Competition or community? The Backstage experience of men in Bodybuilding Competitions

Bodybuilding is a popular sport in the United States. Each year, thousands of people across the country participate in bodybuilding competitions (NPC News Online., 2020a) and many more engage in bodybuilding-inspired lifestyles. This study focuses on bodybuilding as a sport. While muscle-enhancing behavior can be part of a healthy lifestyle and some form of resistance training is generally regarded as a healthy behavior, competitive bodybuilding is defined by a push to biological limits of human muscular capacity. Competitive bodybuilding demands that athletes lower their bodyfat to unusually low levels while also maintaining muscularity to a state that is sustainable only for the duration of preparation for a competition. Given the growing interest in the sport of bodybuilding and the relatively extreme ends to which individuals involved in bodybuilding push their bodies, it is important to understand how bodybuilding is related to relationships with the self and others in the literal construction of a body culminating in competition with others (Liokaftos, 2017).

As a sport, bodybuilding has been the subject of study in gender-related research, with a great deal of this work having been conducted in gyms rather than at competitions (Klein, 1993, 2007). This attention in research is due, in part, to the objective of bodybuilding to literally construct the body to specifications of muscularity for the purpose of direct competition with others. The links between muscularity and masculinity have also been of interest of gender researchers (Parent et al., 2016). Yet, the attainment of exceptional levels of muscularity and competition in bodybuilding have largely been viewed as negative, as a manifestation of toxic masculinity, or even as pathological (McKay et al., 2000). In the present study, we explore the nature of masculinity in the context of bodybuilding as a sport with eleven bodybuilding competitors. This study is the first to conduct in-depth research of backstage experiences of men bodybuilders. We aim to understand the competitor experience and interactions backstage at bodybuilding shows and, in doing so, test the dominant framing of muscularity and bodybuilding as negative or pathological within a high-stress, competitive environment. Such work acts as a call to contrast the sporting and social experience of bodybuilding. Our work was driven by a simple research question:

How do men bodybuilders construct participation in competitive bodybuilding and how does that experience align or not align with the dominant framing of bodybuilding as negative or as a manifestation of toxic masculinity?

The Dominant Framing of Muscularity

Within the field of psychology, muscle-building has been generally viewed as pathological or pathology-adjacent. That is, constructs such as the desire or drive for muscularity (McCreary, 2007) among men are routinely framed as being connected to other forms of pathology such as narcissism (Carroll, 1989; Fabris et al., 2018; Rubinstein, 2003), sexism (Swami & Voracek, 2013), and a desire to dominate others (Swami et al., 2013). A drive to become muscular is routinely framed within a theoretical framework, often poorly specified (Parent et al., 2016), that connects embodied masculinity in the form of muscularity with a striving for invulnerability and power, as a means of making up for feelings of inadequacy, or as a manifestation of an underlying pathology akin to embodied toxic masculinity (Kupers, 2005a; Parent et al., 2019). These emphases are akin to those originally observed in feminist analysis of sport (McKay et al., 2000), though psychology has lagged behind other fields in adopting more nuanced analyses of muscularity and bodybuilding (Parent et al., 2016).

If bodybuilding competitions were to function as an active embodiment of masculinity-related pathology, one would anticipate that specific themes would emerge at the time of competition, related to toxic masculinity and muscularity as compensation for inadequacy. Although the definition of toxic masculinity has been somewhat diluted in psychological literature, Kupers’ (2005b, 2010) original conceptualization focused on three domains: anti-gay sentiment or heterosexual self-presentation, anti-women behaviors, and zero-sum competitiveness. Further, a repeated theme within research on bodybuilding is that men’s muscularity reflects an underlying sense of inadequacy (Klein, 2007; Pleck, 1981). Other work has viewed bodybuilding as a deliberate effort among men to create a clear identity or earn cultural capital that can impress or intimidate others (Bridges, 2009). Such research, important though it is, has focused almost exclusively on bodybuilding lifestyles rather than the immediate experience of bodybuilding as a sport. The present study aimed to examine experiences of men in bodybuilding competitions to examine whether such prior work maps onto the experiences of men in those competitions.

Toxic masculinity, inadequacy, and Bodybuilding

The first aspect of Kuper’s (2005b) definition of toxic masculinity focuses on avoidance of being perceived to be gay, manifested as performative heterosexuality. Men’s within-gender friendships have been a subject of research related to this topic. A prevailing notion is that men’s fears of being perceived to be gay, in combination with poor social training for men in the development of non-sexual intimate relationships, inhibit the development of close friendships among men (Bank & Hansford, 2000; Oransky & Marecek, 2009). If bodybuilding is an extreme manifestation of toxic masculinity, one would expect that anti-gay sentiment would be present and, indeed amplified, in bodybuilding competitions. Historically, bodybuilding has operated in a nexus between other- and same-sex desire. Johnson’s (2010) work on the mid-twentieth-century showcased the tension felt within the sport between those who viewed the pursuit as a traditionally heterosexual form of competition and those who viewed bodybuilding as subterfuge for same-sex desire, and gay bodybuilders have noted prejudices against sexual minority persons in bodybuilding during the 1980 and 1990 s (Paris, 1997). However, recent work has suggested that such tensions have begun to fade away as the sport has become more open (Andreasson, 2015; Drummond, 2005; Hall, 2015). The nature of a bodybuilding competition, discussed shortly, involves instances of being in close quarters with other men competitors, while nude or minimally clothed. This bodily vulnerability would presumably threaten masculinity, activate a drive to aggressively make one’s heterosexuality apparent, and promote negative interactions among men, were bodybuilding to be centered within a toxically masculine context (Vandello et al., 2008; Vandello & Bosson, 2012).

