Muscle Profiling – Is Muscularity Evidence of a Crime?

           Criminality and muscularity have long been placed in one jar. But how much do you know about muscle profiling and its application in bodybuilding? Most people believe the two are closely related. It is commonly assumed that muscularity plays a considerable role in society’s evils. The whole concept of muscularity also referred to as mesomorphy, has been highly demonized. There have been allegations over time that tend to associate undesirable behavior with muscularity. This form of muscle profiling has become quite popular in today’s society. A good example is Toney Freeman, who was arrested for his muscularity back in Sweden. He is one of the top pro bodybuilders of today.

AAS use & muscularity:

The same applies to the use of AAS (Anabolic Androgen Steroids). As explained by Harrison, a renowned psychiatrist, there is a very intense desire to work out and use AAS muscle profiling drugs portrayed by muscular individuals. Mr. Pope describes this desire as “inappropriate.” He also explains that there is no way an individual with a Fat-Free Mass Index (FFMI) of over 25 can achieve such without the use of steroids, specifically FFMI.

The bottom line is that the massive use of AAS drugs has majorly led to the advent of muscularity in society. The two, muscularity and the use of AAS, are highly condemned in the community due to the whole issue of “muscle profiling.” However, a lot of scrutiny is demanded on such an assertion.

Why is the FFMI used in the comparisons for muscle profiling?

Research has shown that FFM as part of the body mass can be extremely incorrect. FFM ratios are considered to be linear to the body’s height. This is why short individuals with muscular bodies have a lower FFM percentage than taller individuals with less muscular bodies.

This is regardless of whether or not they are users of AAS. Tall bodybuilders have at least a 2-point gap between them regarding their FFMI muscle profiling compared to their shorter counterparts. The bottom line is that regardless of the relationship between the FFM and height, anyone with an FFMI of over 35 must have something to do with using AAS.

Consider two individuals, one with an FFMI of 26 and 72 inches tall and another with an FFMI of 29 and 69 inches tall. According to Pope and his fellow elites, if the two claim not to use AAS, they are ‘almost certainly lying.

However, another individual 5 inches tall with an FFMI of 24.5 is, on the other hand, considered to be a genuine non-user of AAS. The only thing that differentiates the two parties is a couple of inches, yet, the 72’ and 69’ are all potential victims of muscle profiling in today’s society.

Muscle Profiling for Medical Purposes

Muscle profiling is a technique that has been used in the UK for over 40 years. It is a process of assessing the strength and power of muscles, joints, and tendons to help determine what type of work someone can do.

The technique was initially developed by sports scientists at Loughborough University, who were looking for a way to assess the extent of muscle damage following sporting injuries. In the UK, the technique has been used in rehabilitation settings and adopted by several national employers, such as GKN Aerospace and Rolls-Royce. It has also been used in medical settings to assess individuals with spinal damage due to injury or disease.

The process involves having the patient perform three phases of movements: An assessment is then made based on each movement's performance against a standardized scoring system. The scoring system evaluates each muscle according to its performance against specific criteria, such as how well it adheres to a task.

Muscle Profiling in the UK

Muscle profiling is a new technique developed in the UK for crime detection. It is based on the idea that different people have different muscle groups, which can be detected by analyzing how they walk. Dr. Geoff Beattie, an expert in biomechanics and movement analysis, developed the technique. It has been used to help police identify suspects of crimes like robberies and attempted murder.

For crime detection, Dr. Geoff Beattie, an expert in biomechanics and movement analysis, first developed the technique. He noticed that some people stood out from a crowd of others based on the way they walked.

He realized that the differences could be due to their muscle groups, which he eventually detailed in his book "The Walking Man." The book outlined why certain people walk with a different gait than others and how it can be analyzed to identify different muscle groups.

Muscle Profiling In Various U.S States

The Boston Police Department instituted a policy to conduct "muscle profiling" in 2004 to identify people with firearms. The policy was met with criticism and was later rescinded. The Louisville Police Department's Behavioral Analysis Unit used "muscle profiling" in 2013 to identify people carrying guns.

A muscle profiling test can be used to determine a person's level of physical activity, including their body composition. Law enforcement often uses it to determine a person's physical strength. The term "muscle profiling" was first used in the early 1990s by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to describe identifying an individual’s physical strength and fitness level.

Muscle Profiling Worldwide

Muscle profiling is a way to identify a person's fitness level and activity habits. Law enforcement often uses it to determine a person's physical strength. The term "muscle profiling" was first used in the early 1990s by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to describe identifying an individual’s physical strength and fitness level.

It is based on the premise that people who engage in regular physical activity have more developed muscles than those who don't, which can be assessed through muscle tone, size, and definition. The use of muscle profiling has been criticized as discriminatory against people with disabilities or chronic illnesses.

Why Authorities Must Stop Muscle Profiling

In recent years, there has been an increase in "muscle profiling" use at airports and everywhere else. This is where people are selected for additional screening because they have a specific type of physical profile. This approach has many problems, including: - It is not a scientific method and can be biased.

Importantly, it is not a reliable way to catch criminals because it doesn't detect any specific terrorist threat. - It doesn't provide any information about the person's intentions or potential threat to national security. Muscle profiling should be stopped and replaced with more reliable methods for airport security, such as behavioral detection and intelligence analysis.

Airports have the means to carry it out. BBC - "Muscle profiling at airports is not reliable for catching terrorists." Moreover, many bodybuilders are harmless and only want to advance their careers by building more muscle,

Conclusion:

Is it to use an FFMI of 25 as the cut score for all AAS users in society? Practically, it is not. How likely are such individuals going to the ‘users’ group? It is a perfect means of measuring one’s physique but certainly not a validating means of establishing whether or not they are capable of perpetrating societal evils.

There is not enough support as to why y an individual with an FFMI of over 25 is assumed to be a straight user of A, making him a ‘muscle profiling’ suspect. The muscular individuals in society have very little representation. The chances of this study evoking some level of sympathy among the masses are pretty low.