an article called List of professional bodybuilders and move it all there. In the main article we can then list "notable bodybuilders" and include why they are important to the bodybuilding scene (e.g. Ronnie Coleman, seven times Mr. Olympia). I know this creates more work in deciding who is "notable" but i feel the lists are too long at the moment and isn't necessary in an encyclopedia article. johnSLADE (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I have moved the list of bodybuilders to List of professional bodybuilders. IMHO the list was too long for an encyclopedia article and also encouraged people to add links to female bodybuilding erotica sites. As i have said before i feel the article needs a list of notable bodybuilders - but since i don't follow the pro bodybuilding scene i don't know who do add (would suggest arnie, coleman, yates, and hanly purely for winning mr olympia a number of times). Any suggestions? johnSLADE (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
A couple of small edits: I replaced references to good in "good nutrition" with "specialized". Diet is contorversial, and the bodybuilding diet is in particular. Calling it good is an opinion, and one that I share with some qualifications. For article purposes though, I think we have to be more careful. As for rest, I replaced "quality rest" with "adequate rest", since "quality rest" is both ambiguous and stylistically ugly. -Unknown
A few questions on the vitamins/supplement sections:
First, it is not clear how anaerobic excersize is "highly oxidizing" ... is there an source or explanation? Doesn't anaerobic respiration involve less oxidation of glucose and less generation of reactive oxygen species than aerobic respiration?
Second, doesn't glucosamine/chondroitin/MSM seems go in the supplements section?
Prithason 05:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Nutrition mentions 1-2 gm. protein for each pound of lean body weight but doesn't specify time period (I assume per day) and doesn't specify what lean body weight is.
What is body sculpting? How does it differ from bodybuilding? - Matthew238 04:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Just out of interest, should Arnold be in the introductory paragraph? He's an important figure in body building, but it's not like he invented it or did anything particularly special other than draw attention to it. TastyCakes 20:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the links to magazines. If you look up cars you don't have links to a bunch of car magazines, I don't think they can be justified as anything but advertisements for them. If they are important enough to have their own wikipedia articles then maybe, but I don't believe that was the case here. I removed some of the ad links on the basis that I went to them and got the distinct impression there wasn't any useful information that didn't relate to them selling me something. Some seemed borderline so I left them in. Does anyone disagree with these changes? TastyCakes 06:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
There is an incredible amout of linkspam in this article. I've just gone through several of the external links and the overwhelming majority of them are commercial sites offering products to sell with nothing to contribute to this article. Two were dead links and one was in Spanish. Monkeyman 04:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm uncertain about the others, they may indeed warrant exclusion. We can take time to go through I guess. Tyciol 16:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I think t-nation.com ("Bodybuilding's Think Tank") would be a good link addition - it does sell some products, but their regular articles are by highly qualified authors on topic, who are not trying to sell products. It also has one of the biggest forums around on bodybuilding, strength sports etc and has less focus on "competitive" bodybuilding than alot of other magazines and web sites.
How about adding mindandmuscle.net? It is an online magazine, but doesn't sell supplements and looks at bodybuilding from a very scientific angle. It certainly is one of the more informative sites out there. [After reviewing the link guidelines I have found that mindandmuscle.net actually does seem to be a good fit so I added it as a link. If this is inappropriate please remove it until further discussion. I'm new to editing articles and don't want to act out of turn, but I also don't want to withhold a potentially useful resource]
I have posted a link to African Bodybuilding www.ntpowerhouse.com a few weeks ago, and it has been removed. Since no one has given any reason why, I post it again. Here are the reasons why I think this link should be included in the Bodybuilding article. According to Wikipedia External links policy N. 4 & 5 should be linked sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article... and sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article. This African Bodybuilding www.ntpowerhouse.com site thoroughly meets these guidelines. Bodybuilding in Africa is practiced in a different way. Most African bodybuilders have started in their backyards with improvised equipment and limited means. We are here in a totally natural environment where people really train for their love for the sport. The site shows original pictures and articles on Bodybuilding in Africa. Its aim is to promote fitness and bodybuilding in Africa and it does not exist to sell products or services. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, but unfortunately I do not have the time to do so right now, may be in a near future. In the meantime Wikipedia should at least leave that link to African bodybuilding as a reference. –— Yembi 05:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Im Steve from Miami and I defintely agree with Yembi. Yankees76 is comparing Africa to Argentina. Africa is not a nation, Africa is a big continent. Bodbybuilding in Africa is practiced in a different way, there should be a mention of it on wikipedia. Since nobody has yet written any article about it, a link to a site about it should be left (... External links policy: should be linked sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article). If Yankee find another site about africa bb than replace ntpowerhouse.com. In the meantime Ive put the link back..
