[hcarvalhoalves]

> (...) it is a fitness error for weaker contestants to attempt to seize resources when they cannot prevail and for stronger ones to cede what they can cost-effectively defend

I call bullsh* on that one.

How can biceps circumference relate so strongly with evolution when nowadays bulging muscle is largely a result of gym training and nutrition (which, btw, costs money, biasing this study even further)?

I would say it's more about ego relating to muscle mass than the other way around. Egotistical rich men are more likely to be focused on their appearance and willing to turn into gym rats.

[jmduke]

The argument that only the egotistical care about physical fitness is hilarious.

[hcarvalhoalves]

Please point where I say "only".

All I'm saying is that rich, "alpha" male are in the best position to frequent gyms heavily and bulge muscle. They have the drive, the time and the money. I think the study reached at this data, then (IMHO, wrongly) concludes there's a correlation (strong men choose competition over collaboration) instead of a causation (egotistical rich men have bigger biceps).

Also, biceps circumference only relates to fitness or strength up to a certain point, hypertrophy is left to bodybuilders. Just look at the average tribesman for examples of extreme fit people with average body measures.

[StavrosK]

I don't think fitness and muscle mass are entirely correlated, unless you consider marathon runners much less fit than the average obese person.