Clayton South - Bodybuilding Answers It's Critics!

[webmaster]

From this publication it is clear that bodybuilding and fitness are done by millions around the world, not because of whimsical desire - but because bodybuilding and fitness are activities done as an affirmation that life is the highest value and standard. Learn why...

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/south47.htm

HOW TO REVIEW: Post Your Review Of This Article - CLICK ON POST REPLY BELOW! You do NOT need to be a registered member to post a reply in this section!

doesn't really answer criticisms of narcissm..anyways are you sure bodybuilders have the most respect for their lives? when they pump their bodies full of drugs and steroids and meat - is that really respect for life? just a thought

[omariok2]

Originally posted by xsendohx
doesn't really answer criticisms of narcissm..anyways are you sure bodybuilders have the most respect for their lives? when they pump their bodies full of drugs and steroids and meat - is that really respect for life? just a thought

bump
not really up to claytons usual standards i have to say

[EricS]

Is he trying to say that HE is the one that figured out that people are now exercising in record numbers to imrpove their health??

Thats a rather bold statement. I'm pretty sure that was a collective discovery of 100's of researchers across the world...

Clayton,

I thoroughly enjoyed your article on bb.com today. I didn't totally agree with it, but that's ok. I'm also not spending considerable effort in this reply, because really, it doesn't matter that much. I just wanted to mention that "life" as the highest value of objective moral standard is a little overstated. Your thoughts would be more correctly express using "happiness" as the value all men seek. Not that I think your ideas were wrong, but that "life" should be restated or explained making more clear what the word "life" in your idea means.

"All men seek happiness. This is without exception. Whatever different means they employ, they all tend to this end. The cause of some going to war, and of others avoiding it, is the same desire in both, attended with different views. This is the motive of every action of every man, even of those who hang themselves." --Blaise Pascal

I like the word "life" as an expression of all things good. It is the same "life" that Jesus himself said he came to give (John 10:10). But clearly he was not talking about survial, or even prosperity. God even commands us to seek our own happiness. (email me if you want futher explaination on that one)

"It follows logically that quality of life - health - is the next concern after mere existence." This is not exactly true either, when speaking of moral value. It should be clear that enjoyment of life (quality) does not depend on physical health. Health is not the measure by which people should assess the quality of their lives. People age (or die). Health fades. Quality of life doesn't have to.

"From this publication it is clear that bodybuilding and fitness are done by millions around the world, not because of whimsical desire - but because bodybuilding and fitness are activities done as an affirmation that life is the highest value and standard."
You know as well as I do that not all exercisers, especially body builders, work out with moral value in mind. Moral value is determined by the attitudes with which the action is done. The action alone has no moral value in and of itself. Certainly, not all lifting is done in the name of health or well being, but much of it is done out of selfishness, pride, greed, and envy (without even considering all of the steriod abuse and negitive aspects involved in the focal point of the body building circle).

Think through it some more and rewrite your article. You've done well so far. You just need some more time and effort with it.

Carl

[Clayton South]

To all:

This article was about values - ethics. This article was not written to say "I work out because its good for me." It should be clear to anyone with any knowledge of psychology and philosophy that there is a MORAL justification for bodybuilding, and by contrast a moral IMPLICATION of guilt for those who do NOT workout. Hence the statement that at the end of the article those who do not workout will be the ones under fire (for professing that life is important to them, but for being lazy and poisining themselves with improper and unhealthy food).

Its not my concern wether a few misunderstand what i write - I write for those with the ability to see the forest AND the trees - not for those with a "bottom line" anti-intelectual mentality.

Perhaps the relationship between philosophy and psychology is too an evolved subject for some to grasp in its totality - as has been demonstrated by the criticisms present here.

Thank you for your opinions - regardless of their misguided nature and incorrect conclusions.

- Clayton South

[clearsnake]

Originally posted by Clayton South
Its not my concern wether a few misunderstand what i write - I write for those with the ability to see the forest AND the trees - not for those with a "bottom line" anti-intelectual mentality.

Anti-intellectual? The only thing these people are doing wrong is assuming that you're stating facts. Any article that talks about philosophy contains nothing but opinions unless stated otherwise. Probably the only place where any statement is a fact, unless stated otherwise, is a courtroom (e.g. "It is my opinion that..."). Outside of the courtroom, any and all statements made by a person in speech or in print, unless otherwise noted (e.g. "In fact, ..."), are opinions, and of course, everyone is entitled to an opinion. That doesn't take into account people's abuse of the words "fact" and "opinion," but that discussion is beyond the scope of this mere post. Oh, by the way, this statement is an opinion.

Originally posted by Clayton South
Perhaps the relationship between philosophy and psychology is too an evolved subject for some to grasp in its totality - as has been demonstrated by the criticisms present here.

Thank you for your opinions - regardless of their misguided nature and incorrect conclusions.

Talk about arrogance...

