By Roxie Beckles, IFBB Pro, Olympian, and Contest Prep Coach
When I published my analysis of the inaugural 2026 Fit Model Olympia, I wanted to start a serious conversation about the direction of bodybuilding’s newest women’s division.
My argument was straightforward.
I support the existence of Fit Model, but I personally expected the first Olympia to reward slightly more muscular development than what we saw.
I questioned whether the new division might create an unusual dilemma for women who have built more muscle than Fit Model rewards, but who aren’t yet muscular enough to compete successfully in Bikini.
Then something happened that I genuinely appreciated.
The inaugural Fit Model Olympia champion herself, Shealynn Burnett, entered the conversation.
And her response introduced an important perspective that deserves more attention.
See Shealynn Burnett’s official Olympia photo gallery on NPC News Online for her individual stage images.
What Shealynn Shared About Her Journey
Shealynn left a thoughtful comment on my YouTube video on October 27, 2026.
She explained that she has trained naturally for seven years and began her bodybuilding journey at approximately 39% body fat.
Her current physique, she explained, represents years of consistent training and physical transformation.
She also shared that she does not use performance-enhancing drugs or peptides, and that she is grateful the judges rewarded the physique she developed naturally.
But her larger point went beyond her personal victory.
Shealynn believes Fit Model should preserve a competitive standard that natural athletes can realistically pursue without feeling pressured to use enhancements.
She also expressed concern that if the division continually rewards greater muscularity, she may no longer be able to compete at that level while remaining natural.
I think that’s an important argument.
“a standard that someone can reach without enhancements”
Shealynn Burnett, commenting on the 2026 Fit Model Olympia discussion
Read Shealynn’s original response to my video.
Where I Agree With Shealynn
First, I want to congratulate Shealynn again.
Becoming the first Olympia champion in an entirely new division is an extraordinary accomplishment.
And her personal history reinforces something I’ve emphasized throughout my coaching career: you cannot determine how much work a woman has invested in her physique simply by looking at her.
A softer competitive appearance does not mean someone hasn’t trained hard.
Seven years of consistent training and a significant body-composition transformation deserve recognition.
I also believe there’s a legitimate conversation to be had about whether competitive bodybuilding can preserve opportunities for women who choose to remain natural.
Not every woman wants to pursue maximum muscular development. Not every athlete is willing to make the same choices in pursuit of a championship.
Those personal boundaries deserve respect.
Where I Think the Conversation Needs to Go Further
Here is where I would add some nuance.
I don’t believe that wanting slightly more muscular development in Fit Model automatically means wanting a standard that requires performance-enhancing drugs.
Natural women do not all have the same muscular potential.
Some women develop considerable muscularity through years of progressive resistance training. Others have genetic structures that lend themselves to a slimmer, more streamlined appearance.
Training history matters. Genetics matter. Exercise selection, nutrition, and years of development all matter.
Consequently, the muscular development one woman can attain naturally may exceed what another woman can attain under similar circumstances.
This is why I believe we have to distinguish between two separate questions.
The first is whether Fit Model should remain a division with less muscularity than Bikini.
My answer is yes. Otherwise, there would be little reason for the division to exist.
The second question is how much muscularity the judges should reward within that standard.
And that is where I still think there’s room for discussion.
The Difference Between Supporting Natural Athletes and Defining a Natural Physique
There is another distinction worth making.
A softer bodybuilding standard doesn’t automatically establish that a competition is drug-tested.
The NPC and IFBB Pro League have specific natural contest rules and testing procedures for designated events.
That distinction matters because natural bodybuilding is not simply about how muscular someone looks.
It concerns how the athlete develops and prepares the physique, along with the rules governing the competition.
I would love to see bodybuilding continue providing opportunities for athletes who want to compete naturally.
But I also want us to avoid the assumption that a woman with more visible muscularity must have used performance-enhancing substances.
We cannot reliably determine that from appearance alone.
Why This Conversation Matters for Women Over 40
I believe this discussion is particularly relevant for Masters competitors.
Imagine a woman who has been lifting naturally for fifteen years.
She’s in her late 40s or early 50s. She’s built muscular shoulders, strong legs, and well-developed glutes.
She doesn’t want to become a professional bodybuilder. She simply wants to compete in a division that reflects the physique she enjoys maintaining.
Fit Model could be an excellent opportunity if her development aligns with the standard.
But what if she’s already too muscular for Fit Model?
Should she intentionally reduce muscle that supports her strength and long-term training goals?
Or should she explore another division?
That’s why I encourage women to make their division decisions based on their actual physique and personal priorities, not the perception that Fit Model must be the easiest or most appropriate category for women over 40.
What the First Olympia Has Taught Us
The first Fit Model Olympia has given athletes valuable information.
The judges have shown us an early example of the standard they intend to reward.
Shealynn’s victory is part of that history.
Her response also reminds us that there are real women with real training histories behind the physiques we analyze.
As a former Olympia competitor, I understand how much of a person’s life can go into preparing for that stage.
And as a coach, I believe we have a responsibility to discuss judging criteria honestly without diminishing the athletes who meet them.
I still have questions about how Fit Model will evolve.
I still believe there’s room to discuss whether slightly more muscular development could be rewarded without turning the division into Bikini.
But I appreciate Shealynn’s perspective, and I’m glad she contributed to this conversation.
I’ve already invited her to sit down with me for a more extensive discussion, and I would welcome the opportunity to explore her training journey and perspective further.
Because the most productive conversations in bodybuilding are not necessarily the ones where everyone agrees.
They’re the ones that help competitors make better decisions.
Thinking About Competing in Fit Model?
Whether you’re considering Fit Model, Bikini, Figure, Wellness, or Women’s Physique, choosing the right division begins with understanding the demands of the sport and the physique you want to build.
If you’re a woman over 40 considering your first competition, read my guide to deciding whether Fit Model is right for you and start with my free Contest Prep Crash Course.
Build the physique you believe in. Then choose the competitive path that makes sense for you.
