Sociology of Sport Journal, 20, 40-59© 2003 Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.

The Decline of Female Bodybuilding in France

Peggy Roussel, Jean Griffet, and Pascal Duret

P. Roussel, UFR APS, University Rennes II, Campus la Harpe, Avenue Charles Tillon, 35044Rennes, France. J. Griffet, Faculty of sport sciences, University Aix-Marseille II, 163, Avenue deLuminy, CP 990, 13288 Marseille Cedex 09, France. P. Duret, CURAPS, University LaRéunion, 117 rue du Général Ailleret, 97430 Tampon, La Réunion, France.

The present article examines the transformations that have taken place in female bodybuilding in France from asociological point of view. Adopting a comprehensive approach, we describe the contextual influences thought to beresponsible for the decline of female bodybuilding. Starting from the premise that the extremely muscular femalebodies seen in women’s bodybuilding are the reason for the downfall of the discipline, the analysis focuses on threesubcultural influences: the appearance of Beverly Francis on the competition scene, the aesthetic criteria favored bythe federations, and the use of nutritional supplements and doping substances.

Cet article propose de resituer, d’un point de vue sociologique, les transformations du culturisme féminin en France.En s’inscrivant dans une approche compréhensive, les influences contextuelles supposées avoir entraîné la perte duculturisme féminin seront décrites. En partant du postulat que le corps féminin culturiste extrêmement musclé est àl’origine de la chute de la discipline, l’analyse se centrera sur trois influences sous-culturelles : l’arrivée de BeverlyFrancis sur la scène des compétitions, les orientations esthétiques privilégiées par les fédérations et enfin,l’utilisation de suppléments nutritionnels et des produits dopants.

An editorial in the French bodybuilding magazine Le Monde du Muscle (The World of Muscle)states,

Female bodybuilding has turned a page. It is but a shadow of its former self and itsabsurdity is paroxysmal. This is what bodybuilding has come to! An athlete who gets tothe finals and is the only competitor in her category is automatically declared champion [.. .]. Where is the sport in all this? In the good old days there used to be twenty or so girlscompeting in each category, even in small regional contests. There was a real sense ofcompetition then. In trying to imitate men, and with the blessing of the organizers andjudges, certain athletes are driving female bodybuilding into obscurity. (Le Monde duMuscle, No. 178, June 1998, p. 9)

These remarks point out the state of female bodybuilding in France, and at the same time, implythe reasons for its decline: excessive muscle development, loss of femininity, and over-exaggerated muscle definition. Note that female bodybuilders have not always developed overlymuscular bodies for competition. In the early 1980s, these athletes had a different aestheticprofile: Their muscles were only slightly pronounced, and their figures remained feminine (nopectoral muscles, no visible muscle fibers). A major aesthetic change has taken place. This

evolution is the consequence of both the aesthetic trends of the discipline and the way theseathletes react to aesthetic demands. In this respect, the body of the female bodybuilder can beregarded as the finished product of a sport-specific aesthetic culture shared by its enthusiasts.The aim of this article is to examine the changes that have occurred in female bodybuilding inFrance, where it is seen as a subculture (Roussel & Griffet, 2000). In a symbolic interactionismframework (Blumer, 1969; Mead, 1963), the idea defended here is that changes that take place ina society are the product of the activity of its individual subjects. This means that socialmeanings are not inherent in social institutions and objects per se, that they are not independentof the actors. On the contrary, meaning is attributed to social events by individuals as theyinteract. Situations are interpreted by the actors in connection with both their life history and thesituation itself. Thus, interactions between the impact of international bodybuilding, thefederations, and the life experiences of individual bodybuilders—even though they may notappear to be either direct or immediate—offer a cultural framework with respect to which femalebodybuilders determine the direction of their actions. These interacting factors create what Elias(1969) termed “a configuration.” This idea is more appropriate to understanding thetransformations that have taken place in bodybuilding than would be a system that over-emphasizes coherence and stability. The configuration of interactions in bodybuilding should behelpful in understanding the presence of excessively muscular, masculine women bodybuilderson the podium. Using empirical data gathered from interviews with female bodybuilders andjournalists, and information taken from a French bodybuilding magazine, we will analyzechanges in the context within which these contestants have evolved. The changes appear to stemfrom three main factors: Beverly Francis, the demands of the federations, and the use ofsupplements and doping products, which seem to be responsible for the decline in femalebodybuilding.

The Status of Bodybuilding in FranceThe general public does not perceive bodybuilding as a real sport. As Klein (1986) discusses,one can argue as to whether it is sport or entertainment. If sport is defined as a physical activityperformed as a game, a combat, or an exertion that requires methodical training, abidance bycertain rules, and personal discipline, then bodybuilding satisfies this definition.

Is it entertainment? It most definitely is. A bodybuilding competition is a show in the same wayas is a figure skating competition but not in the sense that Courtine (1993) means when he speaksof a “muscle spectacle” in referring to American bodybuilding. He describes “bodybuilders whoare recognizable by the way they walk,” a spectacle created by “specialized television channelsthat present bodybuilding competitions as ordinary television programs,” and femalebodybuilders as “mutant women whose distorted muscles obscure their sex” (1993, pp. 226-227).He discusses Venice (California), a site renowned within bodybuilding circles. Centers such asthis, with their high concentration of gyms, bodybuilding equipment, and specialized industries,symbolize the American bodybuilding culture. These elite gyms are virtual “temples” dedicatedto muscle and have no equivalent in France. They are internationally reputed, and athletes gothere to take advantage of exceptional training conditions, in this environment where musclereigns. According to Courtine (1993), bodybuilding “thus constitutes one of the most spectacularmanifestations of the American culture of bodily appearance. But it is not just a spectacle. It issupported by an industry, a market and a series of widespread practices” (1993, p. 227).

Professionalism can develop in a context such as this (Thompson & Bair, 1982, p. 192). The bestathletes can make a living from their passion. In France, attitudes towards bodybuilding do notallow this true celebration of muscle (Roussel, 2000). French bodybuilding can also be regardedas a spectacle but to a lesser degree.

