An interesting thread came up in the blog section of our Venus Index community forum. It was about the pursuit of a better looking body via exercise.
One of the points brought up was about working out for improving the overall look of your body vs the look your body will develop as a side effect of playing a sport or doing physical activity that is not for the sole purpose of improving the look/shape of your body.
This was an interesting point to me because for at least some people there seems to be a fundamental disconnect between the concept of exercise, and activity and what it does to your body.
To be clear, everything you do from an activity/exercise stand point has an effect on the look of your body. The amount of food you choose to eat also has a big effect on the look of your body.
If you choose to ignore both items and let it just sorta happen to you then you will end up with a body shape and size that you didn’t necessarily consciously choose. This could turn out nicely for you but it could also go in a direction you’re not happy with at all.
Even if you take an active role in trying to form/shape your body if you choose to do an imbalanced workout you’ll end p with an imbalanced physique (picture a cycling with big legs and small upper body, or a swimmer or rower with disproportionately shaped shoulders or lats compared to the rest of their body)
Whether your like it or not, your body is a reflection of the physical activity you choose to partake in (or not partake in) and the amount of food you choose to eat.
Taking an active role in changing the look and shape of your body should be viewed as crafting a work of art rather than a shallow pursuit of vanity.
Working on your body to get it into it’s best shape is rooted in the same social and psychological desire to wear nice looking clothes, and to wash and style your hair, and to live in a clean house etc.
The only difference is buying clothes is easy, building a great looking body takes effort, but once you got the body you can make just about any outfit look good!
John
|
|||||||||||||||||||||

April 25th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
The more I workout in gyms, the more I realize 99.9% of people train for appearance, even so called “athletic-minded” trainees.
With that said, I think sports-related activities in general are useful IF YOU ENJOY THEM.
April 27th, 2011 at 8:52 am
Exercise for sport and exercise for vanity can totally be complimentary! I always shied away from doing much shoulder work because, cue female cliche, I “didnt want to look like a linebacker”. Turned out, according to the Venus Index, I needed more inches in my shoulders. Working out for ‘vanity’ helped my boxing, which I just do for fun.
Vice-versa happened with my waist. I needed more inches on my waist, but I *hated* ab work. Boxers workout for ‘sport’ got me the inches and definition I wanted for vanity.
Both changes took conscious effort, though.
April 27th, 2011 at 11:00 am
John,
You and Brad brought up a couple of interesting points in the “training for shape” Venus podcast–the fact that VI/AI is different from contest conditioning.
1. Do you really think drugs are really necessary to get the striated look, ripped legs, etc. or is it just that drugs allow people to get past the point where it becomes exponentially more difficult? (aside from the diuretic/dehydrated stage)
2. Does muscle loss actually occur at that point or is it just the fact you look much smaller in clothes? Because I would think being that lean would give you the illusion of more size.
3. Is it not even worth asking because the effort it takes and the fact that being defined is a more sustainable and appealing look to the average person.
April 27th, 2011 at 2:24 pm
Nice post John,
I think you made several great points. The first being that our bodies are always reflecting to some degree how well we take care of them. Physical exercise is simply adding an element of intention to the process.
Looking at it as an artist or sculptor crafting a work of art, as opposed to a shallow pursuit of vanity was another great point–as was the recognition that it is no different socially or psychologically than wanting an attractive hair do, wardrobe or home. Some things are just easier to attain than others, and people’s ideas of what is beautiful also differs. But those differences are the great thing in my opinion.
April 27th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
Jason,
To answer your points in order:
1) No drugs are not necessary, I know of natural bodybuilders who get super shredded without drugs…they might be somewhat genetically predisposed for getting really lean, but nonetheless it’s possible without drugs (although perhaps not common).
2) No such thing as muscle ‘loss’ per se. More accurate to say muscle ‘deflation’ or muscle atrophy. Gotta get the idea of ‘gain’ vs ‘loss’ out of your vernacular.
3) Being lean always looks better than being bulky.
April 27th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
Abbie girl,
Your proportions and figure are awesome!
April 27th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
John–thanks for your answers. Hm, guess the only way to find out is to find that point of being as lean as possible without “ruining” your life or detracting from your look. Not that it’s easy to get there.
Right, muscle hypertrophy/atrophy or inflation/deflation is the way to look at it . . . I suppose it would be the similar for fat cells within a certain range.
May 14th, 2011 at 1:41 pm
[...] few people have challenged me with the idea that bodybuilding is a vain sport, and others have suggested I’m vain for working towards a bodybuilding show. I can’t [...]