I wonder how this relates to Hollywood, namely the well-known shift towards men having bodybuilder level physiques, even in roles where it doesn't really fit the character.
If you're in sport, you know that highly performant bodies don't look like that almost ever. They're too specialized to have the physique that prioritizes aesthetics. Road cyclists with their lanky frames, powerlifters have fat over their absurdly strong cores. High level marathoners look like they might blow over in a stiff wind.
The most interesting thing about the article to me was the mention of kinesthetic skill. This is a huge differentiating factor IME in mountain biking. Some people do not have the meta visualization to understand why what they did worked or didn't, why they cleared that rock, why their weight transfer caused the front to wash out. The feedback loop doesn't exist, and they can't progress.
Peacock's impressive tail does not make it a much better flyer, or fighter, or whatever. The huge feathers only demonstrate that the bird can still function adequately even with this useless and expensive ornamentation.
The same way, a "highly athletic" / bodybuilder body demonstrates that a man can spend resources on building all these impressive-looking muscles and can strictly ration carbs. (I don't even try to mention what women have to do to look "like a model".)
So it's the same demonstrative behavior, only the results are harder to buy directly than a supercar or a yacht. It's about as practical: not completely useless, but the point is not in the utility but in the hard-to-achieve aesthetics.
Much like a real able flyer looks much less impressive than a peacock (look at a goose or a crow), a real high-achieving athlete looks much less impressive than an athlete for show. But looks sometimes play a critical role, e.g. for an actor, or during dating, so it's not irrational behavior.
I largely agree with you, but in general more muscle => stronger so bodybuilder muscles are not strictly ornamentation. In fact it’s not uncommon for bodybuilders to become powerlifters and vice versa.
Also, an underappreciated role of muscle mass is as a giant store of emergency amino acids.
Arguably, women have to do much less to "look like a model" since that only requires not eating too many calories (facial proportions and such can not be changed anyway, require no effort), 15-minute daily skin-care routine and waxing every now and then. A bodybuilder has to alternate between bulking and fasting, pay attention to nutrition and spend many hours a week doing hard exercise to build muscle. A hollywood actor like Chris Hemsworth will not drink for two days before a topless scene to achieve that muscle definition. An emergency doctor has to be on set because it's so dangerous. And don't tell me about cosmetics or hair care... a typical football star will go to the barber three times a week minimum and they aren't even in close-up shots.
Moreover, it's not just bodybuilder physiques, but specifically the kind that is created via heavy use of anabolic steroids. Their bodies are literally unattainable without drugs.
> the well-known shift towards men having bodybuilder level physiques
What's puzzling is that bodybuilder physiques aren't even attractive to most people. I don't mean physically fit and showing some muscle, I mean the extremes of Arnold and even more "built" guys. When you talk to normal people, they don't find it attractive. The people who universally find the bodybuilder physique attractive are other bodybuilders! It's a very "niche" look.
And it's well-known it's not a physique that correlates with actual physical strength or agility. It's just for show. Actual physical fitness doesn't look like that, and even bodybuilders admit this.
Most bodybuilders aren't in the open category of the untested federations. It doesn't help that they look like overcooked rotisserie chickens with the fake tans, starvation-level leanness, and dehydration to make minute differences actually visible to judges on stage. Outside of the few weeks right around competition, though, most of them look a lot more normal and I'd say well within the range of what would popularly be found attractive.
Now, anyone actually on stage and the true mass monsters? Sure, nobody finds that attractive, but Hollywood actors don't look like that, either. Alan Ritchson and Joe Manganiello and what not are plenty attractive.
> And it's well-known it's not a physique that correlates with actual physical strength
100% disagree. The last I checked, muscle size is the strongest correlating physical characteristic with force production. Also, have you not seen videos of Ronnie Coleman lifting weights?
It often isn’t for other people. Kinda like when I drive a certain car I like or wear certain clothes that I like. I am signaling to some degree, but more than anything it’s because /I/ like it. Same reason I lift, stay lean, etc. it’s for me. Often the group it does signal to is maybe not immediately obvious as well.
Bodybuilders are optimizing for the judging criteria in a competitive sport, not for conventional attractiveness. If you step back and look at the sport objectively it seems a bit silly, but then you could say the same about most sports.
> I wonder how this relates to Hollywood, namely the well-known shift towards men having bodybuilder level physiques, even in roles where it doesn't really fit the character.
I agree. When I read "The Martian", I wasn't picturing Mark Watney as Jason Bourne.
They do it even if it directly clashes with the project. Like for example Sonic 2 James Marsden playing a nerd while being more buff than beefcake Shemar Moore.
| even in roles where it doesn't really fit the character.
I recently watched A Small Light with Bel Powley playing Miep Gies, the Dutch woman who hid Anne Frank.
It was solid miniseries, I recommend it. Not extraordinary, lots of tv melodrama but still worth it. Otto Frank doesn't get nearly enough attention for his prescience in trying to keep his family safe.
