The chicken or the egg

Do we look the way we look because of what we do, or do we do what we do because of the way we look? Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Some fitness experts assert that we look a certain way because of what we do. In other words, our bodies are a reflection of our activities. Which makes a lot of sense. But then there are those who suggest that certain body types are attracted to certain activities. This theory holds that we gravitate to certain activities because of our natural attributes, attributes not necessarily obtained through hard work but which are genetically endowed. This makes a lot of sense also.

Take a gymnast for example. Gymnasts look well-muscled, are usually shorter in stature, and are very lean. If this body type is what makes a good gymnast, then the second theory holds true. Take any high level athlete and look at their peers, and you will see a commonality among their body types: Cyclists (skinny, sometimes S-shaped: neck forward, rounded shoulders, hips forward; others are large in the rear and legs); swimmers (tall and broad-shouldered), football players (big and muscular); basketball players (exceptionally tall), and on and on. The little guy who goes out to make the football team usually doesn’t make it.

But even for the exceptionally talented athletes, their bodies reflect what they do. They just don't have to work quite as hard as the rest of us. Here is a quote from Gold Medal Bodies that cuts to the chase:

You want to know the "secret" to getting six pack abs? I'll tell you right now, there's no biohacking, miracle berries, or Dr. Oz Kool-Aid involved. Instead, we see the "six pack" as a natural by-product of overall strength and health. Build those up, do the work, and you'll get "the look".

That's it in a nutshell. You need to build a foundation of strength by doing the work. The look will follow. Six-pack abs are often a sign of strength, health and discipline. If you want the washboard abdominals, fine. That is not a bad goal. But a better goal might be to do a perfect pushup, a planche, or a muscle-up, the visible abs being a natural by-product of that level of skill. You could also achieve that look by restricting your diet and doing endless cardio, but the skill remain elusive.

Which begs the question, why be concerned at all about which comes first, the look or the activity? It matters because sometimes you hear people state their goals based on appearance. I want to look like X, Y or Z. If you turn that around and say I want to be able to do X, Y or Z, then the body adapts and changes accordingly. Having extrinsic goals like I want skinny arms or big arms, visible abs or cut muscles, directs your training in a potentially unhealthy direction. If your goals are extrinsic ones, then your path to reaching those goals will be based on achieving external reward. Maybe this is enough. Or maybe, on the road to building a better looking physique, you might find that acquiring more strength and new skills become even more satisfying than the appearance that comes with it!

Working the muscles in isolation will build a fine looking – but not very agile - physique. Traditional weight training will build a solid foundation but for ever-increasing levels of skill, you need to work the assistor muscles in tandem with the bigger muscles and in a variety of ways to build exceptional functional strength. This means elements like balance, different types of strength (straight arm and bent arm), mobility and agility.

By focusing on function, you end up with two for the price of one: a stronger body and a better looking body. Which came first, the body type or the chosen sport? Most likely a some of each. A certain body type gravitates toward a given sport but also any body who puts in the time and effort can become stronger and more skilled, and their body will reflect that. And since we can’t change the body type we are given, why not concentrate on the aspects we can change – our ability?