Iggy Pop as an example of functional strength

Putting on excessive amounts of muscle isn't very attractive or functional. That said, many people who are considered athletes and possess great physiques and functional strength include some form of bodybuilding in their training.

Bodybuilding as an end to itself isn't a very worthy pursuit imo.

What would you define as excessive? Many of today's top athletes would have been considered 'musclebound' by old standards - when my dad played college sports back in the 60s, the idea of a baseball player spending significant time in a weight room wasn't taken very seriously. I think there are a lot of misconceptions out there about the functionality of large amounts of muscle (muscle takes away your flexibility, speed, etc.)

Some rough guidelines for "excessive" may be:

-when you spend most of your time eating in order to preserve and gain mass
-when you spend significant amounts of money on anabolics
-when you weigh so much that you cannot play regular sports without injuring your joints and/or muscles
-when your muscle mass requires so much glucose and oxygen that your endurance suffers significantly
-when you start to look unattractive

the last one's subjective to a point, but I know of very few women that would want to mate with a top level bodybuilder. Arnie may be an exception, but he seems to have been blessed with a beautiful physique.

Ronnie coleman is not an attractive mammal.

For me, 175 pounds is excessive. I most certainly noticed a massive endurance drop and increased frequency of injuries when I was that heavy. It was terrible. 175 pounds may be very manageable for someone else of my height - I'm sure a lot depends on the overall physiologic/anatomic profile.

For me, 175 pounds is excessive. I most certainly noticed a massive endurance drop and increased frequency of injuries when I was that heavy. It was terrible. 175 pounds may be very manageable for someone else of my height - I'm sure a lot depends on the overall physiologic/anatomic profile.

I'm not suggesting you drop Ronnie Coleman into a basketball game. I was originally pointing out that the definition of excessive muscle is very subjective and that over time athletes have evolved such that guys who are performing at the highest levels right now would have been considered to be carrying around excessive amounts of muscle in the past. I recall Jules saying that he was carrying 'a ridiculous' amount of muscle at 175 pounds or thereabouts - that is what started my original question about what he considered excessive in the first place. It will be interesting to see where things are 30 years from now - I don't see how the physiques of athletes can change from now until then as dramatically as they did from the 50s or 60s to today, but who knows.

I'd be interested in where Feedback sees the evolution of the athlete's physique going in the future - has it reached its potential or are we going to see 6'4" tall, 260 pound point guards in basketball down the road..