A study published in BMJ Open Sport and Exercise Medicine suggests that competitive bodybuilders are no more pathological than recreational bodybuilders. They are, however, more likely to consume anabolic–androgenic steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs.
“Despite the rigours of preparation and the dangers of drug use, competitive body-building has grown increasingly popular. For example, one of many body-building organisations, the International Federation of Body-building and Fitness, sponsors about 2500 body-building events annually around the world, some involving hundreds of competitors,” study authors Ian Steele and associates say.
“However,” the authors add, “the sport has a peculiar reputation; in both scientific publications and in popular belief, competitive bodybuilders are sometimes portrayed as prone to psychopathology, or even as participating in a freak show.”
While this unfavorable reputation persists, the scientific literature on the subject is limited and has been inconclusive. Steele and his team conducted a study in attempt to uncover whether or not competitive bodybuilders really are pathologically different than their recreational counterparts.
The researchers analyzed data from a larger 2009 internet survey of strength trainers. Their analysis involved a sample of 96 male competitive bodybuilders and 888 men who classified themselves as recreational strength-trainers. All participants answered a plethora of questions about their exercise habits, body-image attitudes, psychiatric diagnoses, and use of drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. They also reported any use of anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) or other appearance or performance-enhancing drugs (APEDs).
The study found that competitive bodybuilders were more likely than recreational strength-trainers to report using AAS or APEDs. However, there were no significant differences between the groups when it came to nearly any other measure.
Body image concerns were prevalent among respondents — 40% of the total sample reported being ‘preoccupied with an imagined defect or slight physical anomaly’ in their appearance, and 20% said such a preoccupation was causing ‘significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.’ However, there were no significant differences in the way competitive bodybuilders versus recreational exercisers responded to either of these items.
In short, body image concerns were high but did not differ between the two groups. “Thus,” Steele and colleagues discuss, “although body image and body weight appear to represent widespread concerns among strength-training men, these concerns are by no means confined to competitors.”
Further, the two groups did not differ in self-reported psychiatric diagnoses, with both groups reporting low incidences. As Steele and colleagues report, there was little evidence to suggest that competitive bodybuilders were at higher risk for pathology than recreational trainers.
“Indeed,” the researchers infer, “setting aside their high levels of AAS and other APED use, one might even argue that the competitors were slightly more ‘responsible’ or health-conscious than recreationals in certain ways, in that they reported a markedly lower lifetime prevalence of marijuana use and were less likely to consider themselves as overweight. . .”
The authors address the limitation that the survey they relied on did not include many items about eating disorders and had no items on exercise addiction. The study also did not differentiate between the different categories of competitive bodybuilding, which likely vary in the extent of sacrifice involved.
The study, “Is competitive body-building pathological? Survey of 984 male strength trainers”, was authored by Ian Steele, Harrison Pope, Eric J Ip, Mitchell J Barnett, and Gen Kanayama.
