How Body Standards in Bodybuilding Have Changed

The ideal body in bodybuilding has never been fixed. Over more than a hundred years, judging criteria, public tastes and the athletes themselves have several times radically changed the notion of what a “proper” bodybuilder should look like. The editorial team traced this evolution and explained which factors — from the aesthetics of antiquity to pharmacology — shaped each era.

The beginning: Sandow and classical proportionality

The history of bodybuilding is usually counted from Eugen Sandow — a Prussian athlete who at the end of the 19th century turned the display of the body into a stage show. Unlike the strongmen of his time, who impressed the public with the weight of the objects they lifted, Sandow emphasized the form of the muscles, posing and proportions.

His reference point was ancient sculpture. Sandow studied statues in museums and sought to bring his body closer to Greek canons: broad shoulders, a narrow waist, harmonious ratios of the limbs and torso. Mass as such was not the goal — what was valued was “sculptural quality.”

In 1901, London’s Royal Albert Hall hosted the “Great Competition,” considered one of the first physique contests. The judges included Sandow himself and the sculptor and writer Arthur Conan Doyle. The Sandow statuette later became the symbol of the main professional title — Mr. Olympia.

The Sandow era was characterized by moderate muscle mass, the absence of extreme leanness and a natural weight close to that of an “ordinary” person who had trained long and systematically. It is precisely this image that today is often recalled as the “natural ideal.”

Mid-20th century: from strongmen to “Mr. America”

In the first half of the 20th century, the culture of physical development spread through magazines, correspondence and sports clubs. Athletes often combined bodybuilding with weightlifting, and at physique contests not only the muscles but general “athleticism” were assessed.

From 1939 the “Mr. America” contest was held in the USA (under the auspices of the amateur sports union AAU). At first the criteria even included athletic achievements and personal qualities, meaning bodybuilding had not yet fully separated from the idea of the “all-round developed man.”

The symbol of the postwar ideal became Steve Reeves — winner of “Mr. America” in 1947 and “Mr. Universe” in 1950, later the Hollywood Hercules. His physique — broad shoulders, a very narrow waist, expressive but not excessive mass — is still a benchmark for admirers of the classic style.

In 1946 the brothers Joe and Ben Weider founded the International Federation of Bodybuilding (IFBB). The emergence of professional federations, magazines and commercial tournaments gradually turned bodybuilding into a separate kind of competition with its own, increasingly strict standards.

The “golden era” and the birth of Mr. Olympia

In 1965 the IFBB launched the Mr. Olympia tournament, conceived as a competition among the best professionals in the world. The first two titles went to Larry Scott, known above all for his exceptionally developed arms. From then on the “Olympia” became the main showcase of professional bodybuilding standards.

The period from the late 1960s to the 1970s is called the “golden era.” Its most famous face became Arnold Schwarzenegger, who won Mr. Olympia seven times (1970–1975 and 1980). This era was characterized by a combination of large mass with an expressive V-shape, an abdominal vacuum and classic posing.

At the same time, however, Frank Zane was also winning (three titles in a row in 1977–1979) — an athlete of far smaller weight, but with impeccable proportionality and definition. The fact that judges favored such different physiques shows that the criteria were still balancing between mass and aesthetics.

It was in these decades that anabolic steroids spread in sport. Historians point out that from the 1950s–60s their use among strength-sport athletes became widespread, which gradually shifted the bar of achievable size far beyond natural possibilities (Kanayama, Pope, 2018).

The era of mass: 1990s–2000s

In the 1980s Lee Haney won eight titles in a row (1984–1991), his physique combining mass and harmony. But already in the 1990s the ideal shifted sharply toward extremely large size. Dorian Yates (six titles, 1992–1997) demonstrated a new level of muscle density and dryness, especially in the back.

Ronnie Coleman, an eight-time winner (1998–2005), became the symbol of the “era of giants.” The competition weight of top professionals rose noticeably compared with the 1970s, and judges increasingly gave victory to the largest athlete provided he had high conditioning.

This era has a downside too. Critics drew attention to the loss of aesthetics: a distended belly, a widened waist, unnaturally large proportions. Doctors and researchers link such changes to a combination of high doses of anabolic drugs, growth hormone, insulin and extreme diets.

The health consequences also became a subject of research. A scientific statement of the Endocrine Society describes the cardiovascular, hormonal and mental risks of using doping drugs, and the early deaths of some professional athletes drew media attention to the price of the “era of mass” (Pope et al., 2014).

The return of aesthetics and new categories

The response to criticism of the “era of mass” was an expansion of the list of categories. In 2012 the Men’s Physique category appeared at the Olympia — for athletes with a beach, “magazine” physique, who compete in board shorts and are judged without emphasis on the legs.

In 2016 the IFBB Pro League introduced Classic Physique. Its main feature is a weight limit depending on height and mandatory classic poses, which in effect revives the standards of the 1970s. The popularity of this category shows the audience’s demand for harmony rather than size alone.

The audience changed too. Social media formed a new wave of ideals — a “fitness physique” with a low body-fat percentage and moderate mass. Yet research shows that media images of the male body have over the years become ever more muscular: this can be traced even in the example of children’s action figures (Pope et al., 1999) and magazine models (Leit et al., 2001).

Connected with this is the problem of muscle dysmorphia — a condition in which a person constantly considers themselves insufficiently muscular. It was described in the late 1990s and is regarded as a form of body dysmorphic disorder. Unrealistic standards that rely on pharmacology raise the risk of both psychological problems and doping use.

For people who train without competitive goals, the useful conclusion is simple: the physique of champions of different eras reflects not only genetics and years of work, but also the pharmacological context of the time. Comparing yourself with them is not correct.

Editorial conclusions

The body ideal in bodybuilding traveled a path from Sandow’s ancient proportionality, through the balanced “golden era,” to the extreme sizes of the 1990s–2000s and a partial return to aesthetics in the last decade.

Each shift was determined by several factors: federation rules, commercial interest, the media and the spread of pharmacology. So the standards of the competitive stage should not be taken as a reference point for health.

A realistic goal for most is strength, good well-being, a moderate body-fat percentage and a proportional physique achieved through training, nutrition and recovery.

The editorial team also recommends reading our materials about the history of the discovery of testosterone, the history of protein powders and the history of the anti-doping movement.

References

1. Chapman DL. Sandow the Magnificent: Eugen Sandow and the Beginnings of Bodybuilding. Urbana: University of Illinois Press; 1994.
2. Fair JD. Mr. America: The Tragic History of a Bodybuilding Icon. Austin: University of Texas Press; 2015.
3. Kanayama G, Pope HG Jr. History and epidemiology of anabolic androgens in athletes and non-athletes. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2018;464:4–13.
4. Pope HG Jr, Wood RI, Rogol A, et al. Adverse health consequences of performance-enhancing drugs: an Endocrine Society scientific statement. Endocr Rev. 2014;35(3):341–375.
5. Pope HG Jr, Olivardia R, Gruber A, Borowiecki J. Evolving ideals of male body image as seen through action toys. Int J Eat Disord. 1999;26(1):65–72.
6. Leit RA, Pope HG Jr, Gray JJ. Cultural expectations of muscularity in men: the evolution of Playgirl centerfolds. Int J Eat Disord. 2001;29(1):90–93.
7. Pope HG Jr, Gruber AJ, Choi P, Olivardia R, Phillips KA. Muscle dysmorphia: an underrecognized form of body dysmorphic disorder. Psychosomatics. 1997;38(6):548–557.