> In other words, there appear to be cues in the male body that accurately indicate strength (and are detected as such by raters), but nonetheless are neutral or negatively valued when assessing attractiveness.
hahaha yes I was wondering about that. Gym-based fitness and lifting specifically seem pretty trendy right now and a lot of the younger men I know lift and are very visibly fit. But anecdotally pretty much all of the strongest men I've known had guts to match their arms and if you saw them out of weight training context you'd probably say they looked more schlubby than than chiseled.
Body builder is mostly a power lifter who periodically calorie-restricts to get a lower body fat percentage (there are differences in program design, but "in general", thats the major diff). Easier to gain muscle strength when you're not diet restricted, so power lifters always get stronger than the builders over time and people mostly pay attention to the people with the most experience.
Note that the classic power law makes its appearance once again. True, the bell curves for lifters and builders have little overlap and most of the not-as-thin lifters will be much stronger than most of the thin builders. However, most of the time they are competing with the general population not with each other. Both experienced body builders and power lifters are significantly stronger than, perhaps, 99% of the male population, which honestly is not a very high bar to exceed.
So due to power law effects when competing against 99% of men, the primary correlation with winning is strength. Yet when competing at the top of the pyramid, against other men in the top 1%, you are also correct that lower body fat percentage correlates with winning, because everyone "up there" is already pretty muscular to begin with. "The football team is the strongest and most successful group, but the individual on the football team whom is the most successful has the lowest body fat percentage inside his group".
My understanding is that a moderate amount of muscle makes both men and women more attractive.
The average person is not terribly attracted to someone who looks like a pro bodybuilder (crazy low body fat) or powerlifter (probably a bit over fat.)
Even guys on roids are pretty attractive in my experience. I have a few friends who get random attention from women (up to and including in prompted touching) and all of them take steroids.
This is absolutely false. But if a man wants an impressive physique naturally he’d best start about the time he hits puberty. The window of quad digit free testosterone isn’t open for long. If you hear about 30 or 40 something men putting on 20+ lbs of muscle in 6 months you can rest assured they’re supplementing androgens.
However in these days of endocrine disruption and secular testosterone decline, it’s not unreasonable to assume that anyone dedicated enough has at least considered gear.
You sometimes see this in professional fighting ability. At some point bigger muscles hinder mobility and take too much energy to fuel making the fighter tire more quickly.
Chubby looking Fedor Emelianenko absolutely destroyed many gym bros in the MMA
The study talks about 'rated' strength - how strong people thought an individual was, not how strong he actually was, I don't think this invalidates the conclusion that looking strong correlates very well with attractiveness.
To be fair, the Olympic weightlifting movements in their current form are pretty leg-dominant. In the past when there was a third event, the clean-and-press [1,2], athletes needed a lot more upper body strength.
hahaha yes I was wondering about that. Gym-based fitness and lifting specifically seem pretty trendy right now and a lot of the younger men I know lift and are very visibly fit. But anecdotally pretty much all of the strongest men I've known had guts to match their arms and if you saw them out of weight training context you'd probably say they looked more schlubby than than chiseled.