Does Natural Movement Training Make You Sexier?

• Tweet
• Sharebar

• Tweet

I have to admit, a blog topic like this runs the risk of appearing like something out of Cosmo magazine, but I think the idea of evolutionary-based mechanisms for fitness and attractiveness to be incredibly fascinating. Why is it that we find one person attractive, while another unattractive. What about the situations where we encounter a physique which we are instructed by society to find pleasing, but ultimately does nothing for us?

In 1973, evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky penned that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”

Ultimately, the physical (and probably psychological) qualities that we find attractive in a person are meaningful to us because they signal a substantial degree of capability for survival or at least reproduction. Nobody goes around saying, “Hey, that girl looks pretty hot, I bet her reproductive fitness exhibits a high degree of adaptiveness.” But deep down that is what our brain is subconsciously thinking.

Sometimes unfortunately, our conscious brain can override our evolutionary instincts (though maybe not forever). We may be conditioned by society or our community to find a particular body-type attractive, even if it is remarkably divergent from our genetic predilections.

Skinny, yes. Super, no.

Take for example, the classic female super model. Taller by far than average and exceptionally thin, probably at the degree one would consider anorexic. These women are held up on a pedestal as the epitome of physical beauty, but I can never resist the urge to scream out “eat a cheeseburger!” whenever I see one on the television.

If I met a super model in person I’d probably have more self control, but you never know. TV adds ten pounds so in person those models must look even more skinny.

On the opposite end of the spectrum but just as relevant in my opinion, are the huge hulking body builder guys you see in muscle magazines. Body building is held up to be the arena for which bodily perfection is achieved, but I can’t help but thinking that some of these guys don’t even look human.

It might just be the propensity for shaving their entire body and lathering on a gallon of oil, but I can’t help but notice that none of these men look like the images of vibrant hunter-gatherers I’ve seen in textbooks. If these guys on stage in their speedos are “perfection” how come the people who lived and died through mastery of the natural world look so incredibly different?

This guy frightens me.

Ok, so that example probably isn’t very fair. What about a comparison of a modern person – Erwan Le Corre, perhaps. I think anyone who has met Erwan in person or attended a MovNat seminar could attest to his superfluous physical qualities. Erwan, isn’t it enough that you make all of the ladies swoon with your charming French accent?

Now, I can’t make any claims as to the extent of his regular physical training, whether it is limited to MovNat techniques or if he supplements with weight lifting, but I do know that he is incredibly active and engaged in a natural movement oriented regimen on a regular basis.

Here you have somebody performing all of the kinds of actions and movements that the human organism evolved to do (running, jumping, climbing, swimming, etc.) and their attractiveness levels are off the charts. You have all of the hallmarks of real fitness signaling: strong, but not so muscular to be cumbersome, lean, but not so skinny to be weak, as well as more scientific markers like a high shoulder to hip ratio.

The most famous hunter-gatherer of all time.

Most animals have certain skills they are good at. Rabbits hop, monkeys climb, etc. These species specific behaviors evolved because they provided some sort of survival advantage in their habitat. Any rabbit that doesn’t hop fast enough, or a monkey who sucks at climbing will probably get eaten or starve.

The potential mates for those animals will respond to signals demonstrating that they excel at those skills, and are likely to be a good progenitor for successful offspring.

This concept applies to humans as well, and physical attributes derived from natural movement and functional training accentuate these advantages.

It makes sense if you think about it. Evolution is a pretty slow process, and for the most part our genetics are still pretending like the world is full of wooly mammoths and a receding ice age. All of the types of physical qualities which would have allowed a prehistoric hunter-gatherer to survive and thrive in their ancient environment are largely still the qualities that we find most attractive today.

Here is a great article from the Crossfit Journal discussing this specific topic: “Moved to Mate”, by Dr. Steven Platek

Will a natural movement program be all that you need to become a 10/10 on the attractiveness scale? Considering the sometimes difficult proposition of finding usable weight substitutes (large rocks or animals) for stimulating muscle growth, maybe not.

But a comprehensive natural movement training regimen including barefoot-style running, jumping, climbing, etc. – coupled with access to weight lifting equipment is bound to be successful. In between regular sessions of acting like a caveman gone wild, focus on doing full range of motion, compound heavy functional lifts like the deadlift and overhead press.