I sure hope you're not implying that you have a total grasp on philosophy and psychology. If you are then you are a fool. Nobody has a total grasp on any subject relating to human emotion. If not then I couldn't imagine why you wrote that statement other than for the sake of being arrogant.

And one more thing: my response to your article is speak for yourself.

[Clayton South]

I wrote about your type in the article - ie. Those with an anti-conceptual mind who believe that all reality is simply "interpretation" or "opinion."

Philosophy is a matter of life and death because all that we do every day is our highest values in action (eating, sleeping, etc).

I propose a test to see the objectivty of reality. This test will PROVE beyond doubt as to wether or not philosophical matters are just, as you incorrectly and ignoranty claim, mere "opinion."

If all matters are simply "opinion" then the total value of your life is arbitrary - ie. valuable to you, and worthless to some others.

Let us test the value of your life to you, while at the same time testing wether reality is simply interpretation, or if it is REAL for ALL PEOPLE.

We will get a group of 10 people (randomly selected) from the population and will have them observe you standing in front of a car traveling at a velocity of 300 miles per hour. The question will be:

In a direct collision, will you die, or will you not? Will it simply be "opinion" that a car is moving toward you, or not? Will it simply be opinion that you will die, or not?

If the car is mere "opinion" then no harm should come to you. If it is a FACT, then, travelling at that velocity, you will be killed. However, if you are so convinced that philosophy (and by metaphysical extension) reality is opinion, test your claim - STAND THERE as the car is coming toward you, confident that everything is a simple "figment" of your imagination - whatever a "figment" is.

If you believe that philosophical matters are a matter of opinion and not an OBJECTIVE FACT, then put your highest value on the line - YOUR LIFE. Test your claim.

If, in this situation you act to save your life then you admit your moral cowardice by betraying your own words, and you prove yourself a liar by claiming that philosophy is a matter of opinion. In saving your life you ADMIT that life is your highest value and that, as such, philosophy applies equally to all, and so does reality.

IF reality is demonstrated to be objective by this test (which it would be) then in philosophical matters, opinion is not possible. Empiricism will prove the case.

Your anticonceptual mentality betrays you - the sad part is that you do not grasp the full conclusions of your ideas, yet you profess them as though you do. THAT is the mark of a TRUE fool.

- Clayton South

[clearsnake]

You can kill me in your dreams all you want, but can you clearly state whether or not you believe that philosophy is fact? A simple yes or no would do.

[Clayton South]

clearsnake:

You are revising your question. For those reading this conversation between us, I will re-post what your original claim was:

You wrote:

"Any article that talks about philosophy contains nothing but opinions unless stated otherwise."

I responded to, and shall continue to respond to, this statement, and not a revision of it. Your attempt to revise your original claim to one that suits you better is philosophically sleazy.

You also failed to address the test that i proposed in my response to your posting.

Shall we commence the test, or not? Yes or no?

Either way you answer, you are trapped. If you say "yes" to the test and jump out of the way to save your life, you betray your notion that metaphysics (a branch of philosophy) is arbitrary and simple opinion.

If you say "no" to the test, you proclaim the same. Either way, you betray yourself as a liar (or, at the very least, ignorant of reality and your own ideas) and your ideas as false. If you say yes to the test, you prove yourself a fool and your ideas false.

Metaphysics - a branch of philosophy - studies the nature of reality. Philosophy gave rise to the scientific method - the method by which determinations on the nature of reality are made. In this sense, philosophy allows us to know how we may know the nature of reality.

The FACT that philosphy exists means that IT EXISTS - ie. IS A FACT. If it were mere opinion, philosophy would both exist and not exist at the same time - a total impossibility.

Philosophy's existence is a FACT - IT DOES EXIST. For something to exist it must exist in a certain form - ie. One form and no other. MEANING, philosophy must have a certain nature that is defined and finite - not ambiguous or infinite like mere OPINION.

So, to answer your revised question as a second part of this posting, YES, philosophy, in and of itself, exists and also alows us to determine the factual reality of the universe through the study of metaphysics.

This you can not rationally deny. To deny it would be to deny your own existence.

When are you going to answer my original posting to yours? Or, should you choose to avoid it forever (believing, like a child, that if you ignore it it doesnt exist?)

- Clayton South

[clearsnake]

As tempted as I am to make condescending statements about you similar to the ones that you have about me, I will not go that route. You are obviously intelligent; so, I won't try to belittle you.

Sifting through the condescension and your hypothetical situation about me facing death by a car (because I believe that that adds nothing but dead weight to your words), I see why you contested my original post.

I wrote, "Any article that talks about philosophy contains nothing but opinions unless stated otherwise." I meant, "Any article that makes philosophical statements contains nothing but opinions unless stated otherwise." And of course, everyone is entitled to an opinion, as I stated before.

