Post: #26

Yep. +1 what's Fortis said. I mean shit, you gotta get pussy somehow..

Post: #27

(10-15-2017 06:32 AM)Nascimento Wrote:  

(10-15-2017 06:29 AM)Putin Closes Wrote:  As many ladies have told me before: It's Face, Chest, Shoulders, Arms, ass, and then Stomach area (if you're at healthy weight vs 6 pack), and well they don't give two shits about legs. At 17% your healthy as long you lift regularly.

The second you physically pick up a girl your back is gonna fold.

Two pulls for every push.

Best full-body workout advice I ever found.

Post: #28

17% with game crushes 7-10% without. This argument again. 7% is pretty hard to get to. I've been there [properly measured] but it was many many years ago and I didn't have game then.

Now I'm 40s, 17%, I lift, confident, dress-well, ZFG and have no trouble getting: numbers, dates, bangs from hot girls in sororities that wouldn't date me back when I was ridiculously fit.

As others noted, much of it comes from your self confidence.



Ass is way higher on female's list.

Post: #29

(10-15-2017 08:09 PM)Fortis Wrote:  This topic again? it's not rocket science, being in shape makes the game easier. Rudebwoy has been saying this for like 5+ years. How are you guys just catching on?

Thanks for the shout out dude.

I have said way too much on this subject.

Bottom line is to get into the best shape possible and do what makes you feel comfortable.

I have no idea what my bodyfat percentage is and frankly I don't really care.

Post: #30

I agree wholeheartedly with Rudebwoy. Too many guys are overly obsessed with these stats instead of the fruits that come with being in good muscular shape. Most guys don't get down to 7 percent and it's not needed. At my peak which was about 12 percent or 11 percent max, I was the best I could be physically. I never lived on a beach so being ripped to shreds wasn't necessary. I was low enough in body fat that you could see my abs with my shirt off and that was good enough to get the lizards. If I couldn't get them with 12 percent, I wasn't going to get them with 8 percent.

One can eyeball the results. At a certain percentage, you will start to notice 'unusual' attention from the lizards. This unusual pertains to you as an individual, not a universal unusual. Perhaps prior to that percentage, lizards didn't pay you any mind whatsoever. Then as you get to a certain level, you turn from Chevy Chase/Kevin Bacon (invisible) to something noticeable to the lizards. This pertains to what clothes you wear. If you dress like Worzel Gummidge, then you might as well pick that doughnut back up and stop yapping about rips and low bodyfat. Flex Wheeler wouldn't get any lizard in his peak if he were dressed like a reject out of 'The Oz'.

Post: #31

Rule of thumb, if your chest reaches out further than your stomach, your good.

Post: #32

I am gonna disagree with this thread

i think in clubs , body fat doesnt matter , when you have low body fat you will look smaller than those who have more body fat , so you are going to lose some points.. some most of the time having more fat could be better in clubs.

Low body fat is good in beaches for example...

Post: #33

6'2 215 at 7% is a very good physique. That's almost the ideal size and bodyfat percentage along with height. The size and bf% is more believable if you're on steroids, because that's bigger than a lot of NFL players even.

Post: #34

(10-18-2017 11:07 PM)casa-nostra Wrote:  I am gonna disagree with this thread

i think in clubs , body fat doesnt matter , when you have low body fat you will look smaller than those who have more body fat , so you are going to lose some points.. some most of the time having more fat could be better in clubs.

Low body fat is good in beaches for example...

That's a very general statement and it depends on what type of clothes you wear. We are assuming that the person talking about low body fat is carrying a good amount of muscle. If you are talking about 7% percent body fat at 150 pounds then yes, it makes sense to put on more and get closer to 200 pounds. I think 200 pounds is the sweet spot for many within reason. Rudebwoy mentioned this before. Unless you are about 6'6 (which most people are not), then you can't go wrong with 200-210 pound range with low body fat.
To re-iterate, 7 percent in the 200-210 pound range is highly unlikely without drugs (fat burners) etc. 10-12 percent is far more realistic.

Post: #35

You can barely get an erection at 7% from what I've heard.

