Talk:Bodybuilding woo/Archive1
Article name[edit]
As this article is entirely about supplements, I propose a rename to "bodybuilding supplements" - technology such as toning tables and hand-held massagers can go under "bodybuilding devices", perhaps. Totnesmartin 07:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see the need for a rename. Maybe some extra redirects to get here but there may be scope for more general -non suppement orientated- stuff to expand it (I'm a skinny t**t so I probably can't comment too much).
theist 09:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
TENS/EMS[edit]
On doing a quick literature search, there does seem to be some evidence e.g. [1] that electrical muscle stimulation improves strength. Pseudomonas (talk) 12:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- This appears to be standard for bodybuilding woo: come up with something vaguely plausible based on something true, carefully neglect the step where you test if your idea actually works - David Gerard (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- FWIW TENS simply flexes the muscle. Bodybuilders do love to flex their muscles in front of mirrors, but if they could build them by flexing them, they wouldn't have to bother lifting all those weights. Sitting around zapping your muscles probably slows deterioration/atrophy compared to sitting around not zapping them, but lifting a roll of quarters once probably has a greater effect than zapping a bicep for many hours. FairDinkum (talk) 05:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Steroids[edit]
"On the illegal side, anabolic steroids and HGH are very effective, but have serious side effects"
This statement seems too vague. As far as I understand; 1. The side-effects of steroid use tend to be based in anecadotal evidence, 2. Most of the scientifically studied side-effects occur from taking steroids orally rather than injecting, 3. There are really very few side-effects that scientists will attribute directly to steroid use, rather than the lifestyle that often accompanies the (ab)use.
There is some weak evidence that liver / heart damage may occur and of course there are some less appealing but hardly 'serious' side effects such as bitch tits (Gynecomastia). All in all I wouldn't say the current statement is incorrect, but it is vague enough that -when combined with popular attitudes towards steroids- it gives the impression that taking steroids might be as or more dangerous to your health than say smoking or drinking alcohol, which it almost certainly isn't.
I'm not at all educated on HGH, perhaps someone else is?
If no objections are raised here then I will change it at some point in the future to be a little more specific. Tielec01 (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's been a while, but I just noticed this. 1. That's because there are no real studies on 'roids because they're a controlled substance. The same is also realistically true with meth 2. True, and a comment in the article about this could mention that the side effects (and effects) would be different 3. Again, that's also true with meth. It's an issue of "we need to do controlled studies where we don't have issues to deal with like 'what else is in this'?" but that raises ethical considerations since you'd be giving a possibly dangerous drug to someone to see what happens--Logic and Empricism (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)