Is it art? Bodybuilding is also an artistic activity. The judges score both the way the muscles aredisplayed and the choreography. Art is “a way of expressing beauty,” so we can look for arelationship between this concept and the motives of bodybuilders. Surely these women aspire toabsolute muscular harmony. Are they not the sculptors of their own body? Bodybuilders can becompared to artists, even though the beauty of their bodies is assessed on the basis of aestheticcriteria instead of by free judgment.

Rather than labeling bodybuilding as sport, entertainment, or artistic physical activity, we preferto say that bodybuilding falls somewhere between the three. It is marginalized by the fact that thegeneral public has difficulty accepting it as a true sport, and its social isolation is reinforced bythe lack of television coverage. Given this state of affairs, it is not surprising that people aredisinterested in bodybuilding and that it has remained an isolated practice.Bodybuilding enjoys very little popularity with the French public compared to other sports.Muscular development for aesthetic purposes is derided, and the muscle cult for women isstrongly criticized. Bodybuilding is perceived as a masculine activity. By experimenting withphysical norms, female bodybuilding provokes a reaction. Concepts of femininity, gender, theprotesting body, and social power are often discussed, and numerous authors have suggested thatfemale bodybuilders threaten the gender order (Balsamo, 1994; Guthrie & Castelnuovo, 1992;Hall, 1988; Mansfield & McGinn, 1996; Messner, 1988; St Martin & Gavey, 1996). Thesewomen create controversy simply by participating in sports traditionally regarded as masculine(Hargreaves, 1986, p. 116). In line with this view, Balsamo (1994) claims that femalebodybuilders disturb the natural order of gender identity by seeking a muscular body, viewed asa male prerogative. This tension between female and male is amplified as soon as a muscularwoman comes into the picture. The femininity of women who practice intensive bodybuilding iscalled into question, in spite of their attempts to gain recognition for and personalize their ownachievement (Miller & Penz, 1991).This lack of recognition is present at the cultural and institutional levels. Unlike other sports,bodybuilding is not recognized by the Ministry of Sport. There are about seven Frenchfederations or associations, but they are financially independent and have no state support.1 Thefact that they are not recognized by the French Ministry of Sport is a great handicap tobodybuilding, for cultural recognition follows from institutional legitimacy.

Both cultural reticence (which hinders aesthetic appreciation of the muscle cult) and institutionalobstacles (which prevent the legitimization of this discipline that claims to be a sport) aredetrimental to female bodybuilding. Although these factors explain why few women areinterested in intensive bodybuilding, they do not account for the recent decrease in the number ofcompetitors. Fewer and fewer female bodybuilders enter competitions, and those who do are lessmuscular than the athletes who competed a few years ago. The present article examines thisdecline. In order to understand the phenomenon, we conducted our investigation at the grassrootslevel. Information from the bodybuilding universe, such as statements from enthusiasts, accountsfrom journalists, and articles from the specialist press are essential for understanding what is tobecome of bodybuilding.

MethodThe problem of the status of the federations in France, already discussed by Roussel and Griffet(2000), was a great obstacle to our study. French bodybuilding activities are divided amongnumerous associations and federations (seven all told), each with specific aesthetic criteria.Compared to other sports, then, bodybuilding lacks the clarity of sports with a single promotionalpolicy and just one federation recognized by the Ministry of Sport. We wanted to take a censusof female bodybuilders in each of the federations over a period of 20 years in order to establishthe decline in the number of female competitors. We tried to collect the official figures andannual reports of each federation so as to ascertain the number of women competing at theregional, European, and international levels.2 Unfortunately, the federations were unable tosupply us with this information. No registers exist, the presidents and voluntary organizers of theassociations rarely retain their position for more than a year, and none of the individualscontacted were concerned about the changes that had been made in the categories. All of thefederations were vague on these subjects. The chief editor of a French bodybuilding magazineexpressed the following opinion on this issue:

In the early 80s, it was fairly well structured. It wasn’t bad. There were even regionalcommittees in the days of the IFBB [International Federation of Bodybuilders, anAmerican-based federation]. Now there are only three or four people working in thefederations, so how could it work properly? Everybody suffers as a consequence: theathletes, the magazines. I’m not surprised. They make no attempt to keep files on theirathletes. What would be required would be a merger of all the federations and thecreation of clearly defined statutes, but you know. . .

Quantitative studies exist for some French sporting federations recognized by the Ministry, fromwhich one can obtain the age and sex profiles of their registered members, a list of their top-levelsportsmen and sportswomen, and so on. As no such study is possible in our area of interest, wehad to limit ourselves to a qualitative approach based on interviews and the study of a specializedmagazine.InterviewsInterviews with female bodybuilders. In 1997, we interviewed 9 French female bodybuilders,ages 32 to 45, each with a minimum of 9 years experience in the discipline.3 The average year inwhich they began bodybuilding was 1985. The semi-directed interviews lasted between 1.5 and 3hours. They took place either in a quiet place in a training gym or at the interviewee’s home. Theaim was to ascertain the athletes’ opinions on the aesthetic evolution of bodybuilding and theircomments on the decline of their discipline. How did they perceive female bodybuilding? Howdid they imagine the future of bodybuilding in France? What criticisms did they have, based ontheir experiences?

Interviews with a journalist. At the end of 1999, we interviewed a journalist-photographer fromthe magazine Le Monde du Muscle in a semi-directed fashion. He had been chief editor of themagazine for the past 13 years. The interview lasted a little over 2 hours and took place at themagazine’s offices in Paris. Journalistic knowledge represents a form of culture and can providea complementary source of information on any social phenomenon. How did this expert feelabout the level of French female bodybuilders compared to their leading American counterparts?Had the aesthetic influences on the discipline evolved in his opinion and, if so, how? What majorevents did he think had marked the recent history of bodybuilding in France? How did he

imagine the future of the discipline? The aim of the interview was to provide a commentary onthe evolution of female bodybuilding. We felt that the input of a journalist would enrich thesociological scope of our analysis. Answers to these questions would allow us to establish arelationship between the journalist’s and the female bodybuilders’ views. The interactionistapproach involves comparing viewpoints and attempts to capture the subtleties of humanbehavior and the diversity of the roles individuals play. The interview technique was used inconjunction with a quantitative study of a specialized bodybuilding magazine, in the same wayas Maria Lowe (1998) employed several methods in her study of female bodybuilding in theUnited States (combining participant observation and interviews with female bodybuilders,judges, and journalists).

