> If "physique" means "photogenic," then yes -- they're pretty much unrelated.
Where do you get your information? They couldn't be more related. I GUARANTEE you that any physique model you see on stage or in a magazine is far more "fit" than someone who sits around all day. No, having a great physique doesn't mean that you could run a 4 minute mile, but saying that they aren't related is just ignorant.
>Very true, and if people thought they had to build up muscle and look like Arnold, it would set the fitness movement back.
So, people trying to get in shape and look good at the same time is bad for the fitness/health movement? Are you trolling?
That's more than unfair. Arnie sparked a massive fitness craze that benefited many people. If you get disappointed, that is ultimately your fault. Arnie (as well as every other bodybuilder since the mid 60's) were on varying degrees of steroids. This is well known. They have to deny it, but ask anyone in the sport. Arnie's body is an ideal, a loooong term goal that is probably never going to be achieved naturally. But that great physique is what made a ton of people get off their butts and at least try.
If you want an achievable natty physique look up "Zyzz" on youtube. Dude teched as a shortcut, but his physique is easily attainable in 3-5 years, if you do it right. Like Arnie, he has inspired many people. And then to say that the people that are too weak-willed to follow through on workouts deserve to blame these men? That's just silly.