Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Men'n'Women'n'Health'n'Popular Culture
Options
Replies
-
-
Oh, TMac, that was painful to see7
-
2
-
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »The ideal body of a woman has changed over your and my lifetime. The ideal body of a man hasn't changed in 5000 years.
Hmm, don't think I agree - I feel the body most men actually train for has changed massively in my lifetime (DOB 1960).
When I was young the (main) aspiration in gyms was to be big and strong - not big and very, very lean. Strength and size rather than aesthetics.
I simply don't remember the obsession with abs and muscle definition at all outside of what was a tiny niche of bodybuilders.
Eat / train / beer as opposed to supplement / train / sun bed perhaps?
I (b. 1955) see your point. I think that men being this lean/cut was not a mainstream thing in my younger years, even though there existed a niche "body builder" subculture where it was more valued. Being strong was valued, though.
I feel like the focus on being vs. doing is a contemporary neurosis across domains, instantiated in this case - as you say - by an increased emphasis on aesthetics vs. strength. It's tempting to presume that as our culture as a whole moves further toward mass spectator-hood (with a small performer class of athletes and whatnot whom we're supposed to watch and admire), perfecting appearance is elevated as a mass-market goal, and performance (relatively) deprecated.
3 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »The ideal body of a woman has changed over your and my lifetime. The ideal body of a man hasn't changed in 5000 years.
Hmm, don't think I agree - I feel the body most men actually train for has changed massively in my lifetime (DOB 1960).
When I was young the (main) aspiration in gyms was to be big and strong - not big and very, very lean. Strength and size rather than aesthetics.
I simply don't remember the obsession with abs and muscle definition at all outside of what was a tiny niche of bodybuilders.
Eat / train / beer as opposed to supplement / train / sun bed perhaps?
That sounds about right.
I think if anything, guys have become more body conscious and more concerned with showing off muscle rather than what the muscle can actually do for them.
And the abs obsession is definitely something that was not around 40 years ago. Men or women.
Not really borne out by these covers, but it seems like the pop-culture fitness norms for men have really become obsessed with a six-pack, whereas the mainstream women's magazines seemingly more often tout a "flat belly".
1 -
MaggieGirl135 wrote: »Oh, TMac, that was painful to see
Quoted for truth. That hurts.
Yeah, I pull that one out every so often when I start feeling complacent.0 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »The ideal body of a woman has changed over your and my lifetime. The ideal body of a man hasn't changed in 5000 years.
Hmm, don't think I agree - I feel the body most men actually train for has changed massively in my lifetime (DOB 1960).
When I was young the (main) aspiration in gyms was to be big and strong - not big and very, very lean. Strength and size rather than aesthetics.
I simply don't remember the obsession with abs and muscle definition at all outside of what was a tiny niche of bodybuilders.
Eat / train / beer as opposed to supplement / train / sun bed perhaps?
That sounds about right.
I think if anything, guys have become more body conscious and more concerned with showing off muscle rather than what the muscle can actually do for them.
And the abs obsession is definitely something that was not around 40 years ago. Men or women.
Not really borne out by these covers, but it seems like the pop-culture fitness norms for men have really become obsessed with a six-pack, whereas the mainstream women's magazines seemingly more often tout a "flat belly".
The desire for abs has increased in women too. JMO. I don't remember seeing 6-packs flouted in hollywood so much when I was a young adult. I think muscles, and the leaness required to show off those muscles, has become much more popular.
Remember when Terminator 2 came out and people were amazed by the large amount of muscle she was sporting? It wouldn't be so unusual today.
5 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »The ideal body of a woman has changed over your and my lifetime. The ideal body of a man hasn't changed in 5000 years.
Hmm, don't think I agree - I feel the body most men actually train for has changed massively in my lifetime (DOB 1960).
When I was young the (main) aspiration in gyms was to be big and strong - not big and very, very lean. Strength and size rather than aesthetics.
I simply don't remember the obsession with abs and muscle definition at all outside of what was a tiny niche of bodybuilders.
Eat / train / beer as opposed to supplement / train / sun bed perhaps?
That sounds about right.
I think if anything, guys have become more body conscious and more concerned with showing off muscle rather than what the muscle can actually do for them.
And the abs obsession is definitely something that was not around 40 years ago. Men or women.
