A: Hey Y.R., thanks for the interesting question. Although rapid weight loss such as Cutler's isn't a good idea, the fact is that it's a fairly common practice in a number of sports. The rapid drop in weight is known as "making weight," and athletes such as wrestlers, boxers, mixed martial artists and Olympic Weightlifters, among others, will normally lose weight quickly and then gain it back almost as quickly before their events as a tool to gain a competitive edge.
Making weight stems from the use of weight classes, such as those used in boxing, which separates fighters into 17 different classes and weight divisions. In contrast, the UFC, which is the premiere Mixed Martial Arts promotion, uses five distinct weight divisions, although there are nine official divisions according to the state athletic commissions where MMA is sanctioned. In order to compete, an athlete must weigh no more than the pre-determined upper limit (normally within a pound) of the given weight class that the competition is set to occur.
In theory, this improves the competition and safety of sports where a larger athlete would have a distinct advantage over a smaller athlete. However, there is a loophole: by qualifying for a lower weight class through rapid water loss and dehydration techniques and then regaining some or all of that weight by the time of the competition, the athlete can enjoy an exceptional advantage over his/her opponent.
The recent EliteXC: Heat MMA weigh-ins. Noted female fighter
Gina Carano had difficulty making weight
Gina Carano had difficulty making weight
While this certainly presents itself as a potentially dangerous practice for an athlete about to compete in a vigorous and demanding sport, when done under the supervision of a knowledgeable coach and doctor, the risks to the athlete's health can be minimized (but not eliminated). Obviously, the more weight that must be dropped, the more dangerous cutting weight can be. As you might expect, there have been a number of attempts to curb this practice, especially with younger athletes.
However, Jay Cutler certainly didn't drop his weight in order to make a weight limit. Although bodybuilding also has weight classes, Jay's reasons were more directly related to his performance on the stage: by dropping as much water weight as possible, a bodybuilder will appear to be leaner with more visible definition, helping his/her chances in the contest.
There's something else to consider about Jay's single-day 15 pound water loss, too: when you weigh about 300 pounds in an off-season, 250 in-season, 15 pounds is still around 5 - 6% of your weight, so it's not as startling of a drop as it may seem. Drops of 5-6% still would not qualify as being "healthy,' of course, but it's not the same as a 185 pound mixed martial artist attempting to make the 170 pound Welterweight class (although between the option of facing either Middleweight Champion Anderson Silva or Welterweight Champion Georges St.-Pierre, I'm not sure that either is a very good option for your long-term health!)
However, this still raises a good point, and one that I think that a lot of people miss out on: Bodybuilding is about attaining a certain look, nothing else. Not health, not performance at a sport, and not even strength...just large, proportionate muscles at a low body-fat level. Which means that, just like any athlete in any sport, some things that bodybuilders do will be healthy while other things will be anything but healthy.Unfortunately, I think this point escapes many of the people that not only enter the sport of bodybuilding, but for those that try to "look like a bodybuilder" without understanding just what goes into that process or in turn what the process might do to his/her body. Especially for women, attaining such low levels of body-fat is impossible to maintain for long periods of time without serious health consequences including detrimental effects on a female's hormonal/menstrual cycles. The pictures that you see in magazines and from the stage are quite literally "snapshots" of that individual at the peak of their weight loss and physical appearance. Unfortunately, many of the fans of the sport who aspire to look like their favorite fitness model(s) year-round don't understand how difficult this can actually be without causing serious health issues.
I have worked with and consulted a number of individuals who have competed in the sport of bodybuilding/fitness, as well as individuals that have simply wanted to look like they did. I have always been careful to try and make them aware of the difficulties that may be ahead of them and the reality of what they think that they are seeing when they thumb through their favorite magazines.

It's pretty amazing what extreme dieting, good lighting, hair and makeup,
tanning, plastic surgery, and steroids can do for your physique!
Thanks for the letter, Y.R., and for reminding us that seeing isn't always believing!
-Jonathan

12 comments:
The snapshot thing is a great point. I know better, and still it's hard to remember that the guys who "look great" only really look that great for half of a day.
No kidding... http://usuarios.lycos.es/ilikefitness/cult/lee%20priest.jpg
You are going to get it on the FitCast if you don't post something ;)
Thanks for the reminder that perfection isn't easy - even for the pros.