Analyzing the Contents of the MagazineWe chose to study the French magazine Le Monde du Muscle (first published in 1975) for threereasons. First, it is the magazine that the female bodybuilders systematically cited as theirfavorite specialized publication. Second, the magazine was published during the period when ourrespondents were participating in competitive bodybuilding. (Other French bodybuildingmagazines published for a time but ceased publication at the end of the 1980s.) Third, we wereable to obtain a complete set of back issues. This part of the study was carried out in 1999. Thismonthly magazine is one that places priority on photographs. The issues studied spanned its 23years of publication (1975–1998) and comprised 20,000 pages (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 — Growth of the magazine over a 23-year period.

The magazine’s significant topics. We did not try to draw up an exhaustive inventory of theentire contents of the magazine, since this aspect is not of particular interest to us here. However,we concentrated on all topics that could possibly throw light on female bodybuilding trends. We

wanted to define a specific subcultural framework that would allow us to examine, in a“comprehensive” way, the interactions between the practice itself and the individuals whoparticipate in it. Social activity is understood here in the Weberian sense of the term—that is, asactivity which according to the meaning it has for the agent or agents, is related to the behaviorof others, with respect to which its unfolding is oriented (Weber, 1971). If the aim ofsociological comprehension is to replace the diversity of reality with intelligible relations, thisendeavor requires taking into account the meaning that humans assign to their behaviors. Theaim of this thematic analysis was to define a framework for understanding bodybuildingexperiences. Four categories were selected as the most pertinent to analyzing the evolution offemale bodybuilding: advertising, natural nutrition, supplements, and doping.

Advertising category. During our initial reading, we noted a predominance of advertisements fornutritional products. We therefore methodically recorded the magazine space allotted to theadvertising of dietary supplements, as compared to advertisements for specialist magazines,gyms, clothing brands, equipment, and specialist shops.

Natural nutrition category. The nutritional habits of bodybuilders are very different fromtraditional eating behavior and thus contribute to the identity of the bodybuilding “subculture.”Magazine articles that illustrated this point were identified by splitting the nutrition category intotwo subcategories, natural nutrition and supplements. The natural nutrition category comprisedarticles relating to food considered to be “natural” (fruit, meat, etc.). The articles were in theform of menus, lessons in nutrition, or recommendations for maintaining a balanced diet. Theygave advice and nutritional schedules, discussed foodstuffs that encourage fat loss oralternatively weight gain, proposed high-quality foods to improve digestion, and gaveinformation about optimal cooking times and gastronomy. Spinach, carrots, fish, chicken . . . thefoods referred to were familiar ones. The cooking photography simply reflected traditionalculinary values.Supplements category. This category included all kinds of artificial supplements, syntheticdietary products, and protein supplements in the form of powder or capsules. Articles thatdiscussed the vitamin, nutrient, and molecular composition of synthetic products were tallied.

Doping category. All articles referring to the problem of doping, doping agents, and cases inwhich athletes tested positive for doping agents were included.

Measurement. The articles were “quantified” by calculating the fraction of the page theyoccupied, with the page as the unit of measurement (i.e., an article could give a third of a page ofinformation, a tenth of a page, etc.). The final value was expressed as a percentage of the totalnumber of pages in that issue of the magazine.

Results and DiscussionWhile attending the finals of the French championship in May 2000, we realized that none of theparticipating female athletes were very muscular. We noticed a clear difference between thephysical appearance of these athletes and the female bodybuilders we had interviewed. Thecomparison was based on photographs of the interview subjects taken during competitions ratherthan on their physique at the time of the interview. The interviewees were more bulky, theirphysiques more massive, and their muscle contours more striking. Moreover, the French finalchampionships comprised only one category, entitled “Muscular Women,” and involved onlyfour athletes. This meager number of contestants for the title of French champion appears to be a

recent phenomenon. It reflects a change in female bodybuilding in France, one that has beenrecognized in several articles in Le Monde du Muscle. For example we can read, “Competitivefemale bodybuilding is dying out. It would be an exaggeration to blame it solely on doping, eventhough doping has become an institution in bodybuilding circles and is damaging” (GilbertGirard, No. 178, June 1998, p. 64), or “Physical development, which at one time seemeddestined for a brilliant future, has, to speak frankly, ‘blown’ it. Quite the reverse, we hear thediscipline being severely criticized more and more often. There are various reasons for this: thegyms, doping, and the image currently conveyed by bodybuilding champions” (EdmundKarolewicz, No. 153, March 1996, p. 30).On this subject, female bodybuilders give their opinion:

Q: How many very muscular women are there in France?A: Very few, very few, I would say uh 3, maybe 4. At the time I started competing at thenational level, there were lots and lots of athletes. That was one of the reasons why it washard to get onto the top step. But now . . . the girls who started at the same time as I did,who rose up through the ranks like that, well, they have more or less given up andnobody has come along to take their place.

Q: Why do you think that is?A: Too much damage has been done. [long silence] Yeah, it’s so hard; it’s not fun, is it?It’s really hard. (Subject 1)

The journalist replied more or less the same way:

Q: Which bodybuilding federation has the most female members?A: Well [hesitation] . . . there’s nobody in the WABBA anymore [World AmateurBodybuilding Association]. There are no longer any French members of the NABBA[National Amateur Bodybuilding Association, a British association]. Anyway, there arehardly any practicing female bodybuilders now. The federations have eliminated themuscle categories. It had to happen one day I suppose.

Q: Do you think the competitors have gone too far?A: Oh yes, they definitely have. Imagine a tap and . . . how should I put it . . . the sourceis drying up and the water’s no good and so . . . instead of treating the water, making itbetter, they turn off the tap.

