[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
The part about the historically aesthetic guys doesnt prove or disprove what Im saying. At all. All Ive said is that conditioning is a part of aesthetics, that they cant be separated.
And I got in on the discussion in the beginning because of the implication that Branch Warren doesnt present a pretty enough physique to place well in big shows. Obviously I dont agree.
[/quote]
First, the historically aesthetic guys are exactly what prove you wrong. There is a science to aesthetics. Any plastic surgeon or even cosmetic dentist knows this in detail. That was why I mentioned the Golden Proportion. People find certain proportions…scientifically the same proportions in majority as the Golden Proportion…aesthetic. That is why the Golden Era bodybuilders are still held as an ideal for many even though they are the LEAST lean in comparison to guys today.
Aesthetics has everything to do with the shape, size and proportion of a physique. “Conditioning” is a variable, one that has only recently (within the last 30 years) been enforced to the degree it is reaching a high point now with the “shredded glutes” bullshit.
The bottom line is that 30 years from now, when guys in their 20’s and 30’s and looking back at this time period, they will not base what they find as “ideal” on whether someone had more veins showing instead of the overall proportions and shape of the person.
That is why Flex Wheeler is seen as ideal despite not ever reaching conditioned levels like Branch.
I mean, it isn’t like I am making this shit up. I actually had to learn all of this in more detail than you seem to want to believe.[/quote]
Size and proportion are also variable. Youre tripping over words again.
Im done with this. I cant keep my repeating myself. I dont care if you refuse to acknowledge that bodyfat level affects aesthetics.