Also, when I wrote, "...can you clearly state whether or not you believe that philosophy is fact..." I meant to write, "...can you clearly state whether or not you believe that philosophical statements are fact

I ask you to respond, if you were so inclined, to what I meant to write and not what I actually wrote. I am human--I mistakes.

And keep in mind that I posted my original message to remind you that everyone has their own ideas about philosophy and bodybuilding. Your reply to the above posters about having "incorrect conclusions" implies that there is a correct answer. I won't waste both of our time contesting that statement logically, but at the very least, it's rude and it tends to leave people with a bad impression of bodybuilding.com's writers (whether or not you speak for the site).

[Clayton South]

Clearsnake,

I suppose that we had a misunderstanding based on terms. Ok, here is my response to what you clarified.

You wrote:

"Any article that makes philosophical statements contains nothing but opinions unless stated otherwise."

The disctinction that I would make here is: People have many opinions, I would certainly grant that. Wether those opinions or views are correct is a totally different matter. While people may have opinions about certain things, philosophy helps to determine exactly what those things ACTUALLY ARE. It gives us the means to determine truth or error in reasoning or perception.

So yes, I agree with you that PEOPLE have opinions, but philosophy, by its nature, is what it is - ie. defined, definate, and of a certain nature to the exclusion of all others. It is, put another way, finite.

People can interpret or percieve things in different ways, but it is only when something is examined that the TRUTH can be found - ie. the correctness or the incorrectness of any statement. When viewed from a distance a certain object may appear as something it is not. Philosophy gives us answers to the question: How is it that we can know its TRUE nature?

You wrote:

"...can you clearly state whether or not you believe that philosophical statements are fact"

I believe that philosophical statements are fact, but that opinions are not. Here is the distinction. Philosophy allows us to arrive at FACTS as they are, whereas opinions are statements about what we BELIEVE something is or MAY be. A beliefe about a thing does not tell us that things actual nature. Beliefs can be terribly mistaken.

This may seem like an outlandish statement considering the development of philosophy in past years (as well as the publics notion that philosophy is wishy-washy and not really applicable to every day life), but the true nature of philosophy, is logic - the art of non-contradictory idenfication.

On the topic of wether i speak for bodybuilding.com - no, I do not. If you are offended by what I wrote, then i extend my appologies to you in sincerity.

- Clayton South

[clearsnake]

Well, I do largely agree with the comments you made about philosophy in your last post; although, I must say that I still do not agree with your writings and views entirely.

Still, I don't want to get any further into this conversation because we would be going way off topic if we did. Considering that this is a bodybuilding forum, I doubt anyone would want to read it all anyway.

And I'm glad that we could come to a quick and peaceful resolution on this matter!

[Taking Cattle]

I thought this article was really silly. Was this a hard hitting issue that needed to be addressed? Maybe I don't understand because I can't bench press a car, but it seemed like Clayton just wanted to share some ideas about life.

Besides which, I haven't ever heard anyone criticising weightlifting. All I've ever heard is criticism of all the steroid abuse in bodybuilding. I'd like to see this criticism defended.

It should be clear to anyone with any knowledge of psychology and philosophy that there is a MORAL justification for bodybuilding, and by contrast a moral IMPLICATION of guilt for those who do NOT workout.

I don't know about this... I know people who are too busy putting themselves through college or trying to support a family to even think about something as decadent as spending large portions of their day lifting things then putting them down again.

This is a weird article. I think a chick was the impetus for this, in some way, shape, or form.

[Clayton South]

In response to Taking Cattles posting I say this: A woman (I dont use the word "chick" because I view women as adults, equal in worth and mentality to myself; chick is a word that describes a GIRL, not a woman) was not the motivation for writing this article. Its obvious to me that you are not framiliar with my writings, or the frame of reference from which i write (Which has to do with my College and University education). I suggest that you check out what other things I have written. Your belief is somewhat premature and can be easily shown false against the facts (the facts being my other writings). I write because I love it and i love bodybuilding. I don't write for a reason so shallow as to gain female attention (especially when I've been in a relationship for 2 years; a year of that which has been an engagement).

Now, I am somewhat surprised that many people have, apparently, misunderstood the article. But, I know that subconciously many of you DO get it, and that is why it makes you feel uneasy. Thats the POINT! The only reason why it makes people feel uneasy is because the moral implications speak something that the reader actually GETS, even if they do not conciously get it. So, that aside, let me clarify the point of the article by asking a general question to generate discussion (civilized, please).

Question: Does anyone believe that being lazy and letting your body degenerate is a moral wrong?

I'd be interested to hear the answers.

Discussion is always good - it leads to a sharing of perspectives and ideas. But lets try to keep things clean.

- Clayton South

I realy rather enjoyed this latest article. Ive been reading the writings of Clayton South for some time, and I must say that it is my opinion that he has raised the standard of articles for Bodybuilding.com. Congradulations Clayton on another job well done! For those individuals that have nothing better to do than throw stones, I challenge you to write anything that can even compare to the talent of this impressive writer!
signed-One of Clayton's admirers.