Using this anecdote, the journalist indicates the federations are responsible for the decline offemale bodybuilding. Instead of gradually changing the aesthetic criteria reducing the emphaseson muscle striation, the federations have maintained the aesthetic demands. And today thesesame federations must eliminate the category of “Muscular Women” because there are notenough female athletes to compete in this category.The fact that new athletes are not taking the place of these champions and that bodybuilding isdescribed in this way in a specialist magazine implies that the discipline is having difficultyrecovering from its earlier “race” for muscle and desire for a metamorphosis of the body thatapproached androgyny. How did the practice get to such extremes? To what extent has thebodybuilding world allowed female bodybuilders to work on and transform their bodies to thepoint of exceeding the critical limits of femininity? Female bodybuilders could conceivably have

shaped their bodies based on milder, less impressive, and less masculinizing aesthetic features.Indeed, the physical appearance of the contestants remains surprising: Their bodies are angular,their muscles strongly developed, the muscle fibers are visible. Apart from differences in heightand weight, the female bodybuilders we interviewed had all based the development of theirbodies on these same criteria, even though they belonged to different federations.This generation of bodybuilders seems to have been subjected to the same accumulation ofsubcultural influences. Outside their own life experiences, aspirations, and personal motives,bodybuilders have been exposed to the same aesthetic and event-related influences. Theseinfluences generate an experiential context for these women. But women bodybuilders alsocontribute to creating that context. The changes occurring in the bodybuilding world result notonly from external forces acting upon female bodybuilders but also from their own activity. Bytaking a comprehensive approach, our study granted particular importance to this idea of context.The present article describes the contextual influences likely to have brought about the decline offemale bodybuilding. It is hypothesized that the female bodybuilder’s excessively muscled bodywith its “hard” and “skinned” look is partly responsible for the downfall of the discipline. Threesubcultural influences seem to have led to the overly muscular bodies of female bodybuilders:the appearance of Beverly Francis on the competition scene, the aesthetic criteria encouraged bythe federations, and the use of nutritional supplements and doping agents. Of course, the femalebodybuilders that we interviewed belong to a generation that was exposed to these influences.They have lived through them and experimented with them.

An Event: Beverly FrancisWhen Beverly Francis first participated in an American bodybuilding championship, it was anevent that marked the recent history of female bodybuilding. Beverly Francis is an Australianathlete who was six times world powerlifting champion, and who first entered the world ofcompetitive bodybuilding in 1983 in the Caesars World Cup.4 She presented the judges with aphysique that differed completely from that of the other contestants. She was first brought to theattention of the general public by Georges Butler in his documentary film Pumping Iron II: TheWomen, and came to symbolize extreme muscle development in women.5 This documentarymade an impression on people involved in the bodybuilding world (bodybuilders, coaches,journalists) and was the subject of several sociological articles (Balsamo, 1994; Klein, 1993, pp.178-179; Lowe, 1998, p. 136; Mansfield & McGinn, 1996, pp. 55-56; Obel, 1996, p. 189; StMartin & Gavey, 1996). The very masculine physical appearance of Bev Francis makes her thefirst female athlete with an androgynous physique. She competed in Ms. Olympia starting in1986 and stayed at the top of competitive bodybuilding for 5 years. Bev Francis’s body hasalmost no feminine characteristics. It provokes reactions of repulsion and horror (Johnston, 1996,p. 335).

The journalist Laurent Heurtois described her in the following way: “In the mid-80s anAustralian woman became the talk of the sports world. Coming from a background incompetitive strength athletics, Beverly Francis had a muscle volume that was astounding inbodybuilding competitions” (Le Monde du Muscle, No. 120, March 1993, p. 106, ourtranslation). The following excerpts from interviews with competitors show that breaking awayfrom the traditional aesthetic profiles of female bodybuilding, her physique is engraved inpeople’s memory.

Q: When one compares the photographs of bodybuilders from the early 80s to those ofthe present day, I’m surprised by the difference in their proportions. What do you think?

A: Incredible. The girls who were at Olympia in 1980, which after all is the mostprestigious competition, could barely meet the standards of today’s national body-fitnesscontestants.Q: How do you explain this?

A: The explanation is that in 1980 you could say that the standard was respectable. Whenpeople started wanting to develop female bodybuilding, some very nice looking womencame along and then things started right away to escalate. A woman called Francis camealong, a weightlifter. She did bench press contests. She was very strong and held theworld record, which was 150 kilos. So you see . . . she showed up. They made a filmcalled Pumping Iron II to show female muscle, she was in it and . . . she was a man, aman.Q: Do you think that triggered . . .?

A: . . . that was the trigger yes, she did a lot of damage. Lots of girls said, “Why don’t Ibecome like that?” . . . And on top of that, she was . . . she did a pose that only the mendo called “the most muscular.” It’s virility taken to extremes, you know. On top of thatit’s really ugly, for the men and the women, and she did it all the time. I think it was astronghold for a certain type of feminist bodybuilder, who got back into the fight saying,“Yeah, that’s what we want to be,” and they waged their war and then, well it took offand suddenly we had these monsters on stage.Q: So, that body fascinated people?

A: Yes . . . it was extreme in a sporting and muscular way . . . and so then the judges gotinto it too because they had to adapt. And after that, in ’85, ’86, ’87 we ended up with,well, real monstrosities at Olympia. I’m afraid there’s no other word for it. And then itjust escalated. (Subject 4)

Interview With the Journalist About Very Muscular Women:A: I remember a photo that made it to the front cover of L’Equipe Magazine one time6. . .. It was Beverly Francis who came from weight lifting or strength athletics and who wasabout to go in for bodybuilding. It was a man!

Q: What does Beverly represent for you?A: Um, it was, uh . . . I’d say . . . she was one of the first women to have an androgynousappearance, because you could say that the very first muscular woman was Keb Aster,but her physical development wasn’t really that excessive. She wasn’t a mountain ofmuscle. She was big, she also had strong contours, but nothing like Beverly who was . .. I don’t remember her weight but she was much bigger and more powerful than KebAster. It’s true that she posed a problem for all the judges. Beverly did a lot of harm tothe image of bodybuilding for women, because she advanced the cause of women asathletes but harmed the cause of women as women.

