How Bodybuilding Body Standards Have Changed Over Time
The ideal bodybuilding physique has never stood still. A champion of the 1900s would look slim on today's stage, while a modern open-class winner would have shocked judges in the 1960s. Our editors trace how the standard changed, what pushed it in each direction and why the history matters for anyone who trains today.
The classical beginnings
Modern bodybuilding is usually traced to Eugen Sandow, the Prussian-born strongman who became a celebrity in Victorian and Edwardian Britain. He modelled his poses on Greek and Roman statues, and his ideal was balance, symmetry and grace rather than sheer bulk.
In 1901 Sandow organised the "Great Competition" at the Royal Albert Hall in London, often described as the first major bodybuilding contest. Competitors were judged on general development, balance, condition of the skin and health, a set of criteria that sounds surprisingly modern.
Physical culture at the time was tied to ideas about national fitness and health. Magazines promoted exercise, fresh air and moderate eating, and the ideal man was strong, lean and athletic rather than enormous.
By the 1940s, American contests such as Mr America added more muscle to the picture. Champions like Steve Reeves combined a narrow waist, broad shoulders and flowing lines, which became a template that many still call the "classic" look.
The golden era: size meets proportion
The 1960s and 1970s are often called bodybuilding's golden era. Venice Beach, the IFBB and Joe Weider's magazines turned the sport into a cultural phenomenon. Reg Park, a British champion, became a role model for a young Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Physiques grew substantially. Schwarzenegger, Sergio Oliva and Franco Columbu carried far more muscle than earlier champions, but judges still valued shape, symmetry and presentation. Posing routines were long and theatrical.
This was also the period when anabolic steroids entered the sport. Synthetic derivatives of testosterone, developed in the 1950s, spread from weightlifting to bodybuilding. Their use was not yet banned in most sports, and their long-term health effects were poorly understood.
The 1977 documentary Pumping Iron brought bodybuilding to a mass audience. For many people, the physiques shown in that film remain the reference point for what a bodybuilder should look like.
The mass era and its consequences
From the 1990s the open class shifted decisively towards size and extreme conditioning. Dorian Yates, a British six-time Mr Olympia, set a new benchmark for density and back development. Ronnie Coleman later combined enormous mass with very low body fat.
Judging increasingly rewarded the biggest, hardest physique on stage. This era is often associated with a distended abdomen in some competitors, sometimes attributed to gut and organ enlargement, very large meals and the use of growth hormone and insulin, though causes are debated.
Researchers have used the fat-free mass index (FFMI) to estimate the upper limit of muscularity achievable without drugs. A 1995 study by Kouri and colleagues suggested that drug-free men rarely exceed an FFMI of about 25, a threshold that many modern professionals clearly surpass.
The health cost of this pursuit has become harder to ignore. Reports of heart disease, kidney damage and early deaths among professional bodybuilders have prompted discussion within the sport. Scientific reviews link high-dose anabolic steroid use with cardiomyopathy, adverse lipid changes and hormonal suppression.
New divisions and the return of aesthetics
In response to fan demand and athlete health concerns, federations introduced new categories. Men's Physique, launched in the early 2010s, judges athletes in board shorts with an emphasis on a lean, athletic upper body. Classic Physique, added at the Olympia in 2016, includes height-to-weight limits designed to reward the proportions of the golden era.
Women's divisions have undergone similar shifts. Women's bodybuilding saw its profile fall, while Figure, Bikini and Wellness grew rapidly. Each division sets its own balance between muscularity, leanness and presentation.
Natural federations, which use drug testing, have also grown. In the UK, several organisations run tested shows, and their winners typically look closer to the classical ideal than to the open-class extreme.
The table summarises how the main standards have shifted.
| Period | Typical ideal | Main drivers |
|---|---|---|
| 1900s–1940s | Statue-like symmetry, moderate muscle | Physical culture, classical art |
| 1960s–1970s | More mass with proportion and posing | Media, early steroid use |
| 1990s–2000s | Maximum size and density | Judging trends, pharmacology |
| 2010s–2020s | Diversified: mass, classic, physique, wellness | New divisions, social media, health debate |
Body image, health and ordinary gym-goers
Changes on stage influence ideals off stage. Research by Pope and colleagues showed that male action figures became dramatically more muscular from the 1970s to the 1990s, far beyond what is naturally achievable. Studies of magazine imagery found similar trends.
These ideals may contribute to muscle dysmorphia, a form of body dysmorphic disorder in which a person sees themselves as small despite being muscular. It is linked to compulsive training, rigid eating and an increased risk of using anabolic steroids.
Social media has accelerated the spread of extreme images, often enhanced by lighting, filters, posing and undisclosed drug use. Comparing oneself with these images can create unrealistic expectations, particularly among teenagers.
Practical steps to keep a healthy perspective include:
- setting goals around strength, health and performance rather than appearance alone;
- being sceptical about physiques presented as natural without verification;
- recognising signs of obsession, such as missing social events to train or eat;
- seeking help from a GP if body image is causing distress.
Conclusions of the editorial team
Bodybuilding standards have moved from Sandow's classical symmetry, through the golden era's balance of size and shape, to the extreme mass of the modern open class.
Each shift reflected judging, media and, increasingly, pharmacology. The appearance of classic and physique divisions shows that the sport is again debating what it wants to reward.
For most people who train, the healthiest benchmark is the one that improves their own strength, wellbeing and confidence rather than a stage ideal built on extremes.
If you enjoyed this article, consider reading our pieces on muscle dysmorphia, on the natural limits of muscle growth, and on the health risks of anabolic steroids.
References
- Chapman DL. Sandow the Magnificent: Eugen Sandow and the Beginnings of Bodybuilding. Urbana: University of Illinois Press; 1994.
- Pope HG Jr, Olivardia R, Gruber A, et al. Evolving ideals of male body image as seen through action toys. Int J Eat Disord. 1999;26(1):65–72.
- Kouri EM, Pope HG Jr, Katz DL, et al. Fat-free mass index in users and nonusers of anabolic-androgenic steroids. Clin J Sport Med. 1995;5(4):223–228.
- Pope HG Jr, Gruber AJ, Choi P, et al. Muscle dysmorphia: an underrecognized form of body dysmorphic disorder. Psychosomatics. 1997;38(6):548–557.
- 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.
- Kanayama G, Pope HG Jr. History and epidemiology of anabolic androgens in athletes and non-athletes. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2018;464:4–13.