Post: #36

(10-19-2017 06:55 AM)Moma Wrote:  

(10-18-2017 11:07 PM)casa-nostra Wrote:  I am gonna disagree with this thread

i think in clubs , body fat doesnt matter , when you have low body fat you will look smaller than those who have more body fat , so you are going to lose some points.. some most of the time having more fat could be better in clubs.

Low body fat is good in beaches for example...

That's a very general statement and it depends on what type of clothes you wear. We are assuming that the person talking about low body fat is carrying a good amount of muscle. If you are talking about 7% percent body fat at 150 pounds then yes, it makes sense to put on more and get closer to 200 pounds. I think 200 pounds is the sweet spot for many within reason. Rudebwoy mentioned this before. Unless you are about 6'6 (which most people are not), then you can't go wrong with 200-210 pound range with low body fat.
To re-iterate, 7 percent in the 200-210 pound range is highly unlikely without drugs (fat burners) etc. 10-12 percent is far more realistic.

The FFMI scale - fat free mass index - is probably the best way to determine if something is realistic naturally.
Here's a calculator that also lists what the different ranges suggest - https://www.thecalculator.co/health/Fat-...r-794.html

Some of the popular fitness YouTubers - and some of the Hollywood stars who have bulked up for action roles - who are ripped and muscular very reasonably within naturally attainable limits, tend to have an FFMI in the 22 to 23.5 range, a few maybe making it to 24. Very few of them with body fat levels below 10% weigh over 190 pounds (unless very tall of course), some significantly less.

For comparison a 6 foot guy weighing 200 pounds at 10% body fat - which almost starts to sound "average" if you read too many fitness/bodybuilding threads or forums - has an FFMI of 24.46, which is just within the naturally attainable but definitely not for most people, nor without optimal training and diet.

6'2 215, 7% body fat as in the example in this thread - 25.73 FFMI - puts you either on steroids or in the genetic top 0.1% or an even more exclusive group.

Post: #37

It's not really a good comparison since, as others have noted, being 6'2" and 215 at 7% is still fucking huge compared to an average guy and not realistically attainable without steroids. At that point you not only have the benefit of being ripped, you still have all the benefits of size. A better comparison would be a more normal physique, where you had to choose between being ripped at 155 or carrying more mass at 180 or so. In that latter scenario (which is much more realistic for most guys) I'd say you're better off with the extra mass every time. Women respond to pure size much more powerfully and instinctively than they do very low body fat. All things being equal, is it better to be leaner? Of course. But if being lean comes at the cost of being noticeably skinnier, it's a bad trade off.

Post: #38

(10-19-2017 10:30 AM)scorpion Wrote:  It's not really a good comparison since, as others have noted, being 6'2" and 215 at 7% is still fucking huge compared to an average guy and not realistically attainable without steroids. At that point you not only have the benefit of being ripped, you still have all the benefits of size. A better comparison would be a more normal physique, where you had to choose between being ripped at 155 or carrying more mass at 180 or so. In that latter scenario (which is much more realistic for most guys) I'd say you're better off with the extra mass every time. Women respond to pure size much more powerfully and instinctively than they do very low body fat. All things being equal, is it better to be leaner? Of course. But if being lean comes at the cost of being noticeably skinnier, it's a bad trade off.

I'm 165 now - 75 kg, I'm European - at probably around 12% body fat. Visible abs and serratus, much more separation in arms, shoulders and thighs, slimmer face than when I was 80 kg, which is what I had weighed for years.
Aiming for dropping one or two more kilos, so ending up around 162 pounds.

While it's still warm enough many days here for t-shirt or a thin long sleeve shirt in the afternoon, I've noticed significantly more looks from prettier and younger girls (I'm 40, so right now I probably look more fit than 98% of the men my age in this city, and the majority of the younger ones too).
Probably more important is a much bigger confidence boost - maybe playing a part in the increased attention - than I had expected from just losing a handful of percentage points, at most, of body fat. Along with the increased visceral enthusiasm from the girls I'm banging.

I don't think the final 6-7 lost kg - ~15 pounds - is going to make me look visibly smaller in a winter jacket, and my face will still look leaner and more attractive. Indoors I tend to wear tight fitting sweatshirts or t-shirts or polo shirts even in the winter.