That said, the actor who plays Jan Gies, her husband, while playing the role very well, at some point takes his shirt off and reveals an absolutely incredibly bulked physique. A social worker in Nazi occupied 1940's Netherlands where people were treating ration cards like gold bullion and eating tulip soup because nothing else was left looked like he was consuming 4500 calories a day and possibly on a steroid stack that didn't exist yet.
He might as well have whipped out an iPhone, it took me out that much. I understand every actor is waiting for a call from Marvel these days, but I wish actors didn't feel so pressured to be ripped for every role. If I was the director I would have at least never put him in a shirtless scene and kept him in oversized suits.
"Dad bod" is a very silly term. Any "dad bod" talked about by the popular media is almost always accompanied by height and extensive musculature. Mahomes is in the low end of "athleticism" in the NFL, but is 99th percentile on all metrics in the general male population.
In other words: "if you are extremely tall and/or extremely strong, you don't need be shredded to still be athletic". Who would have thought?
> In other words: "if you are extremely tall and/or extremely strong, you don't need be shredded to still be athletic". Who would have thought?
It's more than that. Being shredded is actively anti-athletic.
This isn't exactly a secret - pretty much anyone casually into bodybuilding or strength training knows that you lower body fat to look stronger, but raise body fat to actually be stronger, at least to some extent.
It's just a guess. There are 40,000,000 men worldwide in the top 1% of any metric, and I am fairly certain it's safe to assume that Mahomes can throw, lift, sprint, run long-distance, and stands tall enough to place in that top 40M every time.
I suppose some argument could be made that he's probably more in the 90s for everything rather than 99, but he's a full-time professionally trained athlete in the most dominant NFL team currently active, so I don't think calling 99% absent any formal data is too crazy.
If you asked me to bet over/under on 99th percentile for nearly all elite, world class level athletes of "normal" sports (i.e. not cornhole championships or something) I'd always take the over.
it's also true for people in cgs (centimeters, grams, seconds) sports like running, cycling, and lifting. if you look at the best in the world (pogacar, ingebrigtsen, blummenfelt) they don't look like fitness models. they look surprisingly normal. carrying "extra" body fat is helpful for training recovery, hormone levels, mood, and sleep. if the sport requires getting lean to hit a weight target for a specific event, athletes can do that, but they shouldn't stay ultra lean during the majority of their training.
For Grand Tour cycling stage races, the GC contenders typically start the race carrying a few extra kg (although still very thin). This helps a bit to avoid getting sick or fatigued during the early stages and they know they'll gradually lose the extra weight as the race progresses.
The average QB excels by using their brain, Mahomes being a prime example. He has the basic physical skills, but it's his decision making and fine motor skills that led to his excellence. This is the case of most QBs. The position does not demand physical excellence, and if he was totally ripped it would offer little advantage while coming with downsides.
Linebackers, in contrast, usually look like bodybuilders. They are the cliche athlete, having to use speed and strength to excel. Linesmen on both sides of the ball are usually heavy guys -- "fat" -- yet with massive strength. DBs are again low body fat and "ripped" by any common measure. The cliche "athlete".
So athletes cover the gamut, and it depends on what you do. A dart player is an athlete but clearly a dart player doesn't have the same physical requirements as a gymnast.
As an aside, it is amazing how low people's expectations of the human form have dropped. If someone posts a picture of a man with low body fat and any inkling of a form, many comments will be about steroids. Steroids are a shortcut, but even a small amount of effort and almost anyone can be top 1%. The bar is incredibly low, and it's bizarre when someone has a bit of biceps or isn't overweight and people need to comfort themselves by telling everyone that they're augmenting.
Yeah seriously - Manute is still the leading career blocks-per-game record holder. Wasn't a great offensive player, but man, he was so goddamn tall and was impossible to shoot over. His son is a pretty decent player, too.
Bol was also a fantastic human being. Incredibly active politically and donated much of his money towards his poverty-stricken home country of Sudan. He was not perfect, but his charitable acts affected millions, and that should be commended.
It's basically just min/maxing of attributes to fit the specific role. A throwing QB probably doesn't need to be the fastest man alive but a few pounds of extra fat will help protect against injuries.
Now does that actually make patrick mahomes more athletic than some random person that can run faster and lift more? I would say no, but he's definitely a better QB.
Readit News
If you're in sport, you know that highly performant bodies don't look like that almost ever. They're too specialized to have the physique that prioritizes aesthetics. Road cyclists with their lanky frames, powerlifters have fat over their absurdly strong cores. High level marathoners look like they might blow over in a stiff wind.
The most interesting thing about the article to me was the mention of kinesthetic skill. This is a huge differentiating factor IME in mountain biking. Some people do not have the meta visualization to understand why what they did worked or didn't, why they cleared that rock, why their weight transfer caused the front to wash out. The feedback loop doesn't exist, and they can't progress.