[Taking Cattle]

Firstly, I apologize for the abrasiveness of my initial post. At the time, I honestly thought I had managed to be pithy, if some what base, on the run out the door.

Originally posted by Clayton South
In response to Taking Cattles posting I say this: A woman (I dont use the word "chick" because I view women as adults, equal in worth and mentality to myself; chick is a word that describes a GIRL, not a woman) was not the motivation for writing this article.

A chick is slang for a female. I was not aware that the formal style of academia were requried on these boards.

Its obvious to me that you are not framiliar with my writings, or the frame of reference from which i write (Which has to do with my College and University education). I suggest that you check out what other things I have written. Your belief is somewhat premature and can be easily shown false against the facts (the facts being my other writings). I write because I love it and i love bodybuilding. I don't write for a reason so shallow as to gain female attention (especially when I've been in a relationship for 2 years; a year of that which has been an engagement).

Clarification is needed here. I didn't mean you wrote, in general,because of a female, I meant you wrote that article because of a female. I also did not mean that you wrote this article to impress a female. My intuition about this article was that you were at the gym/bar/home/wherever/doing whatever and you saw some kind of male/female social interaction that was just common enough for you to understand, while at the same time odd enough to make you reflect about yourself. (Or some similarly stimulating scenario involving a female and introspection.) Thusly, you began to articulate to yourself how a great many people, including the guy you just witnessed saying whatever, about what kind of advantages bodybuilding can give a person.

Why did I think this? I don't know. The article just really struck me as silly, given that weightlifting is probably the most popular fitness past time in America right now and really doesn't seem to require the arguments you put forth. In the back of my head was the intuitive gamble, "Bodybuilding increased his confidence, self-respect, appearance -- his ability to lay chicks went up -- he saw this loser today and it inspired him to write a column about bodybuilding."

Question: Does anyone believe that being lazy and letting your body degenerate is a moral wrong?

Let me share my intensely personal viewpoint with you. You sound like someone who is out of touch with some people. There are many people who, for whatever reason, cannot accomplish what you have accomplished and to diminish them for their out of shape body is either egocentric or megalomaniacal.

My father was an alcoholic and my mother suffered from a bi-polar disorder. I, myself, have spent much of my life obese and depressed. Even though I am now confident, good-looking, athletic, and laying hot chicks, I have found the hardest thing in my life to be motivation. I first picked up a barbell five years ago. I first joined martial arts four years ago.

Some things to know: I have recently let myself become fifty pounds overweight due to stress in my life that I could not cope with but that others would probably shrug off. (I have ten pounds left to lose.)

I am barely stronger in the weight room than I was five years ago. I'm am not half the martial artist that I could be, four years later. It's not stable. Some years I'm a hardworking gym rat who can bench a great deal or I'm a dedicated student who's flying through the rankings. Others I seem to have to start over again.

I am only now reaching the stage where I actually feel that, yes, I can craft a mighty body for myself. Yes, I can compete in martial arts. I only now feel that I'm able to shape a happy life for myself.

Still, I lapse. Last week I was so upset because my day fell apart and I accomplished absolutely nothing that I got a terrible migraine and spent the night lying in my dark room. I didn't go to the gym that day, I didn't go to boxing, I didn't go to Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu... and there was a time not long ago that I would have many days strung together like this, into weeks or months. If you would have told me last week that I was committing a moral wrong I would have kicked the **** out of you. The last thing I would want to hear in that situation is that I had f ucked-up in some ultimate way.

If your piece had taken a less hamfisted approach and gently stressed that we had a personal obligation to succeed rather than exhort the moral wrong of failure, it would have found a much greater impact on people like me who, as the people who find it hard to get into the gyms, are probably the people you want to esteem bodybuilding to.

[Clayton South]

Ok, let me include here my comments.

You Wrote:

"The article just really struck me as silly, given that weightlifting is probably the most popular fitness past time in America right ?now and really doesn't seem to require the arguments you put forth. In the back of my head was the intuitive gamble, "Bodybuilding increased his confidence, self-respect, appearance -- his ability to lay chicks went up -- he saw this loser today and it inspired him to write a column about bodybuilding"

I think it would be helpfull to clarify terms here. A distinction needs to be made between "fitness" and "athletics" and "bodybuilding." Certainly bodybuilding is an athletic endeavor, and so too is ballete. Unfortunatley the public tends to view ballete in a more favorable light because it is less extreme.

Flex magazine, for example, has been putting Gunter on their covers. Why? To market bodybuilding in a more tolerable light to the public. IF the public embraced hardcore bodybuilding, this appeasment would not be neccessary.

