The big issue a great number of people here seem to be missing is the genetic aspect of what the study is discussing. If it was that simple that everyone could just work out and all would have the same upper body development, there would be 0 evolutionary pressure on selecting for upper body strength (in so far as muscle response alone is concerned).
If I wear tighter shirts that show off my shoulders, pecs and 32” waist I get stared down by women everywhere I go and their eyes will focus on that region. Eight years in the gym has served me well.
Very true. I'm an intermediate lifter with decent genetics for broad shoulders/delts/chest thickness. I normally wear form fitting stuff but if I ever thrown on a t shirt that's actually tight, I noticeably get stared down by girls in a way not unlike guys staring at a girl with full visible cleavage. Weird but cool.
Because a bunch of people in this thread seem to think that "oh, body-builder types with 'too much muscle' are unattractive." That theory was explicitly tested in this study, and its wrong.
No, from the study : "The men whose bodies were photographed (henceforth subjects) were taken from two databases of young college students at US universities. " I would guess near zero were bodybuilder level aesthetics.
don't go skipping leg day either. glutes for some reason drive women wild. it may be due to glutes signifying virility or some shit. but of all the girls who ever asked for nudes, the #1 thing theyve requested are pics of the butt.
To some extent, it's the same reason we like their glutes. It's where the power hides.
Seriously, if your knee isn't bent the only power mover is the glute complex. If the knee is bent, the glutes are working with the help of your quads. Most people in today's sedentary habits don't use the glutes as more than a cushion and as a result have tight hip flexors, tight hamstrings, weak glutes, lower back problems and an anterior pelvic tilt.
i dont know anyone who've stuck for SS5x5 for 6 months and still looked weak afterwards. this is why lifting may be #1 spiker of your sex appeal ahead of fame and money
Yeah girls definitely like glutes. My theory is that, subconsciously, good glutes show that you can fuck her hard, because glutes are the main muscles involved in hip thrusting. It could also be an aesthetic thing, just as men like women's butts, women like men's butts.
Most guys that I know who pull crazy are not muscular, but skinny. One of my friends is 19 and has 6+ HB8+ russian eastern europe plates on a rotation. Sure, he lives an incredibly social life, is street smart, agressive, takes smart risks etc. He said he might have bpd, considering it comes in his family, and by his attitude, I wouldn't be surprised.
Lifting on TRP seems a bit like a circlejerk. It mostly serves as a way to get you in the door, but if you lack game, you'll still have problems. It's good as a starting point and a supplement.
I have to agree with that. A good body will make a chick look/approach, but if you open your mouth and insecurities and cringe comes out, she's going to the next one.
This study still faces the problem of relying on women's responses to questions. Even if they don't know the full extent of the study, they can guess why they're being asked questions about male attractiveness and strength. Women online always claim to prefer a body like David Beckham's.
Please, do an image search for David Beckham. Does he look good? Of course not. He has the muscle definition of a 17-year-old. Women like big, strong guys. When they claim that they don't like guys who are too buff, they are talking about gross-looking bodybuilders. They want a guy with a superhero build.
It amazes me despite all the research that we get confirming the need to lift on this forum, that there are still devil's advocates that like to pretend muscle bulk and looking in shape is "overrated, and all you need is GAME."
Good content. I wish they would have shown the other photos they used though.
This study should be shown to all the idiots out there who play video games all day and expect a hot girl to drop in their lap because of their "personality."
Really, you don't need much beyond the title, but:
None of the 160 women in our study who rated attractiveness produced a statistically significant preference for weaker men (all p . 0.05).
There is a reason why lifting, diet, and body are the first things RP and game guys tell you to work on. They are within your control and they matter if you're going to be in the game. Women judge you based on your strength and fitness. Women prefer stronger to weaker men, all else being equal.
Not saying not to lift, but it is highly overrated when it comes to attracting females.
It gets you in the door, but without game - you'll be kicked out in a couple of minutes.
Have a skinny 19yr old friend who has like 6+ HB8 plates on rotation. Obviously these guys are the exceptions, but all of them have incredible game and usually a very agressive risk approach type attitude.
I dunno I met a few bi women who preferred girly guys. They say though the ones on birth control have more testosterone and tend to look at manly men as competition.
The whole article is a great read, not just the title. It contains succinct and to the point academic confirmation of many trp concepts/truths. Even mentions cucks hehe
It states that your looks are what matter the most, all other things only play a small role in attracting others and basically none if you don't have the looks.
I have tried to make this point with guys in here before when they start a BJJ/MMA circlejerk. Women won't be able to to tell that you're a total badass at wrestling on a mat. They see what you look like in your jeans and shirt. So if you don't already have a very attractive face or naturally great build being large and muscular is more important for the SMV than having fighting skills.
