Body Image, Binge Eating, and Bulimia Nervosa in Male Bodybuilders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Male bodybuilders (MBB) exhibit more severe body dissatisfaction, bulimic eating behaviour, and negative psychological characteristics, compared with male athletic and nonathletic control subjects, but few studies have directly compared MBB and men with eating disorders. This study compared men with bulimia nervosa (MBN), competitive male bodybuilders (CMBB), and recreational male bodybuilders (RMBB) on a broad range of eating attitudes and behaviours and psychological characteristics to more accurately determine similarities and differences among these groups. METHOD: Anonymous questionnaires, designed to assess eating attitudes, body image, weight and shape preoccupation, prevalence of binge eating, weight loss practices, lifetime rates of eating disorders, anabolic androgenic steroid (AAS) use, and general psychological factors, were completed by 22 MBN, 27 CMBB, and 25 RMBB. RESULTS: High rates of weight and shape preoccupation, extreme body modification practices, binge eating, and bulimia nervosa (BN) were reported among MBB, especially among those who competed. CMBB reported higher rates of binge eating, BN, and AAS use compared with RMBB, but exhibited less eating-related and general psychopathology compared with MBN. Few psychological differences were found between CMBB and RMBB. CONCLUSIONS: MBB, especially competitors, and MBN appear to share many eating-related features but few general psychological ones. Longitudinal research is needed to determine whether men with a history of disordered eating or BN disproportionately gravitate to competitive bodybuildin and (or) whether competitive bodybuilding fosters disordered eating, BN, and AAS 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".