"Athletics" and working out to "get in shape" IS viewed as a good thing by the public. Look at Dave Palumbo. Are you telling me that the public accepts how he looks? This is what i am talking about when i talk about "bodybuilding." Getting HUGE - so big that people are afraid of you. Working out to BUILD (not just sculpt) the best body that you can. Granted that, even for me, Dave Palumbo is extreme and I would not want to look like him, but the point is clear: Bodybuilding is not the same as "working out" or engaging in athletics. Bodybuilding is a LIFESTYLE, whereas the other things are means to an end - ie. working out and doing fitness for sports, or some other thing.

Bodybuilding is more than that - which is not to call into question the validity of those other things - merely to discriminate for purposes of clarity.

The public accepts the pretty boys on the covers of GQ and Mens Health. They DO NOT accept Ronnie Coleman, Gunter, Markus Ruhl or Lee Priest. To them those images are disturbing and they DO dismiss the men (and those like them) as psychological oddities.

That is why this article was written - as a rebuke. A classic case was a story told by Lee Priest. He said that he was at a show once and, after the show, a big, 400lb guy (who Lee said never worked out in his life) came up to him and said "lee, you needed more calves." Thats like Richard Simmons telling someone that they need to be more of a man. Give me a break.

Thats how the public is - they dont accept our lifestyle. The sooner we face it and defend it, the better.

You wrote:

"Let me share my intensely personal viewpoint with you. You sound like someone who is out of touch with some people. There are many people who, for whatever reason, cannot accomplish what you have accomplished and to diminish them for their out of shape body is either egocentric or megalomaniacal."

It should be noted that, as i tried to point out, Ethics (a system of values from which moral conclusions are derived) is OBJECTIVE. Regardless of what I, personally, think, ETHICS is objective BECAUSE it depends on metaphysics - and metaphysics relies on reality, which is independant of all of us. It IS what it is, regardless of personal wishes.

I do not look down on anyone - and my article "Are you a healthy bodybuilder?" should prove that. I encourage you to read it. It is not I who looks down on anyone. If people feel GUILTY for anything, it is because they have violated an independant rule of ethics. Cognative dissonance results from the interaction of UNLIKE or CONFLICTING concepts or ideas. If someone feels guilty it is because they know they SHOULD be doing something (to stay true to their values) but that they are NOT doing it. Ethics makes judegments on people, I do not. The judgements of ethics are not arbitrary nor open to change.

You wrote:

"My father was an alcoholic and my mother suffered from a bi-polar disorder. I, myself, have spent much of my life obese and depressed. Even though I am now confident, good-looking, athletic, and laying hot chicks, I have found the hardest thing in my life to be motivation. I first picked up a barbell five years ago. I first joined martial arts four years ago. "

It sounds to me like you are a success. You are active and you have overcome the obstacles that face you. Aside from the womanizing bit (which is a compensatory action), I would say that you have done great. You should congratulate yourself. You have stuck with things, no matter how tough they are.

What you describe has a biological basis. Ethics has to do with personal actions, not neurology. Ethics is a system of values based on concepts. Every person (i dont care who they are) goes through times when things are difficult, this is to be an expected part of life. Some of us deal with them better than others. The point is that, hopefully, we have a good support network that helps us deal with things.

It seems, to me, that, somewhere, religion has played an influence in your life. This article has nothing to do with persons who TRY, but who dont live up to Ronnie Colemans standard. Hell, I do not live up to that. Thats OK, because i do MY best. Ethics is about LIVING FOR JOY, and doing the best that you can do. Look at athletes in wheelchairs. Man, now THAT takes commitment and a desire for joy.

My original question was: "Does anyone think that BEING LAZY and LETTING your body decay is a moral wrong?"

The answer is YES IT IS. If a man has no legs and instead goes for a walk around the block by wheeling his chair around, then he is doing HIS best, and therefore his action is EQUAL in morality to mine where i go to the gym, or yours where, even in a bad state, you might walk (or at the very least watch your diet and keep it clean). ETHICS IS OBJECTIVE because nature and reality (metaphysics) is objective.

I will explain something now that I think needs clarification.

Ethics is based on metaphysics. Metaphysics is the study of the universe, and two options are available: Mysticism or science.

Mysticism gives rise to the notion of DUALISM - ie. man is a soul inside of a physical body. Science gives rise to monoism - ie. Man IS his body.

Depending upon which of these two you decide to believe, two standards are possible.

1. The standard of ultimate reality beyond the grave and the soul as the ultimate value (a spiritual view)

or

2. Life on earth as the ultimate standard, and ultimate reality as that which can be observed by the senses.

Those are the two choices. Those are the only choices, at a fundamental level, open to a person. Either the universe is ruled by spirits, demons and an eternal diety, or it is ruled by physical laws, to which humans are subject.

Most people choose to believe that the world is ruled by a diety and that ultimate answers will be given beyond the grave in some other "non-reality" based world.

I do not.

THIS is why this article has bothered so many people. Because, on a fundamental level, it clashes with what they WANT to believe - ie. Something that can not be proven or disproven using human reason. It clashes with their metaphysical beliefs and cultural conditioning.