(That is not to say fighting skill are bad in anyway)
I lift and do BJJ - what BJJ does for my overall presence is irreplaceable, after an intense roll - when I walk into any public space all my tension and any anxiety is gone. Lifting doesn't do that. Still I agree - lifting is mandatory, if you want to do a sport as a hobby you have to work in time for lifting.
It is actually really hard to wrap someone up, who knows what he is doing. I am not even that good and I have beaten unexperienced lifters 60 pounds above me multiple times. It is a regular occurence at BJJ and MMA gyms.
Lol people are getting mad as fuck but you're (basically) right. A 220 bodybuilder with zero skill is going to get wrecked, but a 220 blue belt is gonna take a dump on the 150 brown belt. There's a reason there are weight divisions in combat sports.
If any brown belt gets crushed by a blue belt with a 70lbs weight advantage, they should have their brown belt taken away. Hell, even a purple belt would win that.
I can agree on this. When I was a white belt and had done bjj about 1,5 years (long enough to avoid stupid mistakes), our smallest black belt instructor really struggled with me. Our matches were kind of even and neither one could finish them.
I had about 90lbs weight advantage.
Oh and then there is even bigger difference (not so surprisingly) with women with same weight difference. I think it took like 3-4 months to train and I was already able to beat purple belt women with basic arm bars and/or lapelchokes - they saw them coming but they just couldn't deal with significant strength/weight advantage I was having.
90 lbs over or not, if the black belt didn't know how to submit a white belt with only 1.5 years of training, it's on him. Timing would of been enough to get the upper hand.
Well yeah but also I think what a lot of dudes forget sometimes is that women have varying degrees of intelligence. Some of them surely value fighting skills and protection over roid muscles if they know the difference. Really dumb ones probably not as much, but you don't want to be associating with morons at the end of the day.
All else being equal women prefer many other things. Ranging from penis size to amount of money. But IRL "all else being equal" almost never occurs.
I don't debate that enhancing body is a good thing to do. But "all else being equal" is not really useful. It's always better to enhance yourself in multiple ways.
Not lifting is like non negotiable, people who don't lift and are in TRP due to not ''finding time'' is like you are waiting infront of the club or the party and waiting to get in while the line is empty.
They’d be asking their opinion if they said to the women: “do you find muscular men attractive?”.
They didn’t. They instead just got women to rate men that they were shown based on attractiveness. They didn’t tell the women that they had to pick based on muscularity. So the women could have picked based on anything, such as eye colour or hair colour, but analysis of the data showed that they tended to pick based on muscularity.
She says she likes something, and 4:09 she is confused by recognizing that she doesn't likes it.
​
Women are socially conditioned to believe certain things, and they sincerely believe those things, but they don't act accordingly, and even after the fact, they fail to knowledge that what they think is not what they do.
​
So a woman choosing an image doesn't means that she would choose the photographed person in real life.
​
I see it repeatedly on a gym. It is full of muscular dudes who approach girls, and they never get anything.
Most, maybe ALL, dudes on the gymnasium are there because they don't feel enough, so they want to compensate by developing muscles, but their muscles give them nothing.
To the contrary. Displaying muscles to a woman sends the message that the dude has no value, and needs to gain the girl's approbation. That's what women perceive from those dudes.
​
Women are attracted to personality. If muscles make a dude feel security, then muscles work, but is not the muscle. Is the self acceptance.
So you basically believe that choosing images still has an element of socialisation involved that would not be present in picking partners in real life. Fair enough criticism of the study, but not really concrete reasoning to back it up imo.
Then you started going on about how you don't believe muscles are important, or even necessary.
Stop, dude. Leave TRP.
LIFT has been the first rule since fucking forever. The importance of it has been explained in ridiculous detail by the heavyweights of this sub for years.
It has never been up for debate.
I don't visit this sub often anymore, but guys like you who can't be fucked to read the sidebar and absorb tons of material before even thinking about commenting seem to be far too common nowadays.
You'd have been told to STFU and read the sidebar. This isn't your sub to spout your own hamstering, it's for you to learn from, and maybe then develop the ideas further, not argue against them.
I like to see women's reaction to the questions but I hate the "in the red pill community" introduction. Why the fuck these guys have to say were it came from? I don't want angry woman rallying against the community because of some retard youtuber.
The point is demonstrating the red pill concepts experimentally.
​
I didn't said "proving", but demonstrating.
​
He doesn't seems to be getting angry woman, which demonstrates the importance of the way in which communication is made.
​
This is not against women. Is just the search for the truth. Many concepts are not nice to accept, neither for woman or men.
​
Most people would prefer the blue pill world, but it doesn't works. It makes both men and woman unhappy.
The red pill is the search for the truth, no matter how ugly, because the truth is necessary to know were we are located, and in what direction we need to move.
