B
bufbiker
Guest
Just read a great article by Cade Thomas over at Iron Magazine. Of course I think it's great because I agree with it. His thesis is that all those individuals screaming about putting aesthetics back into bodybuilding are doing so because they don't have the drive nor genes to build massive musculature over a smaller frame.
He cites rags like Men's Physique with a picture of Justin Beiber on the cover as an ideal male physique. Cade states that in his opinion Beiber has the physique of a heroin addict on a soda cracker diet.
He questions what the idea of the ideal male physique should be.
Is it Justin Beiber, who is cut with his twelve in "guns" or a local gym rat with clearly delineated muscle and a 19" arm with a nice peak on his biceps?
Is Big Ramy aesthetically built, with his piles of muscle upon muscle and his small waist?
Everyone hollers about Frank Zanes build being the ultimate. Cade then dares one to compare Zane, Arnold or Menzer or Robinson, or even Wheeler or Levrone to Beiber. The comparison is not even close.
So he asks what is the true meaning of aesthetic.
Great read.
He cites rags like Men's Physique with a picture of Justin Beiber on the cover as an ideal male physique. Cade states that in his opinion Beiber has the physique of a heroin addict on a soda cracker diet.
He questions what the idea of the ideal male physique should be.
Is it Justin Beiber, who is cut with his twelve in "guns" or a local gym rat with clearly delineated muscle and a 19" arm with a nice peak on his biceps?
Is Big Ramy aesthetically built, with his piles of muscle upon muscle and his small waist?
Everyone hollers about Frank Zanes build being the ultimate. Cade then dares one to compare Zane, Arnold or Menzer or Robinson, or even Wheeler or Levrone to Beiber. The comparison is not even close.
So he asks what is the true meaning of aesthetic.
Great read.