Bev Francis demolished the norms when she exposed her body and her image to the public: herandrogynous appearance demonstrated new ways of shaping one’s body. Early on, she was too

masculine to win the competitions, she was too different from the other athletes. Bev Francislater modified her physical appearance to make it more feminine, by decreasing her muscle massand enhancing her symmetry, by using makeup and getting a new hairstyle and hair color. Thesephysical changes allowed her to improve her ranking and win competitions. Her shows werewidely reported in the media and changed the direction of female bodybuilding. This prominenceof muscle posed a dilemma to judges. They had to choose between just scoring muscularperformance (muscle volume, leanness, muscle definition, etc.) and encouraging a harmonious,shapely build. Internationally, it was the prestigious American competitions that attracted thewomen with massive amounts of muscle . . . and so the first androgynous female bodiesappeared. The contestants had to decide whether to join the ultra-muscular women who won themajor titles or to shun the muscle craze and have no hope of competitive success.This extreme muscle cult did not emerge in France. The best French female bodybuilders (agroup that includes the majority of our interviewees), although strongly stigmatized, could neverrival these exceptional physiques. Even though French bodybuilding never reached the sameparoxysmal degree, the French federations followed the American aesthetic rules of over-development of muscles, highly pronounced muscle definition, and muscle quality. If Francislaunched this change in aesthetic goals, the evolution that ensued could not have happenedwithout the approval of a few decision-makers and the support of the federations.

The Demands of the FederationsIf Bev Francis’s physical appearance allowed female bodybuilders to reconcile their femininitywith extreme musculature, it was only made possible due to the encouragement of thefederations. An article appeared in Le Monde du Muscle in the column “Point de vue”(Viewpoint) stating, “But this ‘huge’ image will take us back to being a closed, criticized world.Don’t forget that this fashion for excessive volume, encouraged by the federations using aberrantjudging criteria, was entirely created by the ‘sport multinationals’” (No. 153, March 1996, p. 31).Klein (1981, 1985, 1993) and Lowe (1998), who studied the bodybuilding world in depth, alsodiscussed this denunciation of multinationals, which have an obvious financial interest inincreasing the appeal of these extravagant muscle shows. Both authors highlight the power of theWeider brothers’ empire. Their name dominates “the bodybuilding planet.” One of the brothersis actually the president of the biggest bodybuilding federation, the IFBB. For Klein, the Weiderorganization “is effectively a fusion of political and economic structures, and, in fusing them, itcontrols the sport and the individuals in it” (Klein, 1993, p. 97). Joe Weider sponsors the Mr. andMs. Olympia Contests and finances most events connected with bodybuilding. He and hisbrother own several popular bodybuilding and fitness magazines, gyms, and companies sellingvarious brands of dietary supplements and training equipment, books, and videos. Theireconomic strength and power allows them to wield great power. Occasionally this has happenedin contests.Klein (1993) and Lowe (1998) studied two different bodybuilding populations. Klein studiedmen and Lowe, women. They relate anecdotes in two separate studies, performed 10 years apart.The authors reveal that certain judges—incidentally chosen by Joe Weider—did not score theathletes according to a list of predetermined aesthetic criteria, but ranked the contestants basedon Joe Weider’s instructions. Klein, for example, tells the story of a bodybuilder who deservedthe title of Mr. Olympia but who was ranked behind Arnold Schwarzenegger because magazinesales would be tripled by awarding the title to Schwarzenegger and putting his photograph on thefront cover (Klein, 1993, p. 99). Marketing logic superseded sporting logic. In a similar way,

Lowe describes the Weider empire as “representing the political and economic muscle of thesport from its incipient stages to the present, the Weiders currently wield so much power thatwith a simple flex of their muscles, they can make or break a bodybuilder’s, promoter’s, orjudge’s career” (Lowe, 1998, pp. 66-67). The author explains how Ben Weider prevented certainfemale contestants from winning the supreme title because their physique did not correspond tohis feminine ideal (Lowe, p. 71).

Bodybuilding in the United States quickly became a powerful business (Aycock, 1992),essentially profiting its promoters and sponsors (Dutton, 1995, p. 147), and the female athlete ispurely a commercial product here (Fair, 1999). Our aim is not to denounce the facts but to showthe underlying relationship between the decision-making power of the multinationals andbodybuilding’s development politics. The policy encouraging big muscles that began 15 yearsago for women did not originate simply from a sporting way of thinking.

This has had direct consequences on French bodybuilding. The attractiveness of Americancompetitions is obvious sporting logic for competitors. Female bodybuilders were not satisfiedwith the title of French champion. They wanted to qualify for European championships in thehope of one day having the opportunity to enter American competitions—the most prestigiousbut the most difficult by far. However, moving onto the American stage could only be possible ifthe same aesthetic criteria imposed by the American federations were followed in France. Thus,the French federations copied the American criteria exactly. The following series of quotes fromthe competitors and the journalist illustrates how the competitive environment now requires theseathletes to develop their muscles to the utmost.

I started at a time when very big women were put on the podiums, so I and my colleaguesfrom the same generation joined the race for muscle mass. (Subject 6)Q: Muscular progression is measured gradually in bodybuilding. So, can an athlete stopwhenever she wants?A: If she wants to stop, it’s her decision, of course. But that’s outside the competitiveenvironment. She has to watch out, in that she must use carefully what we call mirror-looking, the reflection of her image, so she can say at any time, “I’ll stop there becausemy physique is getting too masculine.” But if she enters competitions, she has noalternative. She is always striving for more, to have more muscle mass, to be leaner. Sheno longer has the choice. She is caught in a vicious circle. I started at a time when theywanted very big women on stage. It probably wasn’t my prime objective. Yes, I wantedto be a muscular woman, but not really to have an exaggerated muscle mass. But as I wasstarting out in competition, and the criterion at that time was volume, so then I had tocultivate that mass. (Subject 2)

Interview With the Journalist About a Specific Athlete:Q: And what about X?7

A: She did what they all did, so she could compete at the highest level . . . she greatlyincreased her muscle mass, and at one time it’s true that she was among the mostmuscular of the athletes. So in a way she embodies the change they had to undergo inorder to satisfy the judging criteria. However, one can’t say that the girls did this for theirown pleasure. They had to do it, because if they didn’t they were given a poor rankingand couldn’t compete.

Q: What does the aesthetic change mean to you?8

A: At the beginning you saw natural-looking girls who practiced several activities toincrease their stamina, strength, and aesthetic qualities. After that, you saw increasingspecialization.