Should people be judged? Yes. According to an OBJECTIVE standard, which is human life.

This standard is objective BECAUSE it does not play favorites and because it applies to each person according to thier ABILITY and their ACTIONS. Basically, its about the difference between POTENTIAL ACTION and ACTUAL action. With respect to actions taken to sustain life, this is how morality is determined. If each person does his or her best, then the action is GOOD. If someone sits around and is lazy, then no, that action is NOT good.

It is a system of values that is about mans POTENTIAL for greatness, unlike the other system (which most religions use) that states that man must be saved from himself and that he is terrible. The only way religion of any kind can get you is by convincing you that your evil. No system of thought could be more evil than that! No philosophy is more evil than the one that tells a man to reject the world, and that by putting food in his mouth he is commiting a "sinful" act. Nothing is more evil than convincing a man that his life is worthless, and then condemning him for trying to sustain it - which is his natural inclination.

This means, basically, that with one system you live for JOY because you are achieving your potential - you are great and you know it. And in the other system you run - run from fear, and the belief that you are bad. With one system you cherish your life and make it the BEST, with the other you spend it running from fear and the ideas in your own mind that you cant make sense of.

The choice is up to each of us. I choose the first, and THAT is what this article was about.

Any reply that you have I'd be interested in hearing.

- Clayton

[Taking Cattle]

Originally posted by Clayton South
"Athletics" and working out to "get in shape" IS viewed as a good thing by the public. Look at Dave Palumbo. Are you telling me that the public accepts how he looks? This is what i am talking about when i talk about "bodybuilding." Getting HUGE - so big that people are afraid of you. Working out to BUILD (not just sculpt) the best body that you can.

If everyone reading your article was capable of getting big enough to be faced with those fears, there would be no bodybuilding league. Why do you think we have no competitive walking leagues?

I'm a fan of Stuart McRobert and I just don't believe the general population can get big enough to be loathed as you say. I don't believe the general population of this bodybuilding forum can get that big.

And I'm one of the general public who thinks Ronnie Coleman is a freak because he's on steroids. I've seen what steroids do to people at martial arts. I completely disrespect those people.

The public accepts the pretty boys on the covers of GQ and Mens Health. They DO NOT accept Ronnie Coleman, Gunter, Markus Ruhl or Lee Priest. To them those images are disturbing and they DO dismiss the men (and those like them) as psychological oddities.

How about medicational oddities? I don't think there's anyone in the public who believes, no matter how ignorant they are about boydbuilding, that they came by those bodies cleanly. Ironically, it's novice bodybuilders buying the magazines who begin to think it can be done with hard work and diet alone.

It should be noted that, as i tried to point out, Ethics (a system of values from which moral conclusions are derived) is OBJECTIVE. Regardless of what I, personally, think, ETHICS is objective BECAUSE it depends on metaphysics - and metaphysics relies on reality, which is independant of all of us. It IS what it is, regardless of personal wishes.

I'm going to call bull**** on anyone who defends themselves with something as lofty as metaphysics. Ethics are a simple justice made to better the lives of simple people. For example: polygamy is looked down on, and marriage laws were created, because a long time ago one man in the tribe was getting all the women.

Ethics have nothing to do with the nature of the universe: they're born from noble or petty, societal or individual complexities of human interaction.

I do not look down on anyone - and my article "Are you a healthy bodybuilder?" should prove that. I encourage you to read it. It is not I who looks down on anyone. If people feel GUILTY for anything, it is because they have violated an independant rule of ethics. Cognative dissonance results from the interaction of UNLIKE or CONFLICTING concepts or ideas. If someone feels guilty it is because they know they SHOULD be doing something (to stay true to their values) but that they are NOT doing it. Ethics makes judegments on people, I do not. The judgements of ethics are not arbitrary nor open to change.

I don't believe you know what cognitive dissonance is. Two groups were asked to endorse something. One group was paid, one was not. Surprisingly, of the two groups the group that believed their own endorsement the strongest was the group that was paid. From this surprising result, as everyone expected the unpaid group to believe their endorsement because they were unpaid, scientists crafted an explanation for what happened in the minds of those who were paid. It was called cognitive dissonance.

Aside from the womanizing bit (which is a compensatory action), I would say that you have done great. You should congratulate yourself. You have stuck with things, no matter how tough they are.

I thought you didn't judge... be careful you don't make that compensatory comment derisively.

I spent most of my formative years locked in my room. It means a great deal to me that I've been able to change myself to such a degree that not only can I function with people socially, but I can have friends and learn to be a ladies man. It was a goal I set. I used to be fat, now I'm fit. I used to be an unloved hermit, now people want to know and be with me.

