Why did people's bodies look different in the past?

I'm not just talking about just bodybuilders/athletes but regular people as well. Their proportions were different. Just compare someone like Rocky Marciano to Evander Holyfield.

they were white back then and not diversified yet

>Their proportions were different.
vague as fuck m8

They didn't have machines for specific parts is the body
That's all free weight
> not very aesthetic though

Meat
Eggs
Vegetables
They didn't eat as much grain and there is another thing most people don't talk about

Genetics passed on after hard famine times build great bodies

knowledge/education

training methods

nutrition

steroids

resistance training didn't become a normie thing till the 70's

>bro history

the thread

Different training methods, different nutrition, people were shorter, manual labour was more common, test levels were higher, steroids and other supplements weren't as common, and finally you only see the best pictures, hence they survived this long, you probably don't see many pictures of the skinnyfats that we had back then.

They weren't different back then, we're different now.

People are now fatter than ever and steroids are cheap and plentiful so our perception of normal has become so warped that when we see people from the past we think they look weird.

Picture quality.

>They weren't different back then, we're different now

nigga what?

Holy kekels

psuedo-intellectualism is difficult when you're a retard

>Stone

Dropped immediately

Fuck are you on about? His proportions are normal. He's just not very low body fat and all the faggots with huge arms and traps are on juice.

This

>they would look way better if their weights were easier to lift

I have that body type, might be a Celtic thing, genetic populations have changed so there are less Irish/scottish-americans these days, especially on tv.

Or maybe its something else but my dad has the same body too.

Most routines had much higher reps back in those days. Low rep training wasn't as much of a thing back in those days. As well, outside of bodybuilders; most folks did a lot more calisthenics. Isolation exercises were a thing by the 50's but few people did bodypart splits.

>reddit spacing
Time to go back

Compound excicise only get you so far

Compound and freeweight aren't the same thing

that isnt reddit spacing but being that I can succesfully identify it maybe I should go back...

Whatever
There are no ab crunch machines back then so that's why they have shit abs
> also maybe food plays a part but who knows

>bench chump/curl monkey upper body
>twiggy little bitch lower body

same gym shitter physique, different gym shitter decade.

What's it like being new as fuck?

Literally just do crunches while holding weight wtf. Also don't do crunches they suck.

Higher natural testosterone so they had bigger and blockier frames.

tfw thats from a danish book

you mean others?

>Him
>White
They'd call you a nut or a wop lover if you called that italian fella white.

He's lying about his measurments.

If I had to chose one thing, it's probably that humans have generally grown taller in the last century.

That aside, there's also:
-Sports science developments
-What's culturally considered "attractive" or aesthetic has changed
-Average Joe's diet
-Average Joe's lifestyle

The resistance provided by Dumbbell Flies is nothing like the resistance provided by a pec deck or cables. It's not a matter of harder or easier, the force is applied differently and builds muscle in a way that Dumbbells and barbells can't.

>The resistance provided by Dumbbell Flies is nothing like the resistance provided by a pec deck or cables.
Specifically how? Specifically in what way does a pec deck, which takes an axis of movement out of the motion, build muscle better than the same motion with that extra axis of movement? And also, cable flies are literally the same as pec flies except the force is being applied horizontally instead of vertically.

ancient wisdom right here

>flies
>pec deck
>cables
I can GUARENTEE that you have a shit body. I fucking guarentee it

On a pec deck the resistance is always perpendicular to your arms. With Dumbbells the force is always towards the ground, which means you do less work at the top of the rep. Depending on where you stand in relation to the cable machine, the anlge of the force changes and different muscles are targeted.

Sigh. Your turn now.

>With Dumbbells the force is always towards the ground, which means you do less work at the top of the rep.
That's negligible compared to the extra effort needed to stabilize the weight during the movement.
>Depending on where you stand in relation to the cable machine, the anlge of the force changes and different muscles are targeted.
That sounds completely fucking useless considering it's a pectoralis exercise. What, should I start doing dumbbell curls at a different angle to use my core more too?

water fluoridation, mate. it will shit on your genes and growth in more ways than you can dream of

Diff user, but with cables you can do things like adjust the height of the pulleys, which would have a similar effect to changing the angle of a bench for an incline or decline.
Pretty sure he's not saying it'll target entirely different muscle groups, but it'll add more variety to what part of the pecs get hit than just say, an nonadjustable pec deck.

There are two muscles there, the pectoralis major and minor, or the main pec and upper pec. When those muscles are targeted, they grow, period. You can't grow the middle or the sides or the bottom of your pecs by changing the angle at which you perform the contraction, just like how you can't change the shape of your triceps by doing different kinds of extensions or your bicep from doing different kinds of curls. The upper pec muscle is it's own separate muscle and can be targeted by doing the same pec movements at an incline, and that's it.

Do you really think muscles are like one piece like an actuator? They're made of thousands of contracting cells. Of course you can activate some more than others.

What are you implying? First and foremost, the muscle fibers in the pec run horizontally relative to the body, obviously, so you can't target the inside or the outside. What's left is top and bottom. The top is it's own separate muscle as I've previously stated and can be targeted by working at an incline. All a decline will do is target your pectoralis major more than your minor, but it will not target a specific part of the pectoralis major. Your brain determines how many muscle fibers are used based on how much resistance there is, not which direction the resistance is coming from. It's not smart enough to say "this is a decline, so we only need to work the bottom of the pecs" or anything. It will start with some muscle fibers, increasing the number used until the resistance gives way.

So, no, you can't build just the lower bit of your pectoralis major muscles. And as I've been trying to say, even if you could, you wouldn't need a pec deck or cable cross to do it.