This shift to specialization exactly reflects the way our competitors managed their preparation. Akind of emulation occurred for female bodybuilders who began competing at the end of the1980s. No detail of the physical preparation process was neglected. The male-female gapnarrowed as women got stronger and their physiques grew closer to those of male bodybuilders.According to the journalist, the increased importance given to muscle volume brought aboutthese new preparations:

As soon as muscle mass was adopted as the sole aesthetic criterion, more women werebeing advised by men who had a vision of bodybuilding in the 1980s that was harder andharder. And so, very quickly, the women shifted to a style of physical development thattended towards a quite impressive kind of development. Because those women mixedwith certain . . . let’s call them assistants, who inflicted not only much harder trainingschedules on them, a greater training load, with also more adequate nutrition and . . . alsowith, uh . . . primarily the use of, you know, doping agents.

The increased aesthetic demands for the women’s categories in the United States and theiracceptance by the French federations, offered the women new limits to exploit their musclepotential. They intensified and specialized their preparation to improve their ranking in Europeancompetitions. Gradually, their lifestyle became totally focused on the discipline. The new criteriameant that there was no place for “casual bodybuilders.” The female bodybuilders resorted tonew exercise techniques borrowed from the men, took advantage of advances in the fields ofnutrition and synthetic nutritional supplements, and underwent the positive and negative effectsof different doping substances.

Preparing for Competition: Supplements and DopingSupplements. The ongoing quest for an aesthetic body is accompanied by a strict diet (Guthrie,Ferguson, & Grimmet, 1994; Mansfield & McGinn, 1996, p. 52). The preparation lasts forseveral months and comprises two phases. First, there is weight gain aimed at building upmuscle. This requires a high calorie intake. The athletes can eat up to six meals a day. Themuscle is constructed inside a fattened body. The second phase involves dieting. The diet startsprogressively but rapidly becomes very arduous. The aim is to get rid of the layer of fatpreviously laid down. Making the body lean or “hard” brings out the contours of the muscles. Infact, the competitors are very knowledgeable on the subjects of nutrition and training techniques.Rigorous preparation is required for competition: food selection, requirements for protein andamino acid supplements, management of the daily calorie intake (to develop muscle mass oralternatively to try to reduce it), and controlling hunger. The desire of female bodybuilders tocreate the perfect body leads to behavior reminiscent of persons with anorexia (Marzano-Parisoli, 2001). Each stage of training is associated with a proper calorific evaluation (Bolin,1992; McLish, 1984). For example, during the loss of subcutaneous fat, the exercises concentrateon the finishing touches and the detail of the muscle. Carbohydrate and protein intake can beadjusted by taking capsules and protein drinks. These regimes promote rapid weight loss andsharpen the muscle outlines. They contribute to the identity of the bodybuilding subculture.

The practice involves expert knowledge of supplements. All brands of food supplements,systematically associated with a photograph of the product, contribute to creating a meaningfuluniverse that becomes familiar to enthusiasts. These brand names and nutritional supplementsare advertised in gyms, on stalls at contests, and at every event relating to bodybuilding(exhibitions, shows).9 Anyone who hopes to win cannot ignore these practices. Le Monde duMuscle reports, “Even relentless enthusiasts of ‘normal’ food who are opposed to using pills andpowders have to admit that it’s not easy for a bodybuilder to obtain all the required nutrientssolely from food, as they ideally would like to gain weight and become lean at the same time.Good supplements exist and are not prohibited. So why not use them?” (No. 93, October 1990, p.54) Nutritional products have been contributing to the history of bodybuilding for the last fewyears. Food “is also a system of communication, a body of images, a set of uses, situations, andbehaviors” (Barthes, 1970). This statement refers to the eating rituals of female bodybuildersduring their preparation for competition: measuring out powders, cocktails of capsules, preparingprotein drinks.10

Supplements are a strong subcultural factor. Moreover, the role of nutrients was always stressedin the magazine. The space allotted to advertisements for dietary supplements greatly increasedover the last 10 years, compared to the advertising space devoted to other products. Figure 2shows that, during the first decade, the majority of the magazine’s advertisements were forspecialist equipment (bodybuilding devices, gym equipment, hygiene installations, etc.).Advertisements for synthetic food products rapidly gained ground during the second decade.

Figure 2 — Magazine space allotted to advertising over a 23-year period.

Articles proclaiming the effectiveness of various nutrients reinforce the message alreadyestablished by the advertising. Articles about artificial supplements and synthetic or protein-related products (in powder or capsule form) outnumber those about “natural” foodstuffs, whichdiscuss menus and promote a balanced diet through dietary education (see Figure 3).

Figure 3 — Magazine space allotted to articles about natural nutrition and supplementsover a 23-year period.

We discussed this particularity of the bodybuilding lifestyle with the journalist:Q: In the early issues of Sciences Culturistes (Bodybuilding Sciences) there were ads forBanania; today you only see ads for pills.11,12 What do you think?A: That too is part of the trend, because you have to realize that at first there were nosupplements. These brands didn’t exist. So not only did the manufacturers bring qualityto the market that didn’t exist before, they also brought out a wide range of products.Because at the time there was nothing. . . . Obviously Banania doesn’t have the samequalities as a well-researched product. . . . Because it’s a fact, you need a certain amountof high-quality ingredients to make a product that works. You choose products that fitwith your diet. With these dietary products you have a targeted intake of amino acids andproteins, so you can balance your carbohydrate and protein intakes according to the typeof diet you want. So at least, with these products, you know what they’re for, you knowwhat you’re taking, and you know why you’re taking them. It helps. This didn’t exist 15years ago.

These arguments confirm that synthetic nutritional supplements play a major role duringpreparation for competition. But synthetic nutritional products have their limits and areinsufficient for success in competition. St Martin and Gavey (1996) explain on that subject that“elite level women bodybuilders have utilized growing knowledge about nutrition and training

practices and, most significantly, performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) such as anabolic steroidsto achieve the new standards for competitive bodies” (p. 49). One of the interviewees spoke ofthe limits of nutritional supplements and alluded to doping:

All the other women will tell you stories about their dietary supplements and all the rest. .. . We know very well that that’s not all they take. This rubbish has to stop! (Subject 9)

Although the sporadic use of supplements is far from sufficient for guaranteeing musculardevelopment, doping substances like anabolic steroids and growth hormones ensure an increasein muscle mass.

