'It appears that excessive muscle growth may have detrimental effects on the quality of the muscle, and one may well be better off with normal-sized muscles than with metabolically expensive large muscles.''
expensive when compared with what? Expensive is a relative term and can be applied to various circumstances. Expensive in terms of dollars to attain? That's relative to ones income, lifestyle, goals and alternatives.
Expensive in terms of time? Again, what's the alternative. What a shitty article.
"The scientists, whose findings are reported in the journal Experimental Physiology, took small muscle samples from the thighs of 12 male bodybuilders, six power athletes such as sprinters, and 14 men who were physically active but did not weight train."
What constitutes physically active? What kind of physical activities were the 14 men? From what area did they pull the sample? This study seems chalk full of biases. Plus what a shit sample size.
"In contrast to bodybuilders, power athletes appeared to have an improved level of muscle quality, the researchers found."
Jesus, they spent money on this? I hope this was privately funded.
What a terrible article and, from what I read in the article, the study is fucking useless based off of the sample size alone. There's absolutely zero one can reasonably infer from a study of that size other than "we need a larger sample". Does the telegraph usually run with such a crappy study? I'm really mad at myself for reading this waste of internets.