Post: #39

If anyone wants a reference point, there have been countless online polls and DIY mock youtube walk-up surveys done asking women what body type they prefer and the resounding answer is always the lean and shredded but no-very-big physique the Brad Pitt sports in fightclub and snatch:







I don't think being a little bigger would hurt you but this physique is very easy to attain for most any man.

Post: #40

Actually Brad Pitt even said he was dehydrated and had to do pushups off camera to pump himself up for that scene, and his posted workout was a 6 day routine. The second pic I guarantee he is juicing. Lastly what women say and what they do are different. If your in a club with a shirt on, nobody is going to see your ripped abs but they will see jacked shoulders.

Post: #41

(10-19-2017 12:36 PM)Repo Wrote:  Actually Brad Pitt even said he was dehydrated and had to do pushups off camera to pump himself up for that scene, and his posted workout was a 6 day routine. The second pic I guarantee he is juicing. Lastly what women say and what they do are different. If your in a club with a shirt on, nobody is going to see your ripped abs but they will see jacked shoulders.

In a slim fit shirt lower body fat is going to make the sharper separation between your upper body muscles look visible too. Your shoulders might be a bit wider and rounder at 5-10% additional body fat, but they will also be less sharply separated from triceps and biceps. And your pecs and upper abdomen will be visibly much wider and deeper than your waist - you will be down a size or two in pants with very little lost upper torso mass - than at higher body fat.

But clothing style and season will definitely have a substantial impact on whether you're likely to look better at a lower or slightly higher body fat percentage.
I happen to be dressing casually in slim fit or other fairly closely fitted shirts most of the year, plus shorts most of the summer (no one is getting me into long pants in 30-35+ degrees Celsius unless it's a formal event, and I don't go to many of those), so I'm certain I will benefit substantially from my new lower body fat level virtually year round.
And reap additional benefits in terms of pleasure and girl retention once the clothes comes off.
And that's from going down probably not much more than 4% in body fat, possibly even slightly less.

Post: #42

I'm 284 pounds at 6.62% body fat.

Do you guys think I would look better at 290 pounds, 7% body fat, and a slim fit shirt........or 280 pounds, 6.3% body fat, and shirtless?

Also, I'm a virgin because I never leave the house. I'm too busy analyzing the multiple 20 page threads on RVF about what is better between bigger versus leaner.

Post: #43

(10-19-2017 03:06 PM)birthday cat Wrote:  I'm 284 pounds at 6.62% body fat.

Do you guys think I would look better at 290 pounds, 7% body fat, and a slim fit shirt........or 280 pounds, 6.3% body fat, and shirtless?

Also, I'm a virgin because I never leave the house. I'm too busy analyzing the multiple 20 page threads on RVF about what is better between bigger versus leaner.

Definitely go for 280. Women will find your shoulder/triceps separation irresistible.

Post: #44

(10-19-2017 03:06 PM)birthday cat Wrote:  I'm 284 pounds at 6.62% body fat.

Do you guys think I would look better at 290 pounds, 7% body fat, and a slim fit shirt........or 280 pounds, 6.3% body fat, and shirtless?

Also, I'm a virgin because I never leave the house. I'm too busy analyzing the multiple 20 page threads on RVF about what is better between bigger versus leaner.

Hey dude. C'mon on. These are the important questions. On a similar note, I'm a rich handsome billionaire. I'd just like to let everyone know that when I drive my Bugatti I get 46% more looks from women than when I drive my Aston Martin.

Post: #45

It's funny you bring this up because I'm hovering around ~10% bodyfat myself. Thing is you could never tell because I'm very lean, but a girl I just banged complimented me on how muscular I look. For me it helps me post-bang

Also low bodyfat + thick dong packs a great one-two punch. Big dick looks better on a lean body.

Post: #46

(10-19-2017 03:06 PM)birthday cat Wrote:  I'm 284 pounds at 6.62% body fat.

Do you guys think I would look better at 290 pounds, 7% body fat, and a slim fit shirt........or 280 pounds, 6.3% body fat, and shirtless?

Also, I'm a virgin because I never leave the house. I'm too busy analyzing the multiple 20 page threads on RVF about what is better between bigger versus leaner.

You almost got me with this one. Well played, BDC.