Comments on: Bodybuilding Doesn’t Have Anything To Do With Fitness

By: Robert

Robert — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:50:40 +0000

35-years of practical experience??? really…sal i have to say your post are laughable…negativity…sounds like 35 years of tunnel vision:)))
first off it’s all bodybuilding buddy…impoving the body health fitness strength flexibility balance stability level whatever you want to call it… all of it relates to bodybuilding…
one thing is for certain sal…i would definitely not ever hire you as a personal trainer in my studio…way too much negativity dude…

it’s a new day…when you choose to see that way…

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:41:54 +0000

first of all the term “bodybuilding” is a broad term and can be reffered to anyone from the occasional lifter to pros like dennis wolf and dexter jackson. Besides “bodybuilding” is not strictly a method or philosophy of training but rather the act of building a well developed physique but not limited to. Many of the top bodybuilders of the 60’s and 70’s had won major competitions before they even knew steroids existed and some of them are even in pretty good shape still today. Sure, steroids play a major role in bodybuilding today but your assumptions on how depentant they were on steroids back in the 60’s and 70’s is grossly inaccurate. as far as performance and strength goes who is to say doing 800 pound squat one rep is more functional than doing 500 pound squat for 23 reps. Sure, bodybuilders can’t lift as much for 1 rep max as powerlifters but their lifts over many reps is often incredible as hell. take Franco columbu for instance. he has won every major bodybuilding and powerlifting event back in the days and also did well in WSM competing against guys much larger than him. he has deadlifted over 780 pounds at less than 190 pounds. and yes the man was a powerlifter before he became a bodybuilder. just because you have a muscular and defined body doesnt mean you can’t perform well other than on a stage. Having more lean muscle mass and less body fat is actually a good thing for your body. There’s enough scientific data to confirm this. And no, I do not equal today’s mass freaks with fitness or health at all. Just saying that having an impressive physique is more than just looks. It can actually be a play a major on your health and who said you can only train for muscular hypertrophy if you’re interested in building an impressive body? besides, why look up to some fat slob with a beer gut just because he can do an impressive clean and jerk when we know inside how unhealthy his body is. your points are out of context and therefore irrelevant.

By: Sal Marinello

Sal Marinello — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:17:09 +0000

I certainly am biased, which I don’t think is a bad thing. My bias is the result of 35-years of practical experience and over 20 years as a personal trainer and a strength coach, during which I tried and trained every way possible. There is a ton of research to back up my position. Furthermore, I’ve seen first hand how both elite athletes and regular Joes and Janes alike benefit from performance-based training while others who follow bodybuilding-style programs lag behind.

The goal of aesthetics is just another of the many myths created by bodybuilding, as properly performed ground-based compound movements will develop a person’s body to the highest degree. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with the occasional few sets of one-arm barbell curls. However, overwhelmingly, following a bodybuilding style routine is ineffective and inefficient.

By: guest @2

guest @2 — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:06:15 +0000

Sal, you bring up some very interesting points, and as a trainer, I can relate. However, your post, in all fairness, does seem quite biased. Personally, my training programme, whilst focusing on mainly performance and compound based exercises and movements, does implement some isolated movements to create some aesthetic and practical balance, without over-doing or spending too much time on these exercises (i.e. bicep curls), infact the time spent on these isolated exercises or fixators is limited.

The training programme also depends on the individuals needs and expectations. Some clients may be be just interested in aesthetic needs, whilst some may want a more practical programme, designed to aid them, in their sport or day to day life, whilst some prefer a balance of both.

By: Sal Marinello

Sal Marinello — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:00:16 +0000

Jesse
Thanks for taking the time to write.

If you check back to the other comments and my responses you will see that many of your comments have been addressed. However, there is, and has been, reams of scientific data – as well as anecdotal evidence – to support my position. Research published by the American College of Sports Medicine and the National Strength and Conditioning Association is boundless and the top professionals and academics have pushed the field forward to the point where body building is a distant sight in the rear view mirror. The influential figures in the field long ago debunked the myth of body building as a valid method of fitness and performance training, and the body building folks have done a great job of ignoring how the landscape around them has totally changed over the past 30 years.

Your comments about discipline and lowering body fat have nothing to do with fitness, improving performance or athletic ability. There is no correlation between lower body fat and any meaningful marker of performance or fitness. The obsession with low body fat was created by body building and is due in large part to the use of anabolic agents and other anti-healthy performance enhancing drugs. Humans cannot add/maintain muscle mass when body fat levels are too low, so the stories of body builders who “pack on slabs of muscle” while losing or maintaining ridiculously low body fat levels are due to the drug use.