The second aspect of Kupers’ (2005b) definition of toxic masculinity is anti-women behavior. This aspect of toxic masculinity directly supports masculine hegemony through the active subjugation of women, and is an aspect of masculine gender role conformity (Levant et al., 2007; Mahalik et al., 2003). Were this aspect of toxic masculinity to be present within a bodybuilding competition, it may emerge in behaviors such as sexualization of women competitors (e.g., comments about the women competitors’ bodies or sexual advances toward them), or resentment of women being present in the competition (e.g., asserting that women bodybuilders “look like men” or are otherwise not feminine enough). There have been overt efforts in bodybuilding to discourage excessive muscularity among women in the belief that such bodies would appear overly-masculine (Martin & Gavey, 1996). While such bias has existed, women’s bodybuilding has, since its inception in the late 1970s, continued to grow in popularity. Despite potentially limiting prejudices, a new wave of ethnographic work by women academic bodybuilders has stressed the transformative and friendly nature of the sport (Hentges, 2014; McTavish, 2015).

The third aspect of Kuper’s (2005b) definition of toxic masculinity is zero-sum competitiveness. This aspect of masculinity is characterized by fixation on one’s own success, particularly at the expense of others (Glick et al., 2018; Kupers, 2005b). Zero-sum thinking has been tied to masculinity across myriad studies (Glick et al., 2018; Kuchynka et al., 2018). In the case of bodybuilding, zero-sum competitiveness could emerge backstage in the form of an absence of helping behaviors or the presence of intentionally negative behaviors intended to “psych out” or otherwise disturb one’s competitors. In the past, certain popular works on bodybuilding have presented the idea that intentionally negative behaviors are part of the sport (Fussell, 1993; Schwarzenegger & Dobbins, 1998), which may have influenced early academic studies in the late 1980s and early 1990s (e.g., Klein 1993).

Aside from Kuper’s (2005b) concept of toxic masculinity, numerous authors have posited that men engage in muscle-building behaviors in response to an existential crisis related to women attaining more power in society and to women occupying roles traditionally held by men. Such claims can be found in psychology but also in history, sociology and anthropology (Reich, 2010; Wacquant, 1995; Wiegers, 1998). This idea has been posited as a reason for men’s muscle-building activities and steroid use (Pope et al., 2000). Were this to be present within a bodybuilding competition, one might anticipate negative interactions between men and women competitors, as women in bodybuilding would be perceived as penetrating into the “male” world of muscle-building.

Overall, Kuper’s (2005b) three core concepts of toxic masculinity (performative heterosexuality, misogyny, and zero-sum competition) would emerge within the context of competition. Bodybuilding competitions not only include interactions with others and therefor prompt self-presentation but involve direct competition and evaluation. The pressure of this direct competition and evaluation may be an environment in which toxic masculinity behaviors would emerge (Goffman, 1959).

Backstage: a brief overview

Unlike other sporting pursuits, bodybuilding is not a test of a specific athletic skill, but rather a competition based upon a competitors’ muscularity, leanness, and posing ability. Although traced by some to male beauty contests held in Ancient Greece, bodybuilding’s modern history dates to the early twentieth century when the first physique competitions were created (Fair, 2015; Liokaftos, 2017). The practice of going to the gym, however, was popularized in the early nineteenth century (Fair, 2015). Bodybuilding as a sport thus has a different history from the practice of building one’s body recreationally through physical activity.

Bodybuilding competitions occur many weekends each year in each state. Entering bodybuilding competitions requires costs for registration, liquid tanning, and hair and make-up (for women’s divisions) that can amount to several hundred dollars for entry into one competition. Bodybuilding is divided into male and female events (rules for people who are transgender are unclear at the time of this writing, with some organizations allowing participation after a specific period of use of hormones to transition). The most well-known events are likely men and women’s bodybuilding. The emphasis in these events is to attain an extremely muscular body with little bodyfat. Men’s bodybuilding competitors wear posing straps that cover the genitals and part of the buttocks. Between the two gender categories, male competitions tend to be more popular.

Men’s events also include physique and classic physique. Competitors in physique wear longer shorts (to just above the knee) and this event focuses on the aesthetic appearance of the upper body. Classic physique was started in the mid-2010s in light of concern that men in the bodybuilding division were attaining levels of muscularity far beyond what was aesthetically appealing (Liokaftos, 2017). Classic physique bodybuilders wear brief-like posing suits, and the goal for the competitors is an aesthetically appealing physique with muscularity of the upper and lower body.

Prior to a competition, a competitor will have engaged in a long period of training and dieting (Fitschen & Wilson, 2019). A few months before the show, the competitor will enter the preparation stage for the contest. The preparation stage involves a gradual reduction in caloric intake to maintain steady loss of body fat while retaining as much muscle mass as possible, with the goal being optimal appearance just before the show. The dietary behaviors just before the competition (“peak week”) may be particularly specific, such as consuming almost no carbohydrates (Lee, 2007). Many competitors find the dietary practices particularly challenging as the steps taken to attain abnormal levels of leanness can cause problems such as irritability. Throughout this time, the individual is continuing to engage in resistance training and cardiovascular exercise. For a day or two before a show, a competitor may reduce water intake to almost nothing, or engage in other strategies, such as manipulating sodium and/or carbohydrate intake (Lee, 2007), to enhance vascularity (i.e., how much the veins stand out, which is an asset in the competition).

There is typically an orientation for competitors the evening before the competition. The first spray tan is administered at this time. Most competitors pay for tanning to be done professionally; host hotels often expressly ban application of tanners in the hotel rooms as they can stain furniture, carpets, and walls. The tanning agent is not a commercial spray tan but rather a much darker temporary body paint that allows separations (serrations) between the muscles to be more visible under the bright stage lights during the show. This paint will come off with any exposure to moisture, meaning that the competitor is unable to shower from the time of the first application until after the competition the next day, and it is not possible to wear deodorant before or after the tan is applied. Tanning is typically completed by event staff in a same-sex group setting, with multiple competitors being sprayed at the same time. Tanning is often completed with the competitor nude or wearing a sock over their genitals to avoid missing spots. Although there are tent-like canopies for the tanning sessions, these are mostly to avoid having the spray tan stain convention center walls or floors and do not provide privacy. Competitors stand in the room with each other, nude or almost-nude, while the tanning application dries.

