Body Image, Disordered Eating and Anabolic Steroid Use in Female Bodybuilders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Body dissatisfaction and unhealthy eating practices are common among sports and activities that require low body fat or low body weight for enhanced performance. Competitive Bodybuilding is a sport that requires participants to be exceptionally lean and mesomorphic, thus participants may be vulnerable to developing unhealthy eating and weight control practices, as well as using anabolic steroids. This study compares competitive female bodybuilders (CFBBs) and recreational female weight-training controls (RFWTs) on a broad scope of eating related and general psychological characteristics. Anonymous questionnaires, designed to assess eating attitudes, body image, weight and shape preoccupation, prevalence of binge eating, body modification practices (including anabolic steroids), lifetime rates of eating disorders, and general psychological characteristics, were completed by 20 CFBBs and 25 RFWTs. High rates of weight and shape preoccupation, body dissatisfaction, bulimic practices, and anabolic steroid use were reported among CFBBs, and to a lesser degree, RFWTs. Differences between groups on general psychological factors were not statistically significant and effect sizes were small. CFBBs appear to share many eating-related features with women with bulimia nervosa but few psychological traits. Longitudinal research is needed to ascertain whether women with disordered eating or a history of bulimia nervosa disproportionately gravitate to competitive bodybuilding, and/or whether competitive bodybuilding fosters body dissatisfaction, disordered eating, bulimia nervosa, and anabolic steroid use.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".