It seems, to me, that, somewhere, religion has played an influence in your life. This article has nothing to do with persons who TRY, but who dont live up to Ronnie Colemans standard. Hell, I do not live up to that. Thats OK, because i do MY best. Ethics is about LIVING FOR JOY, and doing the best that you can do. Look at athletes in wheelchairs. Man, now THAT takes commitment and a desire for joy.

Sorry, no religion. If the article was about people who don't live up to Ronnie Coleman's standard, I'm completely lost from here this talk can only get slightly silly so I'll sign off.

[Clayton South]

You wrote...

"And I'm one of the general public who thinks Ronnie Coleman is a freak because he's on steroids. I've seen what steroids do to people at martial arts. I completely disrespect those people."

I grant the fact that some people act poorly while taking steroids...i have seen this myself. It is possible, however, that steroids can be used with no harmfull side effects (physiological or otherwise). Just because someone takes steroids that does not mean that what they do is any less valid. I have never taken them, but if i were to, that would not make what i do any less valid than an athlete who chose to bodybuild by natural means.

You wrote:


"How about medicational oddities? I don't think there's anyone in the public who believes, no matter how ignorant they are about boydbuilding, that they came by those bodies cleanly. Ironically, it's novice bodybuilders buying the magazines who begin to think it can be done with hard work and diet alone."

You are right, and that was part of the point I was making. The general public sees gunter or ronnie or whoever, on the cover of a magazine and reasons "The only way they got like that is through steroids." Fair enough, and in most cases i would say that they have it down correctly. But even still, bodybuilding, as the article proved, is a moral act regardless of wether one takes steroids or not. Its the act itself that is an affirmation, and wether or not one takes steroids etc etc is beside the main point.

You wrote:

"I don't believe you know what cognitive dissonance is. Two groups were asked to endorse something. One group was paid, one was not. Surprisingly, of the two groups the group that believed their own endorsement the strongest was the group that was paid. From this surprising result, as everyone expected the unpaid group to believe their endorsement because they were unpaid, scientists crafted an explanation for what happened in the minds of those who were paid. It was called cognitive dissonance."

I suggest that before you go explaining to me the results of a social psychology experiment on cognative dissonance by Brem, that you check out my details page. I am well aware of what cognative dissonance is, and in fact, this is a psych 101 subject - a course which i took years ago in University. My major is psychology and my minor is philosophy. I certainly do know what dissonance is. You actually have the details of the study wrong. Here are teh details.

Participants were asked to do a task that involved turning pegs for a period of time. After they were done, a confederate stood outside of the lab and asked them to help him out. In exchange the participants would be paid either 20 dollars or 1 dollar. To recieve the money the participants had to lie to the next person coming in to do the study by telling them that it was really fun. Those paid the $20 had little cognative dissonance because it was obvious that they lied to recieve the $20. The group that recieved the $1 had high disonance because they lied for only a dollar and as a result they started to try to reduce their level of dissonance by reasoning "well, maybe i really DID enjoy it" etc etc.

Those are the details of the study on dissonance. Other theories have since emerged calling into question the exact conditions responsible for dissonance, but those are the details of the study you mention.

So yes, I DO know what dissonance is.

You wrote:

"Aside from the womanizing bit (which is a compensatory action), I would say that you have done great. You should congratulate yourself. You have stuck with things, no matter how tough they are. I thought you didn't judge... be careful you don't make that compensatory comment derisively."

This is the point that I have been trying to make this whole time. I dont judge - ethics does. An objective ethical system would say that sex between two people who love one another is GOOD because it contributes to someones life in substance or quantity and that because they love one another, both people are giving a VALUE for a VALUE.

Ethics would say that proper sex is an expression of personal worth and self-esteem, a recieving of it is an expression that someone is worthy of the act in return. It would also say that womanizing is not right becuase the it is about two people each TAKING from the other, and that the man who goes around womanizing is looking for self-esteem and worth in others - hoping to find happiness in others - hoping to earn his worth second hand. Psychology would, not surprisingly, also say the same about compensating for a lack of some kind.

I, personally, dont judge, but ethics does. Its a simple matter of understanding, as i said before, that ethics is a heirarchical system of values, one value is chief, and all others flow from it according to logic. Logic is independant of people. It is what it is.

So I dont, personally, judge anyone. Ethics judges everyone.

I have explained in great detail the ethical ramifications for bodybuilding. They are as I stated previously, regardless of steroid use, etc. There are two types of people (as with two types of sex): Those who do it to find self esteem in the admiration of others, and those who do it as an expression of their commitment to their highest value - life.

One is moral, one is not (its not the steroid use that makes bodybuilding for that reason immoral; its teh trying to earn self-esteem second hand from others that is morally wrong).

According to ethics, thats just how things are.

- Clayton South

[Taking Cattle]

My apologies for the incorrect details on the cognitive dissonance experiment. The way you bandied the phrase around I thought you were pretty clueless about it. Again, my apologies.