Competitors will return to the venue the next day and receive another coat of spray tanning before the “prejudging” event occurs. At this time, competitors wear posing suits and typically not much else, as clothing would risk damaging the spray tan. Competitors stay backstage in a competitors’ area, waiting for their groups to be called for the show; typically, only competitors and coaches are allowed in this area. Competitors are called to a pre-staging area in groups corresponding to their divisions and height/weight classes. Competitors then go to the offstage area and are called up to complete individual posing routines and specific mandatory poses alongside other competitors. Although this event is called “prejudging,” it is when the winners of the events are determined. The arrangement of competitors on the stage is changed by judges, and the final arrangement indicates the final order for the winners (that is, individuals in the center of the stage will place higher than individuals who are moved to the far left or right of the stage). Competitors are thus able to infer placing outcomes for their divisions at that time.

After prejudging, there is usually a break before the evening show. The evening show is the event for which people will buy tickets to see friends and family compete. During the evening show, competitors again complete their routines and mandatory poses on stage. At the end of each group, the winners are announced. Following the completion of their time on stage, competitors are free to leave or stay and watch the rest of the show. Afterward, most competitors return to their hotel rooms to remove the tanning spray by taking a long shower (NPC News Online., 2020b).

It should be noted that use of performance-enhancing drugs is not regularly tested in bodybuilding competitions. “Natural” bodybuilding leagues exist, and require mandatory regular screening for anabolic steroids to allow participants to enter and maintain membership (Liokaftos, 2019). It is very common for competitors in non-natural events to have been using anabolic steroids prior to competition (Hackett et al., 2013), meaning that competitors may be experiencing mood changes due to hormone changes.

In sum, competitive bodybuilding is a demanding and prolonged endeavor that begins long before the competition day. The competition day itself is marked by repeated exposure to one’s direct competitors, including direct contact with competitors backstage. This contact occurs in vulnerable contexts; it is not uncommon to be completely nude and tanning at the same time as a direct competitor, and after tanning the remaining time is spent wearing minimal clothing. In addition, the competitors are coming from demanding routines of training and strict dietary practices (and, for many, hormonal changes due to steroid use), and have acute stressors the day of the competition such as restriction of water intake, worry about damaging a spray tan, etc. This combination of direct competition, exposure to other competitors, acute physical and mental stress, and vulnerability might be expected to exacerbate negative masculine behaviors such as zero-sum competitiveness or demonstrations of hypermasculinity.

Reflexivity Statement

The first and second authors are faculty at the University of Texas at Austin. The first is a White, man, Canadian counseling psychologist employed in the Counseling Psychology and Counselor Education program. The second a White, man, Irish historian in Kinesiology and Health Education. The first author is a competitive classic physique bodybuilder who has competed in ten bodybuilding shows. The second author has competed in two natural bodybuilding competitions and works in the field of bodybuilding as both a historian and a writer. The third author is a White, man, American graduate student working under the first author. The fourth author is a White, man, American undergraduate student working under the first author. The third and fourth authors had no experience with bodybuilding except tangentially through their advising relationship with the first author. The first author maintained a reflexive journal throughout the research process. This journal was used to document reactions to participant interviews as well as prior literature on bodybuilding.

Method

Participants

Participants were 11 cisgender men who had competed in at least one bodybuilding competition in the past five years. The sample included initial responders to the call for participants who met inclusion criteria, and as the analysis with these participants reached data saturation this was also the final sample. Participant data are listed in Table 1.

Table 1 Participant information
Full size table

Procedure

The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board at the authors’ institution. Participation eligibility criteria were that participants had competed in at least one bodybuilding competition in a men’s division within the past 5 years and currently reside in the United States. Participants were recruited from social media. Participants were recruited in two ways; first, the lead author contacted bodybuilding coaches (i.e., people who advertised themselves as coaches and who actively posted photos of their clients who were preparing for competitions) via social media, and provided a link to a brief survey the bodybuilders could use to indicate their interest in participating. Second, the first author also posted recruitment notices on Instagram. Seven of the eleven participants were recruited via coaches and four were recruited via the social media posts. Interested participants completed a brief online survey verifying eligibility criteria; the eligible participants were contact by the first author to reserve a time for the interview, which was conducted via secure videoconference software. Interview length ranged from 22 to 37 min (M = 28 min 28 s). Participants were compensated $25 for interviews.

A semi-structured interview was used for all participants. The interview asked about general experiences at shows, interactions among men, interactions among women, interactions between men and women, and advice they would give to competitors. Participants were asked to focus on the backstage experience of the shows, and in particular interactions among competitors. Participants were specifically asked about interactions among men and among women who were not in the same divisions (e.g., interactions between bodybuilders and classic physique competitors). Participants who identified as gay were asked about experiencing or witnessing anti-gay sentiment; participants who did not identify as gay were not asked this question as heterosexual individuals were expected to be less able to perceive homophobic micro/macroaggressions. All participants were eager to discuss their experiences and engaged readily with the interview. Interviews were recorded, and the third and fourth authors completed verbatim transcriptions of the interviews using standard transcription notation.