Not really borne out by these covers, but it seems like the pop-culture fitness norms for men have really become obsessed with a six-pack, whereas the mainstream women's magazines seemingly more often tout a "flat belly".
The desire for abs has increased in women too. JMO. I don't remember seeing 6-packs flouted in hollywood so much when I was a young adult. I think muscles, and the leaness required to show off those muscles, has become much more popular.
Remember when Terminator 2 came out and people were amazed by the large amount of muscle she was sporting? It wouldn't be so unusual today.
Frankly, she mostly looks skinny to me, not truly muscular. I remember that cultural flurry, too, though, now that you mention it.
I agree about the desire for abs now in women, too - just commenting on my perception (possibly distorted by observer bias) of the relative frequency of the terms "flat belly" vs. "6 pack" on recent men's vs. women's fitness magazine covers. (I never actually open either. Life is short, and I'm already old. ) 1 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »The ideal body of a woman has changed over your and my lifetime. The ideal body of a man hasn't changed in 5000 years.
Hmm, don't think I agree - I feel the body most men actually train for has changed massively in my lifetime (DOB 1960).
When I was young the (main) aspiration in gyms was to be big and strong - not big and very, very lean. Strength and size rather than aesthetics.
I simply don't remember the obsession with abs and muscle definition at all outside of what was a tiny niche of bodybuilders.
Eat / train / beer as opposed to supplement / train / sun bed perhaps?
That sounds about right.
I think if anything, guys have become more body conscious and more concerned with showing off muscle rather than what the muscle can actually do for them.
And the abs obsession is definitely something that was not around 40 years ago. Men or women.
Not really borne out by these covers, but it seems like the pop-culture fitness norms for men have really become obsessed with a six-pack, whereas the mainstream women's magazines seemingly more often tout a "flat belly".
The desire for abs has increased in women too. JMO. I don't remember seeing 6-packs flouted in hollywood so much when I was a young adult. I think muscles, and the leaness required to show off those muscles, has become much more popular.
Remember when Terminator 2 came out and people were amazed by the large amount of muscle she was sporting? It wouldn't be so unusual today.
Frankly, she mostly looks skinny to me, not truly muscular. I remember that cultural flurry, too, though, now that you mention it.
I agree about the desire for abs now in women, too - just commenting on my perception (possibly distorted by observer bias) of the relative frequency of the terms "flat belly" vs. "6 pack" on recent men's vs. women's fitness magazine covers. (I never actually open either. Life is short, and I'm already old. )
Good point. Women will often call it a flat belly rather than a 6-pack. Often. More when we were younger I think.
And yeah... she does look skinny to me now but back then she was considered quite bulky. LOL1 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »The ideal body of a woman has changed over your and my lifetime. The ideal body of a man hasn't changed in 5000 years.
Hmm, don't think I agree - I feel the body most men actually train for has changed massively in my lifetime (DOB 1960).
When I was young the (main) aspiration in gyms was to be big and strong - not big and very, very lean. Strength and size rather than aesthetics.
I simply don't remember the obsession with abs and muscle definition at all outside of what was a tiny niche of bodybuilders.
Eat / train / beer as opposed to supplement / train / sun bed perhaps?
That sounds about right.
I think if anything, guys have become more body conscious and more concerned with showing off muscle rather than what the muscle can actually do for them.
And the abs obsession is definitely something that was not around 40 years ago. Men or women.
Not really borne out by these covers, but it seems like the pop-culture fitness norms for men have really become obsessed with a six-pack, whereas the mainstream women's magazines seemingly more often tout a "flat belly".
The desire for abs has increased in women too. JMO. I don't remember seeing 6-packs flouted in hollywood so much when I was a young adult. I think muscles, and the leaness required to show off those muscles, has become much more popular.
Remember when Terminator 2 came out and people were amazed by the large amount of muscle she was sporting? It wouldn't be so unusual today.
Frankly, she mostly looks skinny to me, not truly muscular. I remember that cultural flurry, too, though, now that you mention it.
I agree. When I saw that pic and the read the post I was confused. I don't remember thinking she was muscular back in the day. She just looked like she needed to eat a good meal.1 -
I think these magazines are one of the big reasons there are so many "I've been working out for two weeks and not seeing progress" posts and whatnot...the ladies one literally says, "your best body in weeks" giving the impression that all you have to do is pop into the gym for a few weeks and bam...you look like a fitness model.9
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »I think these magazines are one of the big reasons there are so many "I've been working out for two weeks and not seeing progress" posts and whatnot...the ladies one literally says, "your best body in weeks" giving the impression that all you have to do is pop into the gym for a few weeks and bam...you look like a fitness model.