Hi - great blog. I am also a personal trainer and the founder of PhysicalFitnet. If you would like to include clear, quality video clips right in your post to further help your readers/clients get lean, toned, sexy and fit, check out a new feature that we have: VideoShare
And our exercise library is likely a great resource for your readers. I hope/think you will find it worthy of recommending Exercise Library
I think many would agree it's not appropriate to use images of amateur competitors and claim they used steroids.
The image is of Julie Coram. Her positive test for steroids and subsequent relinquishment of her title is a matter of public record:
http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Winnipeg/2008/06/19/5922711-sun.html
http://wowfame.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/julie-coram-stripped-of-her-title/
http://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_nation/2008/06/female-bodybuil.html
http://ezinearticles.com/?If-a-Fitness-Champ-Took-Steroids,-What-Does-That-Say-For-Female-Bodybuilders?&id=1292164
Interesting that you would choose to leave out the link that you originally stole her photo from?
http://www.juliecoram.com
FYI, this athlete was tested through FAME/WNSO, and when their bogus results came back, she was immediately retested by CCES, the same organization that tests Olympic athletes. This test results came back 100% clean, DRUG-FREE.
As you can read in Julie Coram's press release on her website and others, the second test is the gold standard for doping control, and the high level of substances that FAME/WNSO claimed would have shown up for months afterwards.
Disappointing that you continue to cause drama for this up and coming fitness model.
FYI, thanks to the second test she kept her title.
So, would I be speaking with Julie herself, or is this her partner Mr. Bonnett?
The FAME testing was not questioned, only the breadthe of substances included in the testing. You, of course, know that the testing procedures themselves were not questioned, only the fairness of the overall concept of "drug-free."
You accuse me of "continuing to cause drama;" however, it was your original interest in my blog that introduced this person's identity and the circumstances of her disqualification.
In fact, it is your repeated attempts to discredit my use of her image, an image that was made available publicly in the same way that my own image is publicly made and which you saw fit to use to your own advantage, that continues to "add to the drama." Before you began your own campaign, this was an anonymous picture of an individual: now it has a name and a story. This is a result of your own doing.
You claim that she has been reinstated of her title, although I can find no press release or statement indicating that this is true. If it is, then your repeated admonishment of my "use of the image of amateur competitors" is inaccurate: she would actually be a professional competitor with that title. If she is indeed an amateur, then you have misrepresented the results of her reinstatement. So, which one is it?
I always strive to present the facts and stand by the accuracy of my posts. If I have written something that is incorrect, I am more than willing to change the statement. However, I would also expect a professional individual to approach me in such a way, and not resort to name-calling and baseless accusations. Your only evidence to suggest that I have written something inaccurate is a statement from the individual in question. I had already seen this statement, and it is hardly inconclusive evidence, which is why I chose not to include it.
"Before you began your own campaign, this was an anonymous picture of an individual: now it has a name and a story. This is a result of your own doing."
Didn't you specifically list the athlete's name under the picture caption and list a number of things like "hair, makeup, plastic surgery and steroids" underneath? How does that a) make the picture anonymous, and b) how can you say the name and story was the other bloggers doing, when you clearly implied that the athlete was using steroids? Tsk tsk... brutal article writing, I'm afraid!!
"Didn't you specifically list the athlete's name under the picture caption and list a number of things like "hair, makeup, plastic surgery and steroids" underneath?"
No, actually, I hadn't. It was completely anonymous, without any identification given.
"How does that a) make the picture anonymous,"
Because your facts are incorrect...I actually did nothing to change the caption. It reads exactly how it was originally written
"b) how can you say the name and story was the other bloggers doing, when you clearly implied that the athlete was using steroids?"
Because, again, it was an anonymous picture until its authenticity was challenged. This really shouldn't be too difficult to follow, since it's plainly listed above, but I'll recap it for you: The identity, and hence the story of Julie Coram as being the person in the picture, was given only in response to the posted comments. In fact, the individual in the picture did fail a drug test, a fact that I was 'forced' to use in order to defend myself against the accusation that was made by...the "other" blogger. Which, of course, is still you, which you still don't seem to be understanding.
"Tsk tsk... brutal article writing, I'm afraid!!"
I'm sorry that you didn't like it. However, given your clear inability to use or even comprehend logic and/or reasoning by evidence of your innacurate statements and logical fallacies, it's no wonder you didn't like my post.
Have a nice day.
He has lost water without end and need to be surprised nobody when he breaks down sometime.
Post a Comment