Coding

The third and fourth authors completed transcription of the interviews. One hundred and thirty-eight pages of interview text were transcribed. Consistent with template analysis methodology for coding (King et al., 2012), the first and second author broke down transcripts (each taking 6 and 5 transcripts, respectively) into basic units of meaning. This involved separating participant responses into individual sentences to prepare the data for further coding. Following completion of the initial codes, the first and second author met to discuss template coding and relations among codes. Following the establishment of the final codes, the third and fourth authors coded all interviews using the code book. Cohen’s kappa, used to calculate interrater agreement, was 0.67, indicating moderate agreement between the two raters (McHugh, 2012); Krippendorff’s alpha (calculated with 5000 bootstrapped samples) was 0.668 (95% CI = 0.545, 0.779), which is just above the cutoff for acceptable Krippendorff alpha values (Hayes & Krippendorff, 2007; Krippendorff, 2011). Following the initial interrater agreement to determine kappa the coding was revisited to identify the codes that were in conflict. The final code set, displayed in Table 2, had complete agreement.

Table 2 Themes, subthemes, descriptions, and examples of content
Full size table

Results

The final list of codes by participant is presented in Table 3. We begin with delineating assumptions and expectations about bodybuilding shows, including assumptions and expectations that were held by the competitors themselves. Next, we review participant reports of their own experiences at shows. We include a specific focus on some aspects of interaction. Finally, we summarize participants’ perceptions of negative aspects of bodybuilding shows. All names used in reporting results are pseudonyms.

Table 3 Occurrence of Specific Codes among Participants
Full size table

The categories were: (1) assumptions and expectations (with three themes of mistaken assumptions, expectations of toxic masculinity, and assumptions of vanity and sexuality), (2) experiences (with six themes of the work is done, physically and mentally drained, vulnerability, friendliness, support, and comparison), (3) interactions (with four themes of practical separation, having a coach/team/friends, limited men/women interaction, and some people are isolated), and (4) negative experiences (with two themes of disorganized and unfair or subjective).

Category 1: assumptions and expectations

Theme 1a: Mistaken Assumptions

Participants were asked about the perceptions that others had of bodybuilding competitions. Nine participants explained that their experiences of competition ran contrary to their own expectations before they entered a competition and contrary to the expectations others had about bodybuilding competitions.

You would think that everybody would just kinda walk around with a chip on their shoulder, but everyone is actually really friendly. (Devin)

They probably assume that it’s kinda cut throat, and people are, you know, ‘roid rage, or just very high on theirself, and they you know think they’re the best and don’t wanna talk or be around anyone. Whereas I just haven’t had that type of interaction. Everyone’s very forthcoming to talk or just give little feedback, so I think that’s probably the big misconception. (Brodie)

Theme 1b: expectations of toxic masculinity

Within their own and others’ expectations, nine participants named concerns about toxic masculinity in terms of competitiveness. These included participant vocalizations of figurative demonstrations of masculinity (“a lot of testosterone,” “pissing contest”), psychological aggression (trying to “psych” one another out), and actual aggressive behaviors (“trying to bump into people”). Participants explicitly stated that the expected pervasive competitiveness was not actually present. It is notable that competitiveness was low despite an apparent collective assumption that it would be high, as one might expect that the collective assumption of outward displays of hostile competitiveness may lead to actual behavior.

I think people probably think it’s like a lot of testosterone, people aren’t really nice or (uh) people are only out (uh) out for themselves. (um) because you have that, ya know, all these people are just in- in pushing weight, but ya know, to actually go back there and experience (um) people and you actually talk to them, it’s a whole different story, it’s ya know, you’ll find out there’s a really- a lot of nice people. (Warren)

I thought people were gonna be hard-asses, like flexin’ their jaws as they walk around and like trying to bump into people and (uh) but everything I saw was, everybody was like in it together and was cool and having a good time. (Ryan)

I’m gonna go back to, I guess how I thought it was going to be backstage before I got there (um) and I thought it was gonna be a lot more of a pissing contest (…) (Um) I thought that people were going to, not really be supportive and really kind of out there on their own, really sizing people up outwardly and- and kind of like trying to knock other people down. Trying to psych your fellow competitors out, but I didn’t- I didn’t feel that at all. I also thought there was gonna be a lot more outward displays of machismo than there was. (Warren)

Toxic masculinity includes an element of performative heterosexuality. Gay participants may be expected to be uniquely sensitive to the possibility of homophobia and heterosexism coming into competitions. Yet, Harrison and Ron described how their experiences defied their expectations and were positive.

As a gay man I just sort of expect a certain level of, not animosity from straight men, but like (um). I don’t expect a straight guy to (um) let’s see, have empathy for other men. Does that make sense? But the opposite was true backstage. I felt like all the other guys were really friendly like oh you look amazing, don’t worry about it you’re gonna kill it. (Harrison)

I was worried about being a gay man going into it (um) and having people react negatively to that (um). But I actually felt fairly comfortable talking openly about (um) about my life with people backstage. (Ron)

Theme 1c: assumptions of Vanity and Sexuality

Unlike assumptions related to competitiveness, assumptions of vanity and sexuality were located entirely within others (i.e., people who do not compete) as observers. Three participants named this as a misperception.

Oh I think they think it’s real sexy. Like we’re all, like we’re all oiling each other up and, you know, flexing for each other and everybody’s real naked. And the women are there, you know, it’s just like a lot of sexy stuff. That’s what I think they think. (Adrian)

I probably would assume they think [backstage is] very vain (...) people probably misconstrue or think most negatively of being—people look at it as being very vain. (Brodie)

Category 2: experiences

Theme 2a: the work is done

Four participants noted that that the “work is done” at the time of the show. The effort put into building muscle and then cutting weight for the show is complete, and almost nothing can be done the day of the show to improve one’s physique. Participants mentioned that because the work was already completed, the show was a chance to relax and enjoy one’s time competing.

