Ascent81’s BodyBlog

Last year I joined my first real gym — or rather "fitness club."  I’ve never needed one as I always had access to the gyms of the various universities I attended.  So I had no idea that getting a gym membership was like passing a serious of psychological tests.  I realize that fitness clubs today rely heavily on psychological warfare to get you to sign an outrageously expensive contract and, of course, to keep you at their club for the rest of your life.  I found all of this entertaining because the so-called ‘fitness tests’ and ‘analyses’ they give are obviously meant for people who’ve never worked out seriously  before.  The ultimate aim of such tests is to make you feel incredibly bad about your body, your level of health, and your eating habits.  At the same time they are supposed to show you a gleaming pathway beyond all of this misery: namely, their gym and all of its amazing facilities.  The more ‘problems’ they can identify, the more ’solutions’ they can offer you — all with a price tag.

I could go on and on, but I’ll leave you with one particularly funny scenario.  After a series of questions the girl finally gets me to do a ‘fat’ analysis by having an ‘electric current’ run through my body to detect body fat percentage.  It said I have 15% body fat. (I swear the thing is meant to give you a higher rating, just so you break down and ask for their help).  I told her I was surprised that it came up so high and she asked me if I was ‘happy’ about it.  I said I didn’t care about the percentage.  "As long as I can see an eight-pack in the mirror I’m happy."

What are "glory muscles"?

First thing’s first.  What’s up with dudes who only work chest and arms?  I was talking with this guy at the gym (after I had just finished a heavy squat workout), and he said he started doing leg workouts but then realized he was getting off track.  "I just want the ‘glory muscles’," he said, "chest and arms."  I couldn’t believe what I heard. It sounded as if he’d made a New Year’s resolution: "I’m not going to develop my entire body.  I’m just going to work those ‘glory muscles’."  My question is: Why?  Who are you fooling when you only have chest and arm development?  I think everyone responds visually to a proportioned physique.  Even if you only workout to be more physically attractive, you still have to work toward a balanced look.  

So the answer to my question "What are ‘glory muscles’?" is: "Every muscle — when it is developed in proportion with all other muscles."

So what does it mean to be a "natural" bodybuilder?  

You might think this is a simple question with a simple answer: "You’re natural if you don’t take illegal performance enhancing substances, like anabolic steroids."  So far so good.  Problems arise when we put too much emphasis on "illegal" in this definition.  I’ve heard lots of people say you’re natural insofar as your supplements are approved by state or federal laws.  But the problem I have with this definition is that it turns "natural" bodybuilding into something like "legal" bodybuilding.  

Imagine for the sake of argument that the federal laws of your country permitted the use of anabolic steroids.  On this definition, whatever is legal is good to go.  So you can happily stick that needle in your ass and call yourself a natural bodybuilder.  "No!" I hear you cry out. "That’s wrong."  And I agree.  Even if it were suddenly legal to take anabolic steroids, I would say taking them would put you outside the "natural" category.  

But now we’re back right where we started.  What is it that makes you a natural bodybuilder?  What is it about illegal performance enhancing substances that makes them "unnatural"?  You might think that they became illegal for a good reason, which is probably true: you could point out the negative side effects of steroids, the possibility of addiction, etc.  But what if (again, for the sake of argument) someone created an anabolic compound with no negative psychological or physiological side effects?  Would taking it still make you a "natural" bodybuilder?  "No!" I hear you say, "it wouldn’t."  And I agree.  

At the very least, you have to admit defining "natural" is not easy.

Any thoughts?

I’m sure you’ve heard this before.  Some guy in the gym proudly saying he’s “all natural” because he doesn’t use supplements, like whey power or creatine.  This is clearly a misuse of the term.  “Natural” bodybuilding refers to “drug-free” bodybuilding, and supplements like whey powder and creatine are obviously not drugs.  But why do we hear people talking like this?  Why do people insist they are “natural” when they’re not taking supplements?  I’m not sure it even makes sense, but I could be wrong.  Do they mean they don’t take any synthetic products?  So they would then be opposed to supplementing with vitamin C?  If so, they would not be allowed to eat any food products that contained preservatives or other synthetic ingredients.  But then what makes the non-synthetic foods they eat natural?  Is it natural to cook your foods?  Some cultures don’t think so, and animals (who are in a “state of nature”) don’t cook their food.  So they would have to go on a "raw food" diet…  You get my point.  It’s absurd and it doesn’t really make sense to call “supplements” like whey and creatine “non natural.”