Note: This matter has been discussed extensively to the point of sheer exhaustion here and on user talk pages and whilst I admire Yankees76's patience, mine has officially run out. The site does not qualify per
WP:EL. Period.
I trust this is the end of the matter. Glen 06:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Can we add a section discussing the ridicilous amounts of pharmacy products bodybuilders use to build their physiques? - 85.76.45.14
I'm sorry but the heading Anabolic supplements just had to go:
There's really no option but to put a drugs section. I'm sorry if some think it's POV but the fact is those that choose to use these substances are using drugs! That's life people! §τοĿĿ€Ŗγ Ť č 00:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
"Like most sports, some bodybuilders choose to use drugs to gain an advantage over results due to natural hypertrophy, especially in professional competitions."
This is misleading. Anyone who knows anything about Professional Bodybuilding knows that 99.999% of contestants (probably 100%) use Anabolic Steroids, among dozens of other drugs. Steroids, GH, Diuretics are rampant in Professional Bodybuilding.
For this reason, maybe "Professional Bodybuilding" should be separate from "Bodybuilding."
People who live healthy lifestyles and "build their body" hate Professional Bodybuilding.
Bodybuilding is healthy...whereas Professional bodybuilders are walking science experiments.
Just my .02.
I think there should be a small section devoted to natural bodybuilding in this article and a redirect for "natural bodybuilding" that at the minimum points to the bodybuilding article if not a separate article. 129.74.141.230 17:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree Jack. Although, I think she/he was was indirectly confirming what some of us suspect, and that there is a general consensus that
IFBB bodybuilders are steroid-induced monsters, whereas "natural" bodybuilders are not. However this is a great source of endless controversy --
AF1987 02:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, I'm having trouble understanding some of the POVs here. On one hand, Yankee76 says
"I disagree. That website is a link to a supplement company - it's a corporate site disguised as an online magazine. The sole purpose of it's existance is to sell supplements." -- which may be factually incorrect, just BASED on advertising supplements alone[they're not gonna advertising knitting needles are they?] and is POV, from my POV, however. Then you go on to mention earlier, that
"They don't exist to host articles for education. They're a supplement distributor with their own brand of supplements. The articles exist to draw site users and ultimately to sell products." but in fact, what if the content of the articles can be verified, to be scientifically correct[for the sake of argument, "creatine may cause dehydration" -- thewebsiteinquestionhere.com]. Isn't that educational?
If the New York Times is advertising a book, does that mean the sole purpose of it's existence is to sell books? I could argue so, people who read newspapers a lot, might read books also. same with insertbodybuildingsitehere, you workout and eat alot, and thus purchase supplements to aid in the digestion of certain ingredients, which would otherwise greatly reduce your bank balance, or various other reasons, and thus nytimes.com should not be linked in any way on Wikipedia, nor CNN. does this seemingly normal way of paying for bandwith and making a living harm the integrity of the site, and it's articles? of course not. While I do obviously agree there are some definite all-hype and no research stuff floating around, undoubtedly there are some very popular websites, with educational info, yet do advertise, it is inevitable and really shouldnt exclude them from encyclopeda.
However if that is the policy, then its a damn shame i guess :( :) :( -- AF1987 03:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I added a "forums" category text, with two external links for examples of bodybuilding forums. Please do not remove these, they are not spam.
Thank you.
A day ago I posted a link to www.fit-world.net Though this site seems to be still in the process of being developed, the raw information I found there on exercises and other bodybuilding-related advice was particularly useful. It's obvious it isn;t a commercial site since they show no intention - on the existing pages - of ever wanting to sell anything. I Emailed their webmaster and he told me the site was being built ONLY for the purpose of providing useful information especially for beginner bodybuilders.
Please check it out and consider reposting it.
I don't really care if you repost or not. All I'm asking is to check that site out. From what I've read here and seen on the site it seems to suit your profile perfectly. No ads, no commercial activities, no affiliation and it does contain info not listed in this here wiki article. Quite a lot actually.