n/a

[Berzerker Jay]

n/a

[Hatsune_Neko]

Im sure on the cooking one myself
i worked in kitchens as a prep cook and chef. lifting food all the time is definitely a work out.

the science one i can kinda see. there is no heavy lifted in it, unless you count research materials but they usually don't come in 50 pound bags either.. so idk. could be iffy either way.

[Sol Lignum]

Tricky question. It says specifically "definition" which, from my humble knowledge of English means how visually sharp ones muscles are, i mean, how strong one looks, not how strong they actually are.

Cooking as a job is not an easy one for sure, but it's mostly about stamina and toughness, and i doubt it'll make participant look like these guys:


You may get as strong as this guy though:


...who'll most likely kick first three guys butts simultaneously any day, mind you


Science is quite self-explanatory, if you do science\workouts 50\50 you'll be in great shape, but again, won't look as muscular as first three guys. If you lean more to either, you're not mainly focused on other thing anymore, thus becoming plumpier or more defined.

[Berzerker Jay]

But let's keep in mind, if all you do is cook or hit the books, you're not going to have that muscle definition. In this game you really have to earn that muscle definition, and all we're talking about would have been reflected in that.

Now all of a sudden you can do the work of a bodybuilder, but every book you read on quantum mechanics makes you just a little flabbier and less defined? Every time you cook your dinner, you lose muscle definition?

[Berzerker Jay]

If you do science and workouts 50/50, then you'll have 50% of the physical development of a character who spends 100% of that same time doing workouts.

That makes sense. The change seems arbitrary and not very rational.

[Berzerker Jay]

If anything, these days an understanding of science seems to provide better results from working out because the person better understands the biology at hand. So it should be the opposite if anything.

[NeoCat]

Fact of the matter is, acquisition of knowledge does not affect physical appearance in any direct way, positively or negatively.

You want proof? According to a quick goggle search, 68.8% of Americans are overweight or obese. Having lived in the country for 27 years i can safely say that 68.8% of Americans are not genius's

its not about any relation of Physical/Intellectual workout either. You only turn flabby when you neglect the physical, and its fairly simple to maintain physical tone in a world like Kenshi where you have to at the very least walk/run everywhere and move bricks.

[Jake_j_a]

If anything, these days an understanding of science seems to provide better results from working out because the person better understands the biology at hand. So it should be the opposite if anything.

"better results" dose NOT equal more definition unless that is the goal, which is not often the case as extreme definition is not "healthier."

You want proof? According to a quick goggle search, 68.8% of Americans are overweight or obese. Having lived in the country for 27 years i can safely say that 68.8% of Americans are not genius's

Since at least 50% of the population is "below average" your "proof" really has no relevance. Further more, consider how they determine "over weight" and "obese," it is straight up height to weight ratio, body fat percentage and body type are no longer considered. Since muscle dose weigh more then fat those pictured above would certainly be classified as over weight if not obese. Consider this, myself, getting on in years, have risen all the way to 11% body fat, and by todays standards am classified as "overweight." Back in my prime I was at about 2.5% which is dangerously low (and I was "ripped") but, by todays standards, I would have been classified as "obese" do to my height to weight ratio. I know this for a fact since I was in the military when they changed to the "modern" system and had to have my body fat percentage checked 3 times because I was classified as "obese" and they wanted to put me on the "fat boy program" (obviously not a term used today, I don't know what they call it now.)

In short, how much of the population is classified as "overweight" or "obese" is actually ridiculously meaningless.

[Berzerker Jay]

So your premise is that better definition is not healthier, even though it actually reflects a broader range of muscle development and often those responsible for stabilizing a limb and preventing injury? And you don't see how knowledge of musculature and what exercises can target various muscles which may be neglected would be of benefit?

I don't know that I can help you there. It seems obvious that more definition is in fact a reflection of greater general muscle health ( barring that we're not talking about just depleting body-fat, and that we're still talking muscle development), and that if I know how my body works I'm going to be able to better work it out and therefore even see better results for the effort.

You're talking to someone who took classes on physical training, and who also trained for competitive track and field. My knowledge saw me frequently pushing more weight than guys who were a lot bigger than me. I never knew anyone who could beat me on the incline leg-press, especially, where my record was 900 pounds. I spent considerably more time in the library than in the gym.

[Berzerker Jay]

As an example, most people don't even know that the pectoralis muscles are divided up into two separate groups, and that the smaller of these two is often neglected but is what's responsible for that mantle of muscle across the top of your chest. It also helps stabilize and direct power into your shoulder, backing up the rotator-cuff. If you know about that, you can easily modify your pec routine in the gym to wear out this much smaller muscle. It often just comes down to your grip, and using free weights.

[Jake_j_a]

It seems obvious that more definition is in fact a reflection of greater general muscle health ( barring that we're not talking about just depleting body-fat, and that we're still talking muscle development)

That is simply not true, not when taking it to the extreme. Look at any world class athlete, yes they are well defined, but not extremely so. You well know a proper workout lengthens and trims mussels, it also builds the less visible mussels which causes the more visible mussels to 'pop' less in comparison. On close inspection, perhaps, if you know what your looking at and how the muscular structure works you may say they are, technically, more defined, because you are looking for those less visible mussels among other things. However to casual observance they lack the extreme definition that, say, a body builder has.

If you really want to get picky about it strength and athletics would have little to do with mussel definition. However, within the constraints of 'measureable' statistics and limited detail, such as a computer game, their system is as close to accurate as any.

[Berzerker Jay]

Okay, well if you're talking about taking it to an extreme that may be a different game mechanic altogether. Maybe they might add in muscle cramping.

What I'm talking about here has nothing to do with extreme bodybuilding, use of steroids, yada yada.

I'm just saying, it's an altogether arbitrary and kind of weird game mechanic to have scientific knowledge counteract physical development.

Think about it. The premise would be that you go to the gym, have a reasonable and very moderate workout, and then you read up on nutritional sciences -- bam, you lose all the muscle development for learning something.

Real weird game mechanic. Don't see the point. See how it detracts from immersion in the overall game system.

[Sol Lignum]

Don't see the point.

Well, look deeper, fellow viking. Point is that if you sit your buns tight for a few days whatever your last workout might've been, you start to become plumpier. It's not about smart people being weak, it's about them being less phisically active then sporty people. Perhaps as strong, but way less defined for sure. I posted those pictures for reason. All these builders do day by day before show is eating their powdered crap and working out, just for those muscles to stay out as much as possible. Second guy is a m1 fighter, or something, and he never in his career has been as defined as any bodybuilder, but probably is much stronger then any will ever be. Point is - it's all about looks, not actual strenght. If you will deny that lack of phisical activity negatively affects muscle definition i'll... idk, be dissapointed?