From: loszewski_im@hnrc.tufts.edu
Newsgroups: misc.fitness
Subject: Re: The fittest people on the planet.
Date: 28 Jan 93 13:04:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: USDA HNRC at Tufts University

In article <1k75umINNpjk@mojo.eng.umd.edu>, georgec@eng.umd.edu (George B. Clark) writes:
>>>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. 

I eat enough oats and fiber everyday to grow my own farm.  I have even 
considered buying stock in Quaker Oats!  Fiber and grains are an excellent 
source of complex carbs.  You can get the calories you need from other foods.
And, why do you think we eat so much to begin with?
> 
> 
>>          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.

Then why the hell didn't you say that to begin with?
> 
> >>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.
> 
Well then maybe we just stop playing professional basketball, baseball, football
and all other "hard" sports.  You mean to tell me that other sports are not 
"unsafe"?
Bodybuilders look awful when their older because they don't eat properly when
they stop training.  They continue to eat large amounts of food thus the fat 
packs on and the muscles shrink from neglect.  Their are plenty of retired
bodybuilders out there that don't look like they are ready for the rocking chair
!  I'd like to see where you got the info for sedate bodybuilers kicking the 
bucket before couch potatoes do.  Bodybuilders on drugs...yes, I can see that.
But natural bodybuilders...no, I don't see it.
> 
>                                   . . .
> 
> 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.

But your arguments are going against all bodybuilders.  I don't mean to get
up on a pedestal and preach, but I do not take drugs and I consider myself
a bodybuilder.  Does that mean I fit into the sterotype you have portrayed?

-Rob
 
> 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.