And I think the second thing I would tell (someone preparing for a show) is just to enjoy it. The hard work is done. What you’re doing now is just showing it off. (Killian)

Interestingly, two participants tied the notion of “the work is done” to helping others. Harrison specifically mentioned that behaviors aimed to undermine other competitors would not be copacetic with the context. Jerry mentioned sharing resistance bands, Resistance bands are used immediately before going onstage to increase blood flow into the muscles (getting a “pump”). This has the effect of making the muscles slightly larger and the veins stand out slightly more, both of which are desirable for judging. Competition venues do not supply resistance bands; competitors bring them. Withholding bands from other competitors would be one of the few actions that could be done on the day of a show to negatively impact the performance of a competitor.

I felt like once we got there everyone was like hey we’ve all put in the work it’s not like we’re gonna, I don’t know, cut ankles here backstage so let’s just help everyone do their best because we’ve already put in all the work. (Harrison)

(Expanding on sharing bands) (Uh) I think it shows that it’s like as much as it is about the fact that you are competing against another person, it’s a lot more about the process of getting to stage and looking the best that you possibly can. Everybody realizes how hard everybody’s worked and we’re like- we don’t want anybody to get that last second to just ruin all the work they’ve already put in. Like if somebody’s out-worked me and I beat them because they didn’t bring a band, do I really deserve to win? No. (Jerry)

Theme 2b: physically and mentally drained

Five participants mentioned forms of feeling physically or mentally drained. For many participants, this was simply the mention of being hungry, tired, or nervous. For example, Harrison mentioned: “I personally was starving half to death, thirsty. Uh I felt like I was gonna die of thirst.”

Others noted that nervousness was mixed with excitement and anticipation of the event:

(Um) honestly every time I’m backstage I’m nervous. Yeah, just getting ready, kind of getting a pump up or a pump on, um the closer it gets to having to step on stage when they start to line you up and all that stuff. But (um) I’m always nervous, like I said, I- I’m pretty introverted, so even just stepping on stage and competing myself (uh) i- is pretty nerve-wracking for me. (Brian)

Theme 2c: vulnerability

Five participants mentioned feeling vulnerable, with a specific mention of the lack of clothing worn backstage.

I mean you have like eight-hundred people back there that were pretty much naked at this point so if you’re talking about other people you’re kind of an ass. (Ryan)

Theme 2d: friendliness (being nice)

Ten of the 11 participants emphasized that their main experience with other competitors was very friendly.

So as far as the other competitors, it’s been always very friendly, and you know, you become buddies and follow each other on Instagram afterward, like. (Devin)

That’s the one thing with the shows that I think is the best part is, is the community that everyone is very communal and people, you know, make good connections and friendships out of it that, you know, leads to them doing more shows together or just keeping in touch like I have. (Brodie)

(Um) For the most good I mean, a lot of the competitors were pretty nice. I think that was the coolest part about competing was meeting all the people that are super like-minded and kinda like, we all ended up working out together like we were all doing pushups in a line and getting pictures taken together and stuff, so a lot of fun. (Ryan)

Several participants expanded on this theme, noting that they not only had friendly interactions but developed lasting positive relationships with other people who they met at shows. For example:

I met a lot of great people and connections that first show which throughout the years even up to this point ten years later I’m still in contact with. Um we still follow each other via social media and every now and then when one of us are posting or prepping for a show everyone gets excited and starts chiming in, wanna see what’s goin on. (Brodie)

I’ve actually come out with (uh) I’d say an average of five to seven new friends, from each show. (Warren)

I’ve met a lot of good people through it that I’m still in touch with today, and I don’t think that- if I didn’t do these competitions I wouldn’t even be competing now or be in contact with the people that I know now. (Brian)

An aberration in this theme was present for Ron. Ron noted an interaction with a fellow competitor who made numerous negative comments about other competitors, and even about Ron directly to Ron. Ron noted that the negative comments were juxtaposed with an apparent desire from the other competitor to connect with others.

But it- but it was weird because like even though he was so negative towards me like about my conditioning and everything, he was still like wanting to follow me on Instagram and wanting to like connect and engage with me? So it was- so it was really confusing because it wasn’t (…) maybe that he thought that being critical of people was a way to demonstrate that he had a certain level of expertise? Not necessarily trying to intentionally bring people down but just like, I know what I’m doing and I know what I’m doing because I can identify these weaknesses in other people. (Ron)

An aberration also occurred for Jerry, whose experience at his one show was unlike the other ten participants’ with regard to friendliness.

I was (uh) expecting maybe a little more camaraderie and (uh), friendliness (uh), and I was kinda surprised at just how (uh), (not approachable) people can be, and (um), and it might have just been people are in the zone too. people are depleted, they’re hungry: they’re, ya know ornery, ya know, so, that can be part of it too but that was my perception. (Jerry)

Theme 2e: support (active helping)

We differentiated between the mention of friendly interactions, or simply being nice, and supportive interactions that involved directly helping others. Direct support was mentioned by nine participants. Many of the interactions involved advice or sharing items such as food, for example as described by Harrison and Brodie:

Rather than like having this sort of contentious across the room staring contest it was like hey how’s it going, how are you doing do you need anything. I’ve got this band if you need that, (or maybe) this and that and oh yeah you can start doin’—giving general advice. I also was a total newbie so like (um) having some guidance backstage from some people who had already done it, even though we were competing against each other (um) made me feel really comfortable. (Harrison)

Some of [the older] guys that are extremely conditioned are the guys that us younger guys approach because you wanna ask, you know, how long they’ve been competing (uh) what they’ve had to do to get to that level of conditioning, and those guys are typically very forthcoming with giving some good insight and willing to talk about what they do. So I think it goes back to a lot of reciprocation, you know, guys just helping each other, little tweaks with their posing or, uh, hey man is my tan even, is there anywhere where I’m blotchy. (Uh) those are all things guys help each other with. Little touch ups. Giving each other honey, or a protein bar, or sharing your snacks. (Brodie)

The sharing of resistance bands emerged among several participants as especially meaningful. As mentioned above, bands are used before going onstage to increase blood flow into the muscle which makes the muscles slightly larger and the veins stand out slightly more.