Doping. The bodybuilding world is a favorable environment for the use of steroids and otherdoping products (Aoki, 1996, p. 69; Bloor, Monaghan, Dobash, & Dobash, 1998; Castelnuovo &Guthrie, 1998, p. 57; Guthrie et al., 1994, p. 277; Klein, 1985, 1993; Lowe, 1998; Monaghan,1999; Saltman, 1998, p. 52). However, we found very few articles in the magazine about doping,or about athletes who use doping agents (see Figure 4).

Figure 4 — Magazine space allotted to articles about doping over a 23-year period.

This paucity is paradoxical in light of the televised confessions of several athletes who haveadmitted to doping and have revealed that many other bodybuilders also use doping agents.Similarly, articles about doping condemn the practice and portray it as a widespreadphenomenon. The titles are revealing: “Doping Health?” (No. 93, October 1990, p. 51),“Anabolically Correct” (No. 181, October 1998, p. 38), “Growth Hormone” (No. 131, March1994, p. 115), “Anti-Doping Movement?” (No. 90, June 1990, p. 51), “Who’s to Blame?” (No.173, January 1998, p. 148). The main topics are descriptions of certain products, attacks oninternational aesthetic demands, the hypocrisy of the federations, the dangers of doping,unconvincing and inadequate doping tests, the extent of the phenomenon, and unfair media

coverage compared with other disciplines that are equally affected. Even if the level aimed for byFrench competitors is far below that worthy of a place on the Ms. Olympia podium, Europeanstandards are nonetheless very high. The process of competing against leaner, more massiverivals encourages certain bodybuilders to resort to doping.

Q: So you could no longer compete with those in the category above you?A: Exactly, I was actually the biggest in my category. At the finals I weighed in at 56.4kilos. I was the heaviest, but also the tallest, so that counted against me. I looked verygood but lacked volume compared to the girls who were shorter than me. Actually, for along time I had a lot of trouble finding my niche, and I didn’t use anabolic steroids at thattime, so I had a very normal physique. Even being hypertrophied, I always got through. . .. I used to win quarter- and semi-finals but I never won the finals because the other girlswere always much bigger and much leaner, because they took anabolic steroids. But in1994, when I got to 70 kilos I started to take steroids. . . .Q: Why did you make that choice?

A: Because I wanted to be like the others, you know. Because the girls who hadhypertrophied muscles and who were leaner did better. And I understood after studying alittle physiology that I wouldn’t make it by hormonal or natural means, so I had to starttaking anabolic steroids. (Subject 4)

Some bodybuilders are against doping even in national contests.There are doping substances, morphine derivatives, amphetamines, appetite-suppressants. . . . Hormones help increase muscular development without affecting thepsyche, without cravings. In the French finals, among both the women and the men, thetop three or four take doping substances. There’s a little less of it among the women. Itdepends on the federation. Certain federations are lowering their muscle-building criteriarelative to fat loss. (Subject 2)

But the overriding argument is the desire to be better than everyone else.

We don’t have a choice, do we? How else can you keep up with the diet and training andeverything? And then when you’re competing you want to be better than the rest! Comeon now, you must know that. (Subject 6)

This study does not aim to question the motives of woman bodybuilders who resort to doping.Roussel and Griffet (2000) use the concept of alienation of athletes to interpret the path chosenby female bodybuilders in the sense that they confine their lives to a single world and investeverything in it instead of developing a series of life spheres. The present article, which isessentially a descriptive analysis of factors that may have brought about the decline in femalebodybuilding, completes this interpretation.

ConclusionDoping and supplements provide a sure and fast way for female bodybuilders to develop animpressive set of muscles. But would these factors have existed if the federations had notcondoned increased muscle mass for female bodybuilders? Would female bodybuilding havestarted to disappear if a weightlifter had not turned to bodybuilding, thus overthrowing thetraditional aesthetic criteria of American contests? The factors put forward in this article aresimply interpretive suggestions for understanding the decline in female bodybuilding in France.

It would be interesting to conduct a comparative analysis of female bodybuilding trends in othercountries. Indeed, the following statement made by the president of the International FemaleBodybuilding Committee, a Danish woman by the name of Lisser Frost-Larsen, suggests thatfemale bodybuilding is declining in countries other than France:

It is imperative that we ask ourselves whether the quest for more has taken us beyondacceptable limits. I’m utterly convinced that unless we want to see this women’s sportdie, we will have to make better choices of those who represent us. Symmetry, balancedproportions, and performance should be much more important than excessive muscledevelopment and “hardness”. (Our translation of statements quoted by Le Monde duMuscle, No. 112, June 1992, p. 13).

In France, certain federations have eliminated their “Muscular Women” or “FemaleBodybuilding” categories. Body fitness, moderate muscle development, and feminine appearanceare currently successful.13 In the last French bodybuilding championship held in May 2000,about 20 contestants entered the body fitness category. Fitness athletes are arousing interest, andthis new build of muscular woman is gaining prominence. The editorial committee of themagazine has announced that “younger athletes are frightened off by the standard that must beattained to win international contests. Certain athletes are turning to the body fitness categories”(No. 120, March 1993, p. 110). Again, a comparative study with other countries could widen thescope of our analysis.

ReferencesAoki, D. (1996). Sex and muscle: The female bodybuilder meets Lacan. Body & Society, 2(4), 59-74.

Aycock, A. (1992). The confession of the flesh: Disciplinary gaze in casual bodybuilding. Play & Culture, 5, 338-357.

Balsamo, A. (1994). Feminist bodybuilding. In S. Birrell & C.L. Cole (Eds.), Women, sport and culture (pp. 341-352). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Barthes, R. (1970). Pour une psychosociologie de l’alimentation [Social psychology of food]. Cahiers des Annales,28.

Bloor, M., Monaghan, L., Dobash, R.P., & Dobash, R.E. (1998). The body as a chemistry experiment: steroid useamong South Wales bodybuilders. In S. Nettleton & J. Watson (Eds.), The body in everyday life. London:Routledge.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bolin, A. (1992). Flex appeal, food, and fat: Competitive bodybuilding, gender, and diet. Play & Culture, 5, 378-400.

