Perhaps dressing poorly (very common) and not being in shape (bimodal distribution, there are many in very good shape and many in very bad shape, few in between) started out as a counter-signal, but today it is just sloppiness, or convenience, like it is more convenient to order fast food instead of grilling chicken.
I work in the tech industry, and although I don't usually wear a suit, I often show up in a spezzato, a pair of pants and a jacket of a different fabric/color. Nothing too flashy, but well put together. And I think that's the counter signal nowadays: show up looking good, feeling good, being what we want to be.
I've personally never understood the business world's obsession with suits.
Like, what does a deal need to be signed in a suit? What does the suit contribute to the deal? If it's to convey "professionalism", surely a cheap $300 piece of attire shouldn't be a stronger signal than whatever due diligence the two parties have done already?
A suit wouldn't be the last signal checked, but the first - back which most things were done in person. It's not the signing of the deal that needs the suit, but the introduction. And once you've been introduced in a suit, changing it later is another signal that you may prefer not to send. As well as that if you've gone to the trouble of having a suit and maintaining it, you may as well wear it all the time rather than waste time figuring out if you need to wear it that day.
I think in the same way we have expensive cars or whatever to say "I have so much money I can afford to waste $x" we have suits to say "I'm so organised I can spare some effort dressing kind of impractically, just to look a bit better for you, my client"
I work in the tech industry, and although I don't usually wear a suit, I often show up in a spezzato, a pair of pants and a jacket of a different fabric/color. Nothing too flashy, but well put together. And I think that's the counter signal nowadays: show up looking good, feeling good, being what we want to be.