I’ve seen people be really friendly and really nice and really helpful and, you know, I’ve had people loan me, you know, the last show I did I forgot to bring any, um, like any of the bands or anything like that, and a guy let me borrow and loaned them to me. (Adrian)

This guy next to me, or standing in the room with me, didn’t have his bands, didn’t have anything to pump up with. I said here have mine I’m done. Go ahead and use them. (Killan)

Ryan expanded on the meaning of sharing bands for him:

Usually people are like sharing bands with people they’ve never met before and I always think that’s cool a bit like you’re letting a fellow competitor get his pump too even though you’re about to compete against him. So you almost get like a team mentality between everybody in their class despite the fact that you’re going against one another, so that’s always fun. (Ryan)

Theme 2f: comparison – functional or outside division

Ten competitors were open about their active comparisons to other competitors. Competitors articulated that this took on two forms. First, they compared themselves to individuals in their own divisions to attempt to locate who their main competitors might be.

A lot of it was trying to figure out who was gonna be in my class. (um) And then like figuring out who I needed to worry about. I would say that I kinda took it more from like a actual like strategic standpoint of like what- I look better than somebody in and what I might look worse in. (Ryan)

Second, participants described upward comparisons with competitors more muscular than they were. These comparisons also occurred across division; for example, physique competitors comparing themselves to classic physique competitors.

Heck yes! (laughs) Yeah you go oh shit. I blew it I shouldn’t be stepping on that stage. I don’t look anywhere near like, as good as that guy or shit look at (them). Well, mostly because I was comparing myself to people outside of my category. I was competing in masters and I was looking at, you know, guys in heavyweight and super-heavyweights. (Killian)

Competitors described this comparison as functional in terms of identifying competition and aspirational physiques, and did not result in them feeling bad about how they looked. Indeed, the upward comparisons were used for inspiration.

It gave me heart I guess. Like hey if I ever decide to do this again, and after talking to these guys and after they shared their (uh) methods and experience with me. If I do this again, with what I know now, I could do better than I am now. It’s less I feel bad because they look different or better, and more they look different or better, I talk to them about it, they told me what they did, and now I feel better because I can do that too. (Harrison)

I was very much comparing myself to the other competitors in terms of (um) muscularity and also conditioning. (…) I actually didn’t feel- I actually didn’t (uh) feel bad about myself in the comparison at all. (um) It really was just like, this is kinda the next level I need to get to in order to be competitive. (Ron)

Category 3: interactions

Theme 3a: practical separation

Participants were asked about separation between competitors in different classes. The notion of separation for practical reasons emerged among five participants. Each of these participants identified an order of respect among the divisions, with bodybuilders being the most admired and physique being the least.

I feel like the guys who are in bodybuilding sort of, they only wanna hang out with the other body builders. (Devin)

Adrian elaborated on the interactions between classes representing maturity in the sport:

A lot of times the physique, not always, but a lot of times the physique people are maybe more novices or like maybe they’re slimmer and they’re younger guys. And you know, usually sometimes it’s like they mature into classic or they mature maybe to bodybuilding. Not always but you know, kinda, it kinda has- it could run that way. And sometimes it seems like, you know, there might even be a little bit of like a pecking order or something like that. You know maybe the physique people are more in admiration of the classic and the bodybuilding. (Um) You know like nothing like they’re just fawning but you know it’s like I definitely think that (um) the bodybuilders and then maybe the classics take more (respect). (Adrian)

Yet, these divisions were not perceived by all participants. Noted by Brian:

Interviewer: Did you observe any differences in interactions (uh) between guys who clearly in different divisions? So, you can tell by the suit what (uh) division you’re entering, was there any difference in how people interacted between those-

Participant: Nope. (Brian)

At the same time, other participants attributed the separations they observed to practicalities. Because divisions go up to the stage area separately, some participants identified that it made sense to spend time talking to the people in one’s own division; if one interacted mostly with someone in another division, one person might be called on stage and finish hours before the other. As well, specific physique goals are different across divisions and as such competitors from other divisions may not be helpful for advice or support.

So you know the posing, when you’re in one class and talking to someone in the other class you have the complete opposition of what you—each are doing. (…) Sometimes it’s nice to have that discussion, get some insight, but otherwise, you know, I feel naturally we’re gonna talk to the people that apply to what they’re doing. (Brodie)

Theme 3b: having a coach / team / friends

Despite the positive interactions noted, eight participants noted the importance of backstage support and that competitors who did not have support may have struggled backstage. Participants noted that the presence of a coach, teammates (“teams” in bodybuilding are individual competitors coached by the same person, or sometimes people who go to the same gym), or friends who were also competing. As Ron stated:

It is really critical [to have a coach backstage] and also just being able to have a support person with you backstage if it’s not your coach. (Ron)

Theme 3c: limited men/women interaction

Participants were asked about interaction between men and women. Seven participants reported very limited interactions across gender groups, with the specific exception of people who already knew each other.

I find that that’s one hundred percent split down the middle. (Um) Men are their own side. Women are their own. I see very little interaction between either uh unless it’s of course couples, you know, couples that are there competing together. (Uh) you’ll see them be together. Or if you have a (uh) training team, you’ve got a coach and he’s got a group of competitors, whether it’s both men and female you’ll see all them grouped together usually around the coach. (Brodie)

Speaking to the nature of implicit assumptions, although the question was phrased neutrally (referring to “interactions” between men and women), Ron and Devin mentioned specifically the absence of sexualized behaviors directed at the other gender.