Castelnuovo, S., & Guthrie, S.R. (1998). Feminism and the female body: Liberating the Amazon Within. Boulder,CO: Lynne Rienner.

Courtine, J.J. (1993). Les stakhanovistes du narcissisme. Bodybuilding et puritanisme ostentatoire dans la cultureaméricaine du corps [The stakhanovists of narcissism. Bodybuilding and ostentatious puritanism in the Americanbody culture]. Communications, 56, 225-251.

Dutton, K.R. (1995). The perfectible body. London: Cassel.

Elias, N. (1969). La Société de cour. Paris: Flammarion.

Fair, J.D. (1999). Fitness Innovation or Sexual Exploitation? Bob Hoffman and the women weightlifters ofMuscletown USA. Sport History Review, 30, 39-55.

Guthrie, S.R., & Castelnuovo, S. (1992). Elite women bodybuilders: Models of resistance or compliance? Play &Culture, 4, 401-408.

Guthrie, S.R., Ferguson C., & Grimmett, M. (1994). Elite women bodybuilders: Ironing out nutritionalmisconceptions. The Sport Psychologist, 8, 271-286.

Hall, M.A. (1988). The discourse of gender and sport: From femininity to feminism. Sociology of Sport Journal, 5,330-340.

Hargreaves, J.A. (1986). Where’s the virtue? Where’s the grace? A discussion of the social production of genderrelations in and through sport. Theory Culture & Society, 3(1), 109-121.

Heywood, L. (1998). A Cultural Anatomy of Women’s Body Building. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Johnston, L. (1996). Flexing femininity: Female body-builders refiguring “the body”. Gender, Place and Culture, 3,327-340.

Klein, A.M. (1981). The master blaster: Empire building & body building. Arena Review, 5(3), 29-32.

Klein, A.M. (1985). Muscle manor: The use of sport metaphor and history in sport sociology. Journal of Sport andSocial Issues, 9, 4-17.

Klein, A.M. (1986). Pumping irony: Crisis and contradiction in bodybuilding subculture. Sociology of SportJournal, 3, 112-133.

Klein, A.M. (1993). Little big men: Bodybuilding subculture and gender construction. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Lowe, M.R. (1998). Women of steel. Female body-builders and the struggle for self-definition. New-York:University Press.

Mansfield, A., & McGinn, B. (1996). Pumping irony: The muscular and the feminine. In S. Scott & D. Morgan(Eds.), Body matters (pp. 49-68). London: The Falmer Press.

Marzano-Parisoli, M-M. (2001). The contemporary construction of a perfect body image: bodybuilding, exerciseaddiction, and eating disorders. Quest, 53, 216-230.

McLish, R. (1984). Flex appeal. New York: Warner Books.

Mead, G.H. (1963). L’Esprit, le Soi et la Société [Mind, Self, & Society] (J. Cazeneuve, E. Kaelin, & G. Thibault,Trans.). Paris: PUF.

Messner, M.A. (1988). Sports and male domination: the female athlete as contested ideological terrain. Sociology ofSport Journal, 5, 197-211.

Miller, L., & Penz, O. (1991). Talking bodies: Female body-builders colonize a male preserve. Quest, 43, 148-163.

Monaghan, L. (1999). Challenging medicine? Bodybuilding, drugs and risk. Sociology of Health & Illness, 21, 707-734.

Obel, C. (1996). Collapsing gender in competitive bodybuilding: Researching contradictions and ambiguity in sport.International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 31, 185-203.

Roussel, P. (2000). Le corps féminin culturiste. Approche sociologique d’une génération de femmes culturistesfrançaises [The body of the female bodybuilder. Sociological approach of a generation of french femalebodybuilders]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Aix-Marseille II, Marseille.

Roussel, P., & Griffet, J. (2000). The path chosen by female bodybuilders: A tentative interpretation. Sociology ofSport Journal, 17, 130-150.

Saltman, K. (1998). Men with breasts. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, XXV, 48-60.

St Martin, L., & Gavey, N. (1996). Women’s bodybuilding: feminist resistance and/or femininity’s recuperation?Body & Society, 2, 45-57.

Thompson, W.E., & Bair, J.H. (1982). A sociological analysis of pumping iron. Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology,10, 192-196.

Weber, M. (1971). Economie et société [Economy and society]. Paris: Plon.

Notes1See Roussel and Griffet (2000, p. 142) for a more detailed description.2To begin with, we contacted the federations by sending out a long letter explaining the context of the study behindour request. Having received no reply after several weeks, we renewed our request with a shorter letter. Just onefederation took the trouble to reply at this stage and sent us the figures, informing us of the difficulty they had inestablishing the exact numbers of male and female competitors over the past 10 years. We contacted the remainingseven federations twice by telephone. None of them were able to give us firm figures.3See Roussel and Griffet (2000) for a more detailed description.4From 1980 to 1985.5Producer of the film Pumping Iron in 1977, starring Arnold Schwarzenegger.6L’Equipe Magazine (The Team Magazine) is the most widely read daily sports publication in France.7We have not revealed the identity of the female bodybuilders.8About 1984.9The following phrases can be seen. MILK & EGG: promote lean mass gains! MASS POWER PLUS: the answer tomass gain! L-CARNITINE: Lose your fat fast! FAT BURNERS: Burn off your fat! PURE CREATINE: Purestrength! Ideal for increasing your training limits and reducing your recovery time. ANABOLIC MEGA CAPS:Assimilate your proteins better! B.C.A.A: Improve your muscle contraction and recovery! (our translation).10In the magazine Impact Médecin Hebdo (No. 286, June 1995), a general weekly magazine for doctors, FabriceDavid writes, “Bodybuilding has changed a lot. Natural and artificial techniques are not what they used to be. Andthe athletes are constantly getting bigger. Example: dietary supplements. Currently, virtually every bodybuildertakes powdered concentrates.”11Sciences Culturistes is a former specialist magazine, published from 1958 to 1974.12Banania is a brand of powdered chocolate that children drink for breakfast.13L. Heywood (1998) mentions the same change in the United States. (See for a more detailed description, pp. 29-48.)

AcknowledgmentsThe authors would like to extend their grateful thanks to the editor of Sociology of Sport Journal,Nancy Theberge, and to the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.