5 ms·

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 th

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.

m348e912 2y ago
> 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.
- yencabulator 2y ago
  Dunno this might even be realistic, astronauts have to be "in shape" not as in strong or muscular but baseline healthy: https://www.justjared.com/photo-gallery/4473115/matt-damon-shows-off-his-fit-physique-day-at-the-beach-04/fullsize/ https://www.justjared.com/photo-gallery/4473115/matt-damon-s...
phillipcarter 2y ago
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.
nine_k 2y ago
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.
- lukas099 2y ago
  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.
  - hkpack 2y ago
    You generally train for the sport you’re participating in. Stronger in the non-important (for the activity) parts of the body makes it harder to be stronger in the important parts. And also there are many ways to be strong, as in not all muscles are the same and also your neurological ability to control your muscles may also very widely . Also powerlifters have much less impressive bodies than bodybuilders, and without pump and proper lighting you will generally might not even recognize that a person is top powerlifter.
    - lukas099 2y ago
      I agree that strength is specific, but my point is that ‘bodybuilder muscle’ is not strictly ornamental. Powerlifters have incredible muscle mass, they just aren’t picky about covering it with body fat because it doesn’t make sense for the sport. The main reason bodybuilders are weaker is that their caloric intake is much lesser (especially at meet prep when they sometimes are practically starving themselves to death).
rasz 2y ago
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.
the_af 2y ago
> 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.
- lukas099 2y ago
  > 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?
  - the_af 2y ago
    Bodybuilders aren't the most strong or fit people. They optimize for a specific look (definition in muscles and a certain body shape), not for strength or agility or fitness in general. Most bodybuilders will tell you this, it's not a secret.
    - lukas099 2y ago
      Yes, but they are stronger than 99% of people. You claimed that their muscle size had no correlation with strength, which is absurd.
      - the_af 2y ago
        You know what I meant. I didn't submit my comment to a peer reviewed biology journal. Stop trying to nitpick and engage with the actual argument.
emseetech 2y ago
| 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.

m348e912 2y ago

> 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.

yencabulator 2y ago
Dunno this might even be realistic, astronauts have to be "in shape" not as in strong or muscular but baseline healthy: https://www.justjared.com/photo-gallery/4473115/matt-damon-shows-off-his-fit-physique-day-at-the-beach-04/fullsize/ https://www.justjared.com/photo-gallery/4473115/matt-damon-s...

phillipcarter 2y ago

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.

nine_k 2y ago

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.

lukas099 2y ago
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.
- hkpack 2y ago
  You generally train for the sport you’re participating in. Stronger in the non-important (for the activity) parts of the body makes it harder to be stronger in the important parts. And also there are many ways to be strong, as in not all muscles are the same and also your neurological ability to control your muscles may also very widely . Also powerlifters have much less impressive bodies than bodybuilders, and without pump and proper lighting you will generally might not even recognize that a person is top powerlifter.
  - lukas099 2y ago
    I agree that strength is specific, but my point is that ‘bodybuilder muscle’ is not strictly ornamental. Powerlifters have incredible muscle mass, they just aren’t picky about covering it with body fat because it doesn’t make sense for the sport. The main reason bodybuilders are weaker is that their caloric intake is much lesser (especially at meet prep when they sometimes are practically starving themselves to death).

rasz 2y ago

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.

the_af 2y ago

> 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.

lukas099 2y ago
> 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?
- the_af 2y ago
  Bodybuilders aren't the most strong or fit people. They optimize for a specific look (definition in muscles and a certain body shape), not for strength or agility or fitness in general. Most bodybuilders will tell you this, it's not a secret.
  - lukas099 2y ago
    Yes, but they are stronger than 99% of people. You claimed that their muscle size had no correlation with strength, which is absurd.
    - the_af 2y ago
      You know what I meant. I didn't submit my comment to a peer reviewed biology journal. Stop trying to nitpick and engage with the actual argument.

emseetech 2y ago

| 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.