There was a lot of just kind of general compliments and kinda trying to support- ma- make feel people supported? There wasn’t a lot of- there wasn’t really like sexualized comments which was- which was good and reassuring but, I think just kind of a lot of general sentiments of trying to make people feel like they were, ya know, doing well or that they were ready. (Ron)

I can’t even say that I’ve observed the men and women like flirting with each other. (Devin)

An aberration was present for Jerry, who did note sexualized comments: “(There were) a couple comments about, ya know how hot or attractive (women) were (from men).”

Theme 3d: some people are isolated

In contrast to perceptions of openness and friendliness, five participants identified that some competitors would be self-isolated. A pre-competition practice of physical and sensory isolation (such as by using headphones) is common in many sports (Locke, 2008).

I always tell [people doing their first competition] like if somebody’s sitting with like his headphones in you pry just want to leave him alone cause he doesn’t want to talk. (Ryan)

Theme 3e: no anti-gay sentiment

Participants who identified as gay (see Table 1) were asked about experiences of anti-gay sentiment. All five gay participants reported experiencing none. Chris put his experience succinctly:

Interviewer: Did you experience or overhear any kind of homophobic remarks or anything like that?

Participant: I did not. (Chris)

Harrison provided more elaboration:

Not even a little, and more the opposite, sort of a where normally straight men are like reserved or at least pretend not to understand what aesthetics are on other men, backstage like the guys were all like, hey you look amazing you look great don’t worry about it. (Uh) Friendly in a way that you wouldn’t expect the average straight person to be, (uh) whether they’re homophobic or not. So that was actually a really (…) I’m not sure how to describe it. Refreshing? I couldn’t really tell gay or straight necessarily because everyone behaved in such an empathic and friendly way. (Harrison)

Category 4: negative experiences

Theme 4a: disorganized

Participants identified frustration and dissatisfaction with some aspects of shows, with two reporting shows were generally disorganized. Killian named that the order of events for the day may not be clear to competitors, leaving competitors unsure about the day.

Well, my experience was there was not a lot of clear (um) you weren’t clear what to expect, ‘cause it was my first show. (Um) And the feeling I got was that that particular show was not that well organized anyway, so there was a bit of chaos and you weren’t quite sure, you know, what was happening next. (Killian)

In addition to lack of clarity from organizers, Devin also identified frustration with another competitor being disorganized:

I’ve seen people show up to the tanning booth and they’re late, and they like, have to cut to the front of the line otherwise they’re gonna miss their call out to be on stage. And usually people are like pretty frustrated at that person, like, yo, you knew you had to be here at like ‘x’ time and now we have to make like a special accommodation for you, like that’s sort of annoying when athletes are late to their appointment and you have to push yours back just so they can (get their tan). (Devin)

Though not common, this theme suggests that disorganization is one source of negative experiences during the competitions.

Theme 4b: unfair or subjective

Two participants identified unfair or subjective judging in the competition. This included participants themselves identifying potentially unfair judgements, or observing other competitors perceiving unfairness. Brodie was initially vague regarding his perception of unfairness: “Throughout the shows I just found there’s a lot of politics and kind of bias judging when it comes down to certain things like that” and later elaborated to describe the potential for bias or conflict of interest in judging:

I’ve seen a lot of shows where there is a judge on the panel who has competitors in the show, and I think that is just a very difficult spot for anybody and just human nature to get up there and you know score someone respectively and appropriately when they’re your own competitor. (Brodie)

Adrian also described a perception of bias. In this case, the affinity between the promotor and the competitor was not concealed.

I’ve seen (um) stage promotors, you know they’re running the show but they come back and talk to certain athletes. And that’s kinda weird. (…) I did a show one time and this last year and there was a specific competitor, and I didn’t really think he looked that great, but he took first in my division, and then he went on to become pro and like backstage they were calling him by his first—like the stage – the people promoting the show were calling him by his first name. (Adrian)

Finally, Warren also identified perceptions of unfairness in judgment among other competitors (see Table 3). Because bodybuilding scores are subjective, there appears to be space for competitors to perceive bias in decisions by the judges.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to understand how men bodybuilders construct participation in competitive bodybuilding, and how their experiences align (or do not align) with the dominant framing of bodybuilding that positions bodybuilding as negative or as a manifestation of toxic masculinity. Prior literature across fields of psychology, sociology, history, and anthropology have typically characterized bodybuilders as toxically masculine, insecure narcissists (Klein, 1993, 2007; Pleck, 1981; Rubinstein, 2003). In contrast, the present study revealed that the participants experienced positive spaces characterized by friendliness and support, and an absence of toxic masculinity behaviors.

Participants noted an absence of sexist behaviors toward women, as well as an absence of anti-gay sentiment or aggressively-asserted heterosexuality. Participants also noted a lack of zero-sum competitive thinking. These narratives stand in contrast to the classic psychological definitions of toxic masculinity. Further, the participants described active helping of other competitors, which suggests that the environment is not as negative and competitive as prior work has suggested. Given that participants noted coming into competition with an expectation of hostile competitiveness and that circumstances would seem to be not in favor of positive interactions (e.g., competitors are tired, hungry, and barely clothed) thus making the shared definition of the situation potentially hostile and competitive (Goffman, 1959), it is notable that this friendly supportiveness was the dominant theme in the narratives. Participants described bodybuilding as a uniquely social sport, and competitions as a place to make friends who support their interests.

Our results are consistent with Anderson’s (2010) idea of inclusive masculinities which demonstrates how a shared bonding experience among men (for example, sport) can lead to a softening of previously exclusionary masculine practices. Equally important here is Tivers’ (2011) study on strongmen competitions. Although a different form of sport than bodybuilding, strongman lifestyles overlap with bodybuilding norms concerning the valorization of manliness and muscularity. In a contest setting however, Tivers found a “gentlemanly” conduct emerge among contestants. Far from toxic, the work of Tivers and Anderson suggests that competition may open a more expressive space for masculinities.