I'm inclined to think this discussion has run it's course. That said, and just in case you get the opposite impression, I usually quite enjoy your articles. Keep writing.

[Clayton South]

Taking:

I am inclined to agree about the conversation.

Im happy that you enjoy the articles that I write. Is there anything you'd like to see me write about? I have a list and I write down suggestions when people give them. Just let me know.

- Clayton South

[AbFlab]

Childish Banter ... worthless verbiage.

[lucubration]

Clayton, if we are to agree with your conclusion, might that to some degree actually preclude us from bodybuilding, as of course we all know that smaller people usually live longer and that much more "moderate" exercise can be quite conducive to overall health as well?

But I do agree with your life-affirming sentiments my friend!

[Clayton South]

Thank you for your support in being able to see the logic behind this article. My hat to you!

You do raise a good point. As I have written in my weekly science column, lower calories and healthy food etc DO lead to longer lives.

Im not sure exactly what the data would be when comparing bodybuilders with those persons who eat fewer calories etc. The reason i say this is because, unfortunatley, not many scientists are bodybuilders. So, when they say "high calorie intake" they usually refer to the average person - and as you know, the average person eats terribly, by healthy standards.

So is it excessive caloric intake OR, does it have more to do with the TYPE of calories consumed? I know in the people that eat few calories (typically those in the orient) the calories come mostly from unprocessed rice and fish, and nuts and such things. It goes without saying that this type of diet contributes to long life - clean protein, clean carbs and good fats.

Bodybuilders eat this way, too, just in larger amounts. To my knowledge (and if you do know, please share the data) there has been no study comparing healthy food with healthy food intake, the only difference being higher or lower caloric intake. It's an interesting idea, though. If anyone reading this knows of a study like this, please do share with us the results.

What do you think? Have you heard of any studies like this??

- Clayton South

[lucubration]

here is one:

http://www.innovitaresearch.org/news/02112901.html

while some theories presented we have reason not to believe... much of it makes sense...to me at least.


What think you of this?

[Clayton South]

lubrication:

HMMMM. Thats an interesting link. It talks quite a bit about free-radicals and oxidative stress. That makes sense when speaking of increased mass, etc.

The article is somewhat misleading where it talks about bodyfat percentage. Its true that bodyfat on its own does little to affect blood pressure. What the article didnt mention (or at least amidst all of the text I didnt see it) is that bodyfat usually accomponies bad cholesterol and arterial plaque buildup. These things put someone at risk for heart attacks, strokes, etc.

I wont go over the rest of it...except the part where it says that more LBM contributes to early mortality. Im not sure about this one...from a personal standpoint I would think that although a bigger body places more work stress upon vital organs, eating right and getting enough vitamins and anti-oxidants will tilt the scale in favor of increased muscle mass, which will clear out arteries and allow for a more efficient circulatory system.

I can see how most of what is written is true...but at the same time part of me argues that if someone is healthy, its usually genetics that will determine when death is to occur naturally.

Its an interesting idea..unfortunatley not one with an easy answer. I really wish more research were done in this area...

Any thoughts?

-Clayton

[lucubration]

I agree with you on that point, and also have never heard of this:

Fewer cell duplications left in adults of larger body size. That sounds a little far out to me?


All in all, I don't know. Let me put it that way.

Irregardless, I will continue to lift weights and run. I just feel better and do not get as tired during the day and I think a strong back will help me throughout my life.

[Clayton South]

Although i cant be sure, i think that the whole "cell duplication" bit may refer to fat cell production. The only problem is that most of that occurs in the womb. It could also be refering to neurons....im tired and ive just got done doing a huge math assignment, lol, so im not sure what its talking about. I cant think right now.

But yeah...always keep working out. Its good for you, and for this reason its morally right. Not to mention that huge, ripped, veiny pipes are pretty cool to have and look at I think that if someone takes care of themselves, even if they do get huge so that "Stress" is placed on the organs, it sure wont be as much stress ass the person who sits at home and eats chips while watching reruns of different strokes with Gary Coleman. Being big and unhealthy leads to premature death - being huge, ripped and full of energy is teh farthest thing from death ive ever seen. Thats just my view, though. And if im wrong, its better to go out huge, in good shape and happy, then fat, depressed, and with half a bag of chips in your hand

- Clayton

[lucubration]

It's talking about all cells I believe

Fewer cell duplications left in adults of larger body size
Upon conception, the process of human cell doubling begins in order to create the adult human body. However, Hayflick reported that the cell is limited to roughly 50 doublings before dying. Since most of the cell duplication potential is used up in attaining full body size, a larger body uses up more doublings, leaving fewer potential doublings during the rest of its life.


sounds kinda bogus to me.

I would have to say though, that I think that Nietzsche's philosophy was life-affirming in the utmost and yet his physical health was quite poor to say the least! He learned by overcoming himself and suffering through his ailments.......and he walked a lot...

a common thread ensues perhaps.......