The same way, a "highly athletic" / bodybuilder body demonstrates that a man can spend resources on building all these impressive-looking muscles and can strictly ration carbs. (I don't even try to mention what women have to do to look "like a model".)
So it's the same demonstrative behavior, only the results are harder to buy directly than a supercar or a yacht. It's about as practical: not completely useless, but the point is not in the utility but in the hard-to-achieve aesthetics.
Much like a real able flyer looks much less impressive than a peacock (look at a goose or a crow), a real high-achieving athlete looks much less impressive than an athlete for show. But looks sometimes play a critical role, e.g. for an actor, or during dating, so it's not irrational behavior.
Also, an underappreciated role of muscle mass is as a giant store of emergency amino acids.
There are proven short-term, medium-term, and long-term benefits of resistance training for men and women, both young and old.
What's puzzling is that bodybuilder physiques aren't even attractive to most people. I don't mean physically fit and showing some muscle, I mean the extremes of Arnold and even more "built" guys. When you talk to normal people, they don't find it attractive. The people who universally find the bodybuilder physique attractive are other bodybuilders! It's a very "niche" look.
And it's well-known it's not a physique that correlates with actual physical strength or agility. It's just for show. Actual physical fitness doesn't look like that, and even bodybuilders admit this.
Now, anyone actually on stage and the true mass monsters? Sure, nobody finds that attractive, but Hollywood actors don't look like that, either. Alan Ritchson and Joe Manganiello and what not are plenty attractive.
100% disagree. The last I checked, muscle size is the strongest correlating physical characteristic with force production. Also, have you not seen videos of Ronnie Coleman lifting weights?
I agree. When I read "The Martian", I wasn't picturing Mark Watney as Jason Bourne.
https://www.justjared.com/photo-gallery/4473115/matt-damon-s...
I recently watched A Small Light with Bel Powley playing Miep Gies, the Dutch woman who hid Anne Frank.
It was solid miniseries, I recommend it. Not extraordinary, lots of tv melodrama but still worth it. Otto Frank doesn't get nearly enough attention for his prescience in trying to keep his family safe.
That said, the actor who plays Jan Gies, her husband, while playing the role very well, at some point takes his shirt off and reveals an absolutely incredibly bulked physique. A social worker in Nazi occupied 1940's Netherlands where people were treating ration cards like gold bullion and eating tulip soup because nothing else was left looked like he was consuming 4500 calories a day and possibly on a steroid stack that didn't exist yet.
He might as well have whipped out an iPhone, it took me out that much. I understand every actor is waiting for a call from Marvel these days, but I wish actors didn't feel so pressured to be ripped for every role. If I was the director I would have at least never put him in a shirtless scene and kept him in oversized suits.
In other words: "if you are extremely tall and/or extremely strong, you don't need be shredded to still be athletic". Who would have thought?
It's more than that. Being shredded is actively anti-athletic.
This isn't exactly a secret - pretty much anyone casually into bodybuilding or strength training knows that you lower body fat to look stronger, but raise body fat to actually be stronger, at least to some extent.
I suppose some argument could be made that he's probably more in the 90s for everything rather than 99, but he's a full-time professionally trained athlete in the most dominant NFL team currently active, so I don't think calling 99% absent any formal data is too crazy.
https://images.app.goo.gl/JZoqXvSbcnCSahkKA
The current best basketball player in the world who looks like this: https://imageio.forbes.com/specials-images/imageserve/645d93...
Linebackers, in contrast, usually look like bodybuilders. They are the cliche athlete, having to use speed and strength to excel. Linesmen on both sides of the ball are usually heavy guys -- "fat" -- yet with massive strength. DBs are again low body fat and "ripped" by any common measure. The cliche "athlete".
So athletes cover the gamut, and it depends on what you do. A dart player is an athlete but clearly a dart player doesn't have the same physical requirements as a gymnast.
As an aside, it is amazing how low people's expectations of the human form have dropped. If someone posts a picture of a man with low body fat and any inkling of a form, many comments will be about steroids. Steroids are a shortcut, but even a small amount of effort and almost anyone can be top 1%. The bar is incredibly low, and it's bizarre when someone has a bit of biceps or isn't overweight and people need to comfort themselves by telling everyone that they're augmenting.
“Just because you look the part, doesn’t mean you can play, ask Manute Bol.” - Sage Francis
I'm not sure Manute is actually a great example but it's still a good line.
When I was playing sports back 25 years ago, I heard the expression "looks like Tarzan, plays like Jane" more than once.
Bol was also a fantastic human being. Incredibly active politically and donated much of his money towards his poverty-stricken home country of Sudan. He was not perfect, but his charitable acts affected millions, and that should be commended.
Now does that actually make patrick mahomes more athletic than some random person that can run faster and lift more? I would say no, but he's definitely a better QB.