<![CDATA[Jezebel: muscles]]> http://tags.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/jezebel.com.png <![CDATA[Jezebel: muscles]]> http://jezebel.com/tag/muscles http://jezebel.com/tag/muscles <![CDATA[Muscles: Strong Enough For A Man, But Made For A Woman?]]> The latest Photoshop challenge at Worth 1000 is called "Celebrity Steroids: Juicing the Rich and Famous." Participants have given stars like Angelina Jolie, Amy Winehouse and Gisele Bundchen rippling abs, bulging biceps and thunderous thighs. The effect is supposed to be hilarious, or, at least, jarring. But consider this:

On Feministe, blogger Lauren has a post in which she links to Martin Schoeller's amazing photographs of female bodybuilders. She writes:

Women are so deeply conditioned to seeing feminine beauty as something fragile that doesn’t take up space, which is why I love seeing representations of femininity that isn’t that of a delicate orchid. It’s interesting to me that many female body builders who work on attaining what are considered masculine traits play up their feminine characteristics, perhaps to counteract the kind of physique that is usually culturally marked male, sometimes to an extreme that appears to be a conscious genderfuck.

It is interesting to see how these women — the bodybuilders — have bikini tops, earrings, lipstick, eyeshadow — all the trappings of "femininity," yet none of them are what the average person would think of feminine.


The truth is, although the Photoshopped images and the bodybuilder photos are extreme examples of muscle development, the human body is capable of such things, whether it be male or female. (And yes, perhaps steroids were involved.) But still: We don't believe that "female" is equivalent to "weak." So why do we think that muscles are "masculine"? These ladies certainly don't think so.

Celebrity Steroids [Worth 1000, via Yeeeah]
Beauty And Power [Feministe]
Женский бодибилдинг в книге Мартина Шоллера \ Photography (Martin Schoeller's Femal Bodybuilders) [eToday]

]]>
http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5099360&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[New "Exercise In A Pill" Still Requires, You Know, Exercise]]> Couch potatoes: what if scientists told you that you could enjoy all the benefits of exercise without any of that pesky effort and dedication? Sounds good, right? Who doesn't hate doing stuff? Well, researchers at the Salk Institute have found two drugs that can mimic athletic endurance in mice. Of course, theoretically, one still has to do exercise to reap the benefits of these "exercise pills," but that won't stop journalists (and the researchers who oversaw the project) from calling these drugs "exercise in a pill."

The two drugs studied, GW1516 and Aicar, work by increasing a gene-controlling protein called PPAR-delta that remodels the muscle and increasing the growth of Type 1 fibers within the muscle, which makes the muscles resistant to fatigue. There are two types of muscle fibers, Type 1, and Type 2 which tires more easily. Athletes and fit people have lots of Type 1 fibers and people with obesity and diabetes have more Type 2. With the first drug, GW1516, the mice had to have had exercise training to show endurance, while the second drug, Aicar, required no training to show increased endurance.

Basically, this pill isn't a free ride for those too lazy to walk around the corner to go to yoga and want to take a pill to make up for lost gym days; it's more of an enhancement drug for athletes (just in time for the Olympics) but it can also help people who would benefit from exercise but are too weak to do so, like those suffering from diabetes or morbid obesity.

Drug Offer Promises Of Fitness Without Effort [IHT]
Just Sitting Back To Get In Shape: Two Pills Do The Work Of Exercise [WSJ]
'Exercise Pill' Burns Fat— If You're A Mouse [CNN]

]]>
http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5031897&view=rss&microfeed=true