Most men aren’t sculling diet shakes and counting calories in an effort to look more “Kate” than “heavy-weight.” In fact, scientific studies suggest that skinny guys have less sexual partners than their brawny counterparts.
According to the fairer sex, all men are not created equal – with most women preferring to bed and wed a more toned version of our male compadres. Who was it that said we were less superficial than men? Ahh yes, it must have been a woman, probably after a bitter break-up.
If evolutionary theory is predicated on the notion of “survival of the fittest,” why then haven’t all the skinny guys been bred out? It might be because there’s a physiological cost associated with being “beffie” (which is measured by total fat-free mass, or arm and leg muscle mass).
According to a new study published in Evolution and Human Behavior, the downside of being stocky – and subsequently more highly sexed – is a poor immune system and an increased appetite… a tradeoff I’m sure most men would be willing to make for a little more pump and grind in the gym and the bedroom.
This is the first study of its kind to investigate the pros and cons of all that brawn. The lead author of the paper, William Lassek, analyzed data from a single population of more than 5000 men, aged 18 to 49.
Prior research indicates that rock-hard abs and tight triceps are associated with increased levels of the hormone testosterone – think of all that grunting emanating from the free weights section of the gym. However, while testosterone promotes secondary muscle growth, it also suppresses the immune system.
Compared to “skinnies,” muscular men also tended to produce fewer infection-fighting white blood cells, and less of an important immune molecule called C-reactive protein, which helps destroy pathogens.
The not so surprising results of the study – the men who resemble He-Man lost their virginity at a younger age, compared to their skinny Shera-like counterparts.
It makes sense that the bulkier you are, the more food you need to sustain your size. Interestingly, in the study’s more muscley subjects, muscle mass did a better job of predicting caloric intake than body mass index (BMI), age, or activity levels. In a modern society – with a deli on every corner – there’s not much down side to having a hefty appetite (of course, there are still parts of the world where food is not readily accessible).
For those struggling to gain access to enough food, such as populations in developing countries, or our knuckle dragging ancient predecessors, it seems hunky men are more likely to go to bed hungry. But at least they’ve got a better chance it won’t be alone.
I wonder if the “skinnies” would argue that the health benefits outweigh the lonely nights, or if the “beefies” would say that getting girls trumps any of the physiological costs? What do you think?
Loading ...
At Long Last, an issue that I am overzealous about. I have looked for information of this topic for the last several hours. Your site is greatly prized.