Your point that body builders are the strongest is also way off base. Unless you consider leg extensions, leg curls and triceps push downs to be measures of strength.

By: Jesse

Jesse — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:18:33 +0000

just wanted to post some thoughts. I am surprised to see a blog, or article, or whatever you want to call it, that posts claims as this one does, without some sort of citation to real science whatsoever. who can really take this post seriously when they themselves cannot research the claims you make. To me you make as much “sense” as an ad for weight loss pills. this is directed toward the uneducated person who doesn’t think for themselves. I want to add that personally i think pro bodybuilders have some of the most knowledgeable subjects about nutrients and macro nutrients than any other athlete around. They have the most discipline to follow strict diet, they often cut from 17-18% body fat to around 3%-5% body fat in around 16 weeks. You have to remember that also, these people train for a living based on what will win them a competition, not on how they preform on a fitness test. During a competition, bodybuilders are at their weakest because they are dehydrated (no water shows more muscle tone). But during the off season, they are probably the strongest individuals that i can think of. This is just my opinion, i’m not a bodybuilder of any sort, nor do i aspire to be, so its not a bias. am just saying that people who are educated at all will look at this article and wonder why there are no citations… and since there are none, will take less credence to your claims. But maybe that is because you have none and this is all really is just a opinionated article, that has no business being in a fitness website, rather an opinion section.

By: sal m

sal m — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:11:01 +0000

matthew:
thanks for the comment. i would say that a client’s well-being is improved far greater by the sense of accomplishment that comes from being able to perform a feat formerly thought to be impossible
in my 20 years in the business i can say that people who have learned to do push-up and pull-ups, properly perform the hang clean, snatch and split jerk, can finish 10 60-yard shuttle runs in 15 seconds with 45 seconds of rest and other athletic, functionally sound activities feel better and are better off than anyone who completes a 8-15 rep set of an exercise or exercises.

and i’m not talking about athletes, i’m talking about men and women from the ages of 50-85 who came to me never having exercised in their lives.

By: Guest User

Guest User — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:09:51 +0000

You bring up some interesting points; although I feel you understate the potential benefits to a client’s mental well-being of increased lean muscular mass derived from resistance (to failure) exercises (within a rep range of 8 to 15 reps). Many bodybuilders, ok not many, but those who know their elbows from their ar@eholes, know all too well that the biceps are an overtrained element of the standard training regime (any back exercise that involves a pulling motion by implication involves bicep stress already). Every client comes in with different needs and the cardio-strength-flexibility ratio split should be tailored to their needs – although muscle hypertrophy, however minimal, will be supportive of metabolism… granted only to be added (to any wider extent), after a minimum level of cardiovascular fitness is achieved.

Best wishes,

Matthew Hamilton
Cape Town, South Africa

By: sal m

sal m — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:08:49 +0000

“My observation with the machines is that folks with very little body awareness and weaker muscles can use them as a means to isolate a muscle group, learn how it works, and strengthen it until they can move on to more difficult moves that you are in favor of, such as push ups, pull ups, etc. Your article just sounds angry and unbalanced.”

Thanks for taking the time to write, but your observations are incorrect and based on a lack of knowledge about the subject. Folks with little body awareness need to work without machines more than anyone. And there are more rudimentary exercises, that are done without the aid of machines, to work on before one gets to push-ups and pull-ups. Also, aerobics machines do not reduce impact or wear and tear.

No anger here, but it’s funny how bodybuilding devotees cannot recognize, and do not understand, the obvious flaws in the philosophy and call for “balance” when presented with plenty of examples.

By: Guest User

Guest User — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:08:07 +0000

Wow. This sounds a little like sour grapes to me. After years of avid running/cyling/aerobics/tennis, my knees and feet have endured several surgeries. At 49 (female) yrs old, I needed to revamp my fitness routine so I could still define myself as “fit”. I looked around at some body building websites, talked to some experts, and have rebuilt a fitness routine with lots of borrowed bodybuilding techniques, including dumb bells and machines. The whole drug/supplement thing never was enticing, I just wanted to look good in my clothes. This along with a “clean” diet has led to a new physique that I never could have gained with just my old running routine. I contine aerobics on – yes – a machine – so as to reduce impact. My observation with the machines is that folks with very little body awareness and weaker muscles can use them as a means to isolate a muscle group, learn how it works, and strengthen it until they can move on to more difficult moves that you are in favor of, such as push ups, pull ups, etc. Your article just sounds angry and unbalanced.Z