​
Feminists hate the red pill for emotional reasons. But the negation of reality makes feminists to fail at diagnosis and administer the wrong remedies. The wrong remedies make everything worse. That's why women happiness had been dropping catastrophically despite all the feminist "progress"
Like I said, show the concepts but don't talk about the community. Don't say it's "from the red pill". This is something I'm even doing myself, testing the concepts among friends in a very subtle way and in small doses.
Muscles can make a personality. Yea maybe there is something wrong with us and we need to go in there and grow armour around our bones. But there's just something instinctively hot to a woman about a man who looks like he's oozing testosterone. You can blame evolution but it's a reality that I and many other guys have discovered after toiling to make ourselves stonger, bigger and leaner.
You are wrong, because, as a man, you believe that woman are like men, attracted to looks.
Man spend money and time getting porn. Men pay for it.
Women spend money and time getting romantic novels. That's what women pay for. They don't buy photographs of world champions at lifting.
Women don't pay for sports TV. Women don't watch the olympic champions on Netflix.
Women aren't attracted to looks. Otherwise humans would not be the weakest primate around. We would be gorillas with a ton of muscle. We would be able to lift a car with one hand and trow it away.
What we are evolved for? Minds. Women get horny at minds. But is not a Nobel prize mind, and is not a nerd what they want. They want social intelligence.
Women need to talk to a man to get horny.
You're both right. Look at the covers of those romance novels that is woman porn, those dudes are wearing tight fitting blue jeans, no shirt-absolutely cut up, white teeth smile and some cheesy ass cowboy hat. Looks are definitely part of the equation, I think you're 'look' is more important than classical handsomeness.
But, it's no secret that girls like six pack abs and muscle definition. For one it makes them feel small, not to mention it is nice to look at. But this guy can talk himself out of puss, while a less attractive guy CAN talk himself into puss. So just have both to optimize your results.
Unless, of course, you anonymously ask for the opinion of lots of people, and they all correlate at the 0.1% chance level.
Why I agree, in principle, that "opinion has nothing to do with truth", when literally all of the opinions are the same, and the truth is a subjective measure, you really do have to give it some thought.
If you survey women asking them to choose between a PHD dude or an ugly jailed criminal, they all will answer that they prefer the PHD dude.
​
But then they go and have sex with the convict, not even caring at all about the PHD dude.
​
If you ask this girl if she prefers an avocado or a banana, she always says avocado, but she always pick a banana, and she doesn't even understand why.
You don't seem to understand what objective or subjective actually means, and it's truly embarrassing. Even if every single human on earth finds something attractive, it is still subjective by definition. There is no universal state of "attractiveness", as it requires both an object and a subject, you fucking spastic gook. The human brain is obviously hardwired to find certain traits attractive, like symmetry and signs of health and fertility, but that doesn't mean attraction itself is an objective thing, which doesn't even make sense. It's like me saying asian men are objectively ugly because nearly all women find them unattractive. That's wrong. Asian men are subjectively ugly.
Men's Open BB is grotesque to many women (and people, for that matter). Men's physique and likely Classic would be more what they want, physically anyway.
Arnold's are in about two weeks if you want to see the different categories.
I think that it’s not the “over built” physique which they dislike but the stereotypical lifestyle associated with it and what it means about him: they picture a guy whose only activity besides work is the gym, whose only discussion topic is calories, whose pantry is mostly filled with tubs of dodgy named powders. Worse, they picture a man who has centered his life around how good he looks, for the sole purpose of getting women, and compensate for some deep insecurity.
I think they may unconsciously get tingles at the sight of a fine body, but also at the same time feel some repulsion at how mono-dimensional they imagine his life is. I think that it’s this repulsion they verbalise with “I don’t like guys who are muscular”.
Yea it's definitely not the physique, it's the autism that often goes with it lol. I definitely stand out, I'm 6'3 255 and have lifted for 8-9 years but I don't look freaky. Most of my best friends back from college were giant guys, talking near 500lb benches some 800lb squats and deads etc. All stupidly cartoon level jacked and lean. Despite what girls may say, they're into it, if it comes with game.... Particularly girls get a few drinks and start to listen to their instincts instead of societal conditioning a bit more... Then the arm grabbing starts etc.
I think too many people want to focus on one aspect of SMV or game at the expense of the others.
All that being said, getting huge is not the pussy magnet a lot of guys think. It does improve your SMV but women still rarely approach, it's going to be other dudes asking "how much you bench bro."
I think they may unconsciously get tingles at the sight of a fine body, but also at the same time feel some repulsion at how mono-dimensional they imagine his life is. I think that it’s this repulsion they verbalise with “I don’t like guys who are muscular”.
And they will even sometimes be honest about it...."Yeah, that's pretty hