Post: #526

(07-17-2015 11:19 AM)Natural Born Gyalist Wrote:  Ali isnt the best example since he was not very muscular as a fighter, young George foreman literally looked like a giant in the ring, Holeyfield definitely had the physique of a bodybuilder and he was really a cruiserweight. Roy Jones at 5'11" and 168 had one of the best physiques in boxing. I have met Roy in person in street clothes and he didnt look massive but he surely didnt look small.

Agreed, absolutely. That's really the point I was trying (badly) to make - that people don't realise how big even 168lbs lean really is. As you say, he may not have looked big, but he didn't look small. He could have looked (much) bigger just by putting on 10lbs of fat, still had abs etc. Shit, imagine 10lbs of muscle on RJJ at the same bf%! That would still make him sub 180lbs - a toothpick if some corners of the internet are to be believed. In the real world though, that would have been a pretty crazy physique.

Post: #527

Some people mentioned previous that a certain type of woman likes the bodybuilder type. What is most important is how do you like to look and what does your type of woman like? The type of women I like are usually rather small themselves and when I was larger I think I intimidated those types. If you like the types that go for bouncers, fighters, gym guys, etc. get yoked and even juice if you want. If you go for the type I do then bodyweight exercises, cardio, and proper diet with 8-12% BF is all that is necessary . Just like your clothes and lifestyle/car attract a certain type, your body type often attracts a certain type.

Post: #528

(07-17-2015 11:33 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

(07-17-2015 11:19 AM)Natural Born Gyalist Wrote:  Ali isnt the best example since he was not very muscular as a fighter, young George foreman literally looked like a giant in the ring, Holeyfield definitely had the physique of a bodybuilder and he was really a cruiserweight. Roy Jones at 5'11" and 168 had one of the best physiques in boxing. I have met Roy in person in street clothes and he didnt look massive but he surely didnt look small.

Agreed, absolutely. That's really the point I was trying (badly) to make - that people don't realise how big even 168lbs lean really is. As you say, he may not have looked big, but he didn't look small. He could have looked (much) bigger just by putting on 10lbs of fat, still had abs etc. Shit, imagine 10lbs of muscle on RJJ at the same bf%! That would still make him sub 180lbs - a toothpick if some corners of the internet are to be believed. In the real world though, that would have been a pretty crazy physique.

I agree with your premise. Modern training techniques, supplements and the big factor-steroids, have made people forget what "muscular" really means anymore.
Are we talking "boxing muscular" or "bodybuilding muscular". I am 5'9" 160 with 11% BF. I look completely normal and average in most clothing. As soon as my arms or upper body is showing like a wife beater or shirtless, I get compliments and questions about my physique. When I was large enough to look big in my clothes I found it very hard to keep my BF to what I liked.

Post: #529

(07-17-2015 11:30 AM)LeBeau Wrote:  So to maybe summarize this discussion, it would be useful for guys to post what they think the MINIMUM bodyweight should be for a man at respective heights.

I know it will vary with bodyfat % but lets assume low double digits (i.e. 10-15%) roughly.

So from what I'm hearing from Jariel and others, it's important for guys 6'3" and up to maintain at least 200lbs.

I've also read (may not be from this thread) that guys at 6'0" shouldn't be below 180.

Where do you draw the line for 5'10'' or 6'0'' or 6'2'' etc?

The trouble is it matters whether you are 10% or 15%. If you're 6' and 10%, that's 18lbs fat (obviously), whereas if you're 15% another 5% is another 9lbs of fat (also obviously). The point is, the nature of muscle growth being that it is particularly slow and painful, 180lbs at 10% is quite big, 180lbs at 15% is not. It is the difference of 9lbs of muscle, which if you can visualise it, is a shitload of steak.

Post: #530

Yes, with out the BF% it is like hearing a woman's weight without seeing her. If I hear a woman weighs 135 I am already thinking "geez this girl is almost a junior welterweight" however she could be tall, thin with nice T and A. Its all about what the BF% and where you carry it genetically. Despite what the vendors of shakeweight and ab machines would have you believe; You only have control over your BF% not where your body carries it. That you cannot change. Ever met a person with a fat face who wasnt fat? Or a chick with a thin face and a pooch? Genetics, my friend.

Post: #531

Stop trying to draw a line.

Get as big as you possibly can without living at the gym while maintaining a reasonable bodyfat percentage (15% to 18% or lower) and don't stop working out. The extra size will never hurt you.

I one hundred percent gauruntee no one in this thread is considered too big by most women, and these guys probably wouldn't be into these types of girls anyways.

A weight number is irrelevant. It's all about how you look with your overall package. Keep making it better and better.

You guys who are saying it's not neccessary or not the most important thing are missing the point of the thread.

Post: #532

(07-17-2015 09:25 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  I think a lot of people fail to realise how big 180lbs at 10% bf actually is in real life. Most people, men particularly, are much fatter than they would like to think.

A 6' bloke who is 190-200lbs at 10% bf is MASSIVE, and has likely spent many years training to be that lean and muscular simultaneously. Without juicing (couldn't care less whether someone does or doesn't), 200lbs lean (a genuine 10%bf, not an internet 10%bf) is a VERY substantial man and at the upper end of what is natural for the AVERAGE human.

This is a 5'11/6' bodybuilder, ~200lbs natural, by his own reckoning at around 10%BF:
https://www.facebook.com/josh.taubes?pnref=story

The guy is huge and a genetic standout. I think some people's perceptions are incredibly warped on what their BF actually is, and what is realistic without a little help.

Yeah it must be that as online stats are always crazy. Everyone is 200 plus with sub 10% body fat. In reality, even at 6 feet 200 is big (for example sprinter Dwain Chambers is about that, and I've met Dwain in real life and he's pretty fucking big, his legs are especially huge).

Post: #533

All women like a fit guy, just like all guys like a fit girl.
By being in shape means you will attract a higher percentage of girls, yes there are other factors involved.
There is a lot of other things besides women that having size does for you. Most dudes will not fuck with you, in fact most dudes are nice to me.
As I mentioned before, most guys young and old have a belly. I know very few guys that have a six pack, yet so many dudes claim to work out.
It is a lifestyle, a habit, a way of life, a hobby and for me the best way to release stress after a hard days work.
If you are not into working out, then so be it.
Please stop with the stupid "theories".
The guy above with the facebook page is not natural, neither was Dwayne Chambers.

Post: #534

(07-17-2015 12:33 PM)Jetlagged Wrote:  A weight number is irrelevant. It's all about how you look with your overall package. Keep making it better and better.

I agree. There is a lot of talk in this thread about matching a height with an optimal weight or an optimal weight range but I don't think it is that simple. There are too many other variables. Even with a specific body fat percentage there are still several other variables - bone structure, does a guy train for size or for strength, where is a guy located and what types of girls is he going after.

Saying that a guy who is 6 foot, 200 lb, 10% body fat must massive or a guy that is 5 foot 9, 170 lb, 8% body fat must be big is wrong because it isn't always going to be true. If it is a stocky guy with thick heavy bones or a guy who strictly trains for strength and has smaller but denser muscles then that guy might not look all that jacked. I've been near those stats but I wasn't big. I was ripped but it was hard to see if I was wearing a shirt.

(07-17-2015 12:33 PM)Jetlagged Wrote:  Stop trying to draw a line.

Get as big as you possibly can without living at the gym while maintaining a reasonable bodyfat percentage (15% to 18% or lower) and don't stop working out. The extra size will never hurt you.

If we are strictly talking about attracting girls for sex, which is what this thread is about, then I also agree with this and it reminded me of this post at Danger & Play. I'm heavily paraphrasing but it basically says that bigger is better in regards to attracting women and uses apes and lions as examples. The alpha animals in the wild are the biggest animals not the animals with the best 6 pack abs.

That post is a good reference because the guy has experience at different weights and sizes. My experience is the same. Bigger is better but don't get fat. You don't need 6 pack abs but you should be able to wear a tight shirt without having a gut or love handles showing. If you have 6 pack abs but you have the ability to gain 10 to 20 pounds with half those pounds being muscle then you will probably be better off by adding that weight. You will lose the 6 pack but the 6 pack isn't doing anything for you if you are wearing a shirt.

I'm sure there is a eventually a point of diminishing return but it probably applies to less than 0.1% of guys. It's like saying that being 6'7" is better than being 6'11" because 6'11" is freaky tall.

Post: #535

Danger and Play covers this subject in detail. I suggest the nay-sayers read it.

Post: #536

It isn't as much a weight/height issue (although indirectly it is) as waist/hip ratio (WHR). Evolutionary science says, women just as much judge WHR as men do. Girls want in men 0.9 WHR and guys want in girls 0.7 WHR. This is not (but can be) a conscious process, your brain is hard-wired to make a favourable evaluation towards those particular ratios because humans sporting them have higher reproductive fitness and better genetic material then those deviating from those figures. Weight and height would correlate indirectly through body mass index (kg/m2) but only as an approximator.

It is possible, and in fact has been done, to empirically decide what women want in this department. What seems to be the case, males seem to miss-attribute how much more beefed up they have to be to increase attractiveness (to a degree men's magazines such as Men's Health are responsible and everything budybuilding related - after all, there's big bucks to be made!) and females seem to miss-attribute how slimmer they have to be to be perceived as (again, magazines such as Comspolitan and the fashion business - same motive - money, money, money!) attractive. In other words, both sexes tend to have a distorted perception of what the other sex see in each other as attractive.

Having said that, there obviously are between persons preferences, yet most females will fall, I strongly suspect, for their choice of preferred male musculature, into a Gaussian function (the bell curve). In other words, majority will prefer just lean males with classic V-shaped chest of broader shoulders and narrower waist and paying very limited attention to how much muscle mass there is on a guy. Minority will be at both ends of the spectrum, that is preferring either beefed up guys or skinny guys.

So, what's a man to do? If you're lean, got a decent V-shaped torso, you've got nothing to worry about. Improving musculature will benefit you, but probably much more as a function of self-perception (sort of a placebo effect?) and long-term health, then girls' getting sexually arroused (again, there will be a subset of females who'd prefer a well-developed musculature). I'd say that a net positive effect is greater from losing weight if you have it too much, than just from putting extra muscles on.

So, yes, I do believe there is a point of diminishing returns in improving your musculature, and you hit it pretty hard sooner than you'd ever thought.

Post: #537

delete

Post: #538

^^^

When I first joined here I tried to articulate that I thought the "get as massive as you can" thing was culturally dependant and particularly US/Aus-centric. I got shot down, being a newb and accused of being a troll

I've never met a super jacked player here in the UK. I'm sure amongst the peasantry, with whom I do not fraternise, it's handy and works but for the attractive middle class girls and above? I don't think so.

Since I seem to have destroyed my body in the weights room, I have been slimming down over the last couple of months; I've lost a bit of body fat but a hell of a lot of muscle; maybe as much as 10kg. I'm still bigger than 99% of guys but I have got way, way more attention from the girls in the places I frequent at this smaller size.

I'm a bit scared about the upcoming rugby season though...!!!

Post: #539

Agreed. I'd be embarrassed to look like a Zyzz type at a lot of the places I go to and it would definitely hurt my results. Rugby types are the exception here that are big and can definitely do well with that demographic, but then they're not as corny. I'm sure this will be misinterpreted as hating, but I just never see it around.

Post: #540

I deleted my last comment because I think CrashBangWallop was referring to ksbms' comment and not my comment.

...

The V shape torso, or shoulder to waist ratio, that ksbms mentioned is very important. I think some studies have shown it to be more important than height.

In my opinion, maximizing the shoulder-waist ratio is fairly consistent with what I said a few posts ago and the references I made to Jetlagged's quote and the Danger & Play article. The best way I could summarize a general guideline would be to "get as big as you can while spending a reasonable amount of time at the gym and keeping your body fat low enough so you can wear a tight shirt without having a gut or love handles showing" and that is quite different from "get as big as you can".

Guys who are willing to live at the gym, gain more fat, or take steroids are exceptions to the rule so a general guideline isn't going to apply to them and for those guys this discussion is pointless because this thread is strictly about what women find most attractive and those guys should be considering a lot more than what women think.

Post: #541

(07-20-2015 02:36 PM)Kieran Wrote:  Agreed. I'd be embarrassed to look like a Zyzz type at a lot of the places I go to and it would definitely hurt my results. Rugby types are the exception here that are big and can definitely do well with that demographic, but then they're not as corny. I'm sure this will be misinterpreted as hating, but I just never see it around.

Zyzz and 'bro' types tend to attract girls like this. Atleast that's what i see IRL.





If i would spend that much money and time on working out, steroids and supplements and end up with something like that, i would be very dissapointed.

Give me a cute hipster or even a stuck-up upper class girl any day of the week instead of these attention whoring uglies.

Post: #542

Dresinator, do you have to take what you attract? Sometimes I attract land whales, must I take them home?

Post: #543

(07-20-2015 04:15 PM)Moma Wrote:  Dresinator, do you have to take what you attract? Sometimes I attract land whales, must I take them home?

No, that's not what i meant.

I'm just pointing out what kind of girls usually go after that certain stereotype.

Post: #544

(07-20-2015 01:11 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  ^^^

When I first joined here I tried to articulate that I thought the "get as massive as you can" thing was culturally dependant and particularly US/Aus-centric. I got shot down, being a newb and accused of being a troll

I've never met a super jacked player here in the UK. I'm sure amongst the peasantry, with whom I do not fraternise, it's handy and works but for the attractive middle class girls and above? I don't think so.

Since I seem to have destroyed my body in the weights room, I have been slimming down over the last couple of months; I've lost a bit of body fat but a hell of a lot of muscle; maybe as much as 10kg. I'm still bigger than 99% of guys but I have got way, way more attention from the girls in the places I frequent at this smaller size.

I'm a bit scared about the upcoming rugby season though...!!!

Ye absolutely spot on. Middle class chicks and above like an athletic looking bloke - the bodybuilder/bouncer type isn't the sort of guy those girls are going for. Tall, slim, fit and athletic, looking good in nice clothes.

I'd say even the typical rugby physique is not as big as many make out. I've been playing for my local town, and most of the backs are about my size - 12 1/2 - 14 stone (I'm 13 1/2). Forwards are obviously bigger, but not by so much as to be ridiculous for the most part.

Post: #545

(07-20-2015 04:37 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  I'd say even the typical rugby physique is not as big as many make out. I've been playing for my local town, and most of the backs are about my size - 12 1/2 - 14 stone (I'm 13 1/2). Forwards are obviously bigger, but not by so much as to be ridiculous for the most part.

Taking this way off topic but...

I've spent the last two months working on speed and power and losing mass to play at 6 next season. This made a lot of sense as my team has an absolutely fucking enormous Saffer no8, probably 6'5 and 20 stone of Southern Hemisphere psychotic wrecking ball.

My brother is 6'0 and 15 stone and played 7 at a Prem Academy so at our level that's a back row to utterly dominate every single game we will play next year. An unbeaten season perhaps.

My coach called me last week to tell me Mr Springbok has ruptured his ACL and is out for the season and that I will have to play 8; I'm absolutely gutted...more about the team than anything...he doesn't realise I'm over 2 stone lighter than last year yet either...



Back on topic; when people say "rugby build" I think they mean a muscular middle class guy with 20% body fat. Fit and healthy but happy to have a few pints a couple of times per week. You don't tend to get this in the lower orders.

Oddly enough, it is the guys built like this that I know that have the hottest girlfriends/wives.

Post: #546

Dresinator, there is no type of woman that doesn't like a fit muscular body. You are talking about women who gravitate towards a Zz frame but what about the women that the FIT man wants? Being buff can NEVER be a detriment in pulling lizards for sex. Same way a woman with pert buttocks, nice rounded tits can never struggle in finding a man to pipe her.

Post: #547

(07-20-2015 05:09 PM)Moma Wrote:  Dresinator, there is no type of woman that doesn't like a fit muscular body. You are talking about women who gravitate towards a Zz frame but what about the women that the FIT man wants? Being buff can NEVER be a detriment in pulling lizards for sex. Same way a woman with pert buttocks, nice rounded tits can never struggle in finding a man to pipe her.

Yes, i know.

I have a fit physique aswell, i'm sure it helps with attracting girls.

But i was talking about the stereotype Kieran talked about, the look and the circles these people are in , not the physique.

Post: #548

CrashBangWallop - What size are you? 15 stone at 6 feet is a good size. I myself hit 215 a few years back and girls were grabbing me like a loaf of bread.

Driesnator - those girls are pigs and none of my juice friends would even piss on those girls.

Having spent time in the UK, working out isn't as popular there as it is this side of the Atlantic. I was shocked to meet skinny guys with beer bellies who thought they were gods gift to women, full marks to them for confidence.

The physical norm there is a lot different to what it is in Canada, I will say though we do have more obese people than the UK.

Can you guys really say what middle class chicks go for? There aren't a lot of bodybuilders Dorian Yates walking around the UK.

I have a pretty funny story. I was training with this younger guy in the UK, I was putting him through his paces and he developed a decent slim physique (looked good in a tshirt). During this time his pretty girlfriend wanted to take a "break" in their relationship. He seemed pretty cool about it and went on to date a girl or two during the break.
So it was his birthday, he invited myself and another friend to the pub to celebrate his big day. His ex was there with some other girls and their mutual friends, they were still on talking terms. The dudes in the group felt very self conscious and asked us questions about working out, his ex was glued to his side most of the night.
About two weeks after, he told me his ex wanted to give it another shot. Now they are married with kids and she is happy as can be.

Post: #549

I'm 6'4 @ about 225 right now. Shrinking by the day. I'm approx 30lbs lighter than when I first got injured in the Spring. A couple more kilos and I'll be done I think; just in time for preseason training to get going at full speed.

Since losing this mass I've had numerous people say to me "I didn't realise how tall you were before...you look much better now".

I'm firmly (upper)middle class (private school, wealthy parents etc) and I do not know a single person in my wider circle who is bigger than me, or even close and I'm not huge by any means anymore. I don't know a single girl that has ever shown a huge, muscular guy in public.

I know a lot of people and spend a great deal of time each week in the higher end restaurants and bars of my city. If a bodybuilder type infiltrates these venues they are looked upon as some lower class unwelcome visitor.

Being "overly muscular" is still definitely a working class pursuit in this country.

At the end of the day, if you are too big to look like anything but a breeze block in a suit, you are too big full stop.

Never underestimate the quirks of the UK class system or the norms within.

Post: #550

(07-20-2015 05:00 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  probably 6'5 and 20 stone of Southern Hemisphere psychotic wrecking ball.

This reads like a character in a Guy Richie film. Truly poetic.