The shared common interest in bodybuilding alone would not seem sufficient to enable the construction of this positive environment. Indeed, research on workplace competitiveness indicates that toxic competitiveness arises even when individuals share common interests and goals (Kuchynka et al., 2018). An explanation may lie within one of the emergent codes, “The Work is Done.” Participants described the competition as the culmination of months of effort across multiple aspects of training and preparation. In contrast to a hostile competitiveness, then, participants may experience a constructive competitiveness in which the legitimacy of their success is dependent upon defeating an opponent who is at the apex of their own performance. The converse of this idea was directly articulated by Jerry: “If somebody’s out-worked me and I beat them because they didn’t bring a band, do I really deserve to win? No.”

Most participants (9 of 11) noted largely positive interactions and experiences in bodybuilding competitions. A small number (2 of 11) noted negative interpersonal interactions. Although participants were largely positive about their experiences, the construction of a competition that is healthy and mutually beneficial is largely absent within literature on positive masculinity. Further, cooperation and competitiveness are largely viewed as orthogonal in psychological science (e.g., Lu et al., 2013). Yet, the present findings challenge these discourses and suggest the possibility for a positive, constructive, competitive striving. This is a largely untapped area of inquiry that may be fruitful to explore positive masculinities. It would also be beneficial to further explore the ways in which the negative experiences manifested. Although direct interventions by competition organizers to decrease negative interactions among competitors is unlikely given the hectic pace of bodybuilding shows, such information might be helpful to individual competitions in preparation for shows.

Limitations and Future Research directions

The present study must be interpreted considering its limitations. All participants competed in the United States; it is possible that norms in bodybuilding competitions are markedly different in other national contexts. Although the interviewees varied in terms of age, sexual orientation, and competition division, the present data could not capture the full range of bodybuilding competition competitors’ experiences. Relatedly, we sampled 11 competitors of the thousands who compete in bodybuilding yearly, and as such our results are not generalizable to the entire population of competitors. As well, several competitors (6 of 11) had competed in only one show. Had we included only participants who competed in several shows, that sample may have biased the results in that it could have been possible that those who competed in many shows had more positive experiences and those who competed in only one stopped competing. Nevertheless, competition in one show means that some participants had limited experiences from which to draw. We recruited only participants in open competitions; pro shows, open only to competitors who have a pro card in bodybuilding, may be different. Because pro shows have much more substantial prizes for winning (i.e., thousands of dollars), it is possible that competition in those leagues is more intense and negative. At the same time, because there are few pro bodybuilders, they may be more likely to have developed personal relationships that could mitigate the impact of enhanced competition on interpersonal interactions. We also did not recruit competitors in natural leagues, which also may be unique. As well, our interviewees were men and thus may have not been able to reliably detect negative behaviors toward women.

Further work can continue to explore the nature of the construction of masculinity within bodybuilding. Ecological momentary assessment may be a particularly useful quantitative method for this line of research. Because competitors are so restricted in terms of what they can do during the actual competition day (so as not to damage their spray tan, etc.) and have substantial down time, collection of such data may be more feasible even during the competition. Pre-post research on the experiences of individuals entering their first competition would also be useful, as it would enable the capturing of change rather than retrospective introspection. Finally, it would be important to extend this research to pro bodybuilders—those who have earned pro cards in bodybuilding and who compete in elite shows that include only other pros. These events include substantial financial awards and competitors may have much more investment in their identities as bodybuilders, further heightening the potential for antagonistic interactions.

Practice and research implications

For practitioners in the field of mental health, our findings highlight the need for nuance when working with bodybuilding as a sport and with bodybuilding cultures. Owing to older, and influential work in the field, most notably Klein (1993), some work with this sub-culture have tended to assume toxic masculinity on the part of contestants in bodybuilding cultures (Liokaftos, 2017). Bodybuilding, like other sports, is home to a multiplicity of individuals each with their own motivations and desires. Categorizing all participants in a negative way does a disservice to the multitude of reasons for engaging in bodybuilding practices and is contrary to the positive aspects of competition in bodybuilding described by participants in this study. This study, it is hoped, will encourage scholars and practitioners to be more open and engaged when dealing with this subculture.

Separate from work on toxic masculinity or other aspects of negative interactions, it is also worthwhile to address (in clinical work and research) how practices related to bodybuilding competitions may overlap with disordered eating practices, dysfunctional exercise, or related behaviors. While it is important to note that eating behaviors related to bodybuilding are generally time-constrained (e.g., carbohydrate and water restriction before a contest would end after the competition) and thus distinct from pervasive eating disorders or similar disorders, there is nevertheless a degree of overlap between features of bodybuilding as a sport and unhealthful eating and exercise behaviors. Future research may explore how bodybuilding show preparation may activate pre-existing disposition to eating disorders, muscle dysmorphia, or other conditions that may uniquely impact this population. Research is also needed on the actual pre-competition practices of bodybuilding competitors; presently these behaviors are largely unknown and competitors may put themselves at risk for substantial health problems if they follow poor advice (e.g., restriction of water for long periods of time) from online sources in inadequately-informed coaches.

Conclusions

The present study furthers work on the construction of masculinity and the body, particularly muscularity. Prior work has characterized bodybuilding as an embodiment of toxic masculinity, characterized by performative heterosexuality, misogyny, and zero-sum competitiveness. Our participants, all actual bodybuilding competitors, disrupted the narrative of bodybuilding as a form of toxic masculinity that is dominant in some discourses on bodybuilding and muscularity. Indeed, the predominant themes among the participants were friendliness and support from others, including their direct competitors.