Not to mention workouts with names like “30 day shred”, “6 weeks to a flat tummy”, etc.
That’s not how any of this works.7 -
How 'bout Thin Thighs in 30 Days?0
-
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »The ideal body of a woman has changed over your and my lifetime. The ideal body of a man hasn't changed in 5000 years.
Hmm, don't think I agree - I feel the body most men actually train for has changed massively in my lifetime (DOB 1960).
When I was young the (main) aspiration in gyms was to be big and strong - not big and very, very lean. Strength and size rather than aesthetics.
I simply don't remember the obsession with abs and muscle definition at all outside of what was a tiny niche of bodybuilders.
Eat / train / beer as opposed to supplement / train / sun bed perhaps?
That sounds about right.
I think if anything, guys have become more body conscious and more concerned with showing off muscle rather than what the muscle can actually do for them.
And the abs obsession is definitely something that was not around 40 years ago. Men or women.
Not really borne out by these covers, but it seems like the pop-culture fitness norms for men have really become obsessed with a six-pack, whereas the mainstream women's magazines seemingly more often tout a "flat belly".
The desire for abs has increased in women too. JMO. I don't remember seeing 6-packs flouted in hollywood so much when I was a young adult. I think muscles, and the leaness required to show off those muscles, has become much more popular.
Remember when Terminator 2 came out and people were amazed by the large amount of muscle she was sporting? It wouldn't be so unusual today.
I remember thinking Linda Hamilton was the coolest woman ever (with her muscularity) in 1992. I was 12.
I happened to see a picture of her from 1992 recently....Now, I realize that she was LEAN af. Personally, I think that she was really under-muscled for my personal taste. Interesting how MY perspective has changed.4 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »I think these magazines are one of the big reasons there are so many "I've been working out for two weeks and not seeing progress" posts and whatnot...the ladies one literally says, "your best body in weeks" giving the impression that all you have to do is pop into the gym for a few weeks and bam...you look like a fitness model.
Not to mention workouts with names like “30 day shred”, “6 weeks to a flat tummy”, etc.
That’s not how any of this works.
...but admittedly no one would purchase is if marketed as "720 day abs", "3 years to a lean physique", etc. The masses want the lie.8 -
Things have progressed somewhat over the last few years for both men and women and the way they workout for their body the way I see it. It used to be, and for some still is, that men were very upper body dominant, particularly chest (pecticles), arms (guns), and shoulders (boulders) and tended to neglect the back and legs a lot. Women tended to work the legs and glutes, and rarely if ever squatted. Now, you see a lot more all over work for everyone. There is still more of a lower body bias for women and upper for men it seems but you see a lot more women doing benching and back work and men even doing barbell hip thrusts now to work the glutes. And women are now deadlifting and squatting a lot more.
Both men and women seem to be going for a lean and athletic look now but in somewhat different ways, but I think they ideals you see on those covers is far more similar than they have been in the past.1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »I think these magazines are one of the big reasons there are so many "I've been working out for two weeks and not seeing progress" posts and whatnot...the ladies one literally says, "your best body in weeks" giving the impression that all you have to do is pop into the gym for a few weeks and bam...you look like a fitness model.
Not to mention workouts with names like “30 day shred”, “6 weeks to a flat tummy”, etc.
That’s not how any of this works.
...but admittedly no one would purchase is if marketed as "720 day abs", "3 years to a lean physique", etc. The masses want the lie.
30 days to 30 pullups for example. Chapter one includes the caveat that nobody has every completed the program as written.4 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »I think these magazines are one of the big reasons there are so many "I've been working out for two weeks and not seeing progress" posts and whatnot...the ladies one literally says, "your best body in weeks" giving the impression that all you have to do is pop into the gym for a few weeks and bam...you look like a fitness model.
Not to mention workouts with names like “30 day shred”, “6 weeks to a flat tummy”, etc.
That’s not how any of this works.
...but admittedly no one would purchase is if marketed as "720 day abs", "3 years to a lean physique", etc. The masses want the lie.
I'm on like day 1,975 of "all of eternity fitness body"11 -
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 392 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 929 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions