3 ms·
> 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 correla
by 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 agoBodybuilders 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 agoYes, 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 agoYou 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.
- lukas099 2y agoYou said “it's well-known it's not a physique that correlates with actual physical strength” when the reality is closer to it being perfectly correlated, so no, I wasn’t nitpicking.
- the_af 2y agoOk, let me rephrase if it makes you happy: the bodybuilder physique is suboptimal for raw strength, agility, and general fitness. A person in peak fitness doesn't look like a bodybuilder. Bodybuilders themselves admit this; their shape and physique is optimized for competition-level standards, not for health or fitness. Furthermore, this physique is mostly attractive and desirable to other bodybuilders, and not to regular people. Therefore, it's puzzling that Hollywood used to push this as the "ideal" body shape. There. Happier? Almost everybody else in this thread understood what I meant.