Home / Thoughts / Atrophy vs. body-building
Atrophy vs. body-building
Written by Sean on Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Something about body-building came on tv a few nights ago. I watched in utter fascination as the documentary exposed this "culture" of people who are working hard to build their muscles and develop a body they like. And I thought about the contrast in the body they are working towards and the body that would satisfy our self-image.
There’s quite a bit of difference, really. Look at this:
| A body-builder’s dream leg | A transabled individual’s dream leg |
|---|---|
 A leg, muscles fully built up, well defined, what many body-builders are after. |
 Atrophied legs, think and bony, knees and ankles wider than the calf and thigh, what many people with BIID who wish to be paralysed hope for. Obviously, someone needing an amputation wants no leg at all ;) |
The difference is obvious. And I couldn’t help thinking that in our society, we value big muscles. Perhaps not to the extent that these guys go to; it seems a bit extreme to build up so much legs that your legs chaffe when you walk, and you can develop blisters just by the friction created! Still, body-builders are reverred by some, there’s “muscle worship” meetings, etc. And most people that are not into body-building or “monster muscle” just shake their heads and move on. It is accepted by most people, and when not accepted, it is benevolently tolerated.
While many in the body-building community say that there are no steroids used, it seems that is not necessarily the case for all involved. Many guys and gals do use steroids, or other products that are not technically so but not too far from them. Of those that do use steroids, many develop health problems, and some even die from steroid related health problems. That also seems extreme to me, but I’m not judging, nor condemning.
I’m not seeking anything really different than the body-builder. I want my body to reach the point where I’m happy with it. I don’t want big legs that can bench-press a few hundred pounds, I want thin atrophied legs that I can’t feel nor move. Why is it that society barely takes notice of the body-builder, but the moment I say I need that body, I am told I’m sick and need to go seek help (which doesn’t exist, I should add)?
Someone mentionned that it makes sense that muscle is "in". It’s survival of the fittest. If you have muscles, you’re fit to survive, you can go hunting and provide. If you have atrophy, you’re unfit, and are going to be a burden on society. It seems to be almost hard-wired in our subconscious.
It seems to me however that society is thinking itself past that. We are "evolved". We don’t kill disabled babies in the crib anymore (well, mostly not, only a few respected bio-ethicists advocate for that nowadays). Of course one might argue we kill ‘em in the womb instead.. But by and large, society likes to think of itself as better than the caveman who used a fairly simple equation of "muscle=fit=good, atrophy=unfit=not good".
And on that basis, I suggest that society is really hypocritical. Or perhaps it just doesn’t think. Or more likely doesn’t care at all.
But ask yourself: Is there a real and significant difference between a body-builder’s quest for their perfect body, and that of a transabled individual for the same?
This entry appears in Sean's Thoughts, Thoughts. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You may have your say, or trackback from your own site.
6 Comments
Me personally, I don’t care much for antrophied legs at all, I think this is most due to the fact that pritty much all of my wheelchair friends or accuantiances were always people with like CP, MS, MD, and SB, so they still had some movements and their legs stayed in shape. To me, antrophied legs look disgusting sitting there in the frame of the chair all shrivered up.
It has always been my opinon that when I meet my special someone and if she doesn’t have any movement in her legs that I am going to try to get her to work out her muslces with Tens units to keep them in shape.
Personally I think that is a good suggestion for any paralyzed person to properly keep their body fit, sure they may never use their legs to walk again or anything, but it is good to keep their body healthy and to keep some weight to their legs as well for easy balancing of their chair.
Just my opinion on the matter.
-Wheelman
I’m also not really into very atrophied legs. My goal is for my legs to be just a little thinner than normal. Just enough that you could tell that they ARE thinner than normal.
The atrophy pictured looks more like malnutrution than lack of use, ugly to me. I’m with Stumpy.
5 On 4 March, 2008, Claire said:
I think atrophied legs are BEAUTIFUL! Okay, this one picture here is not a great example. But in general, atrophied legs on an otherwise healthy person at normal weight can be really, really breathtakingly gorgeous. So sue me.
6 On 4 March, 2008, Sean said:
Perhaps not the best photo of atrophied legs, but it’s one that was available royalty free from one of the stock photo websites. I won’t post photos taken without people’s consent/knowledge, particularly for use on a site like this.
Post your comments
© transabled.org - 1994-2008 - All Rights Reserved.
1 On 29 February, 2008, Stumpy said:
I’ve started to notice that my right calf is starting to get thinner compared to my un-braced leg. I’ve also lost a lot of strength in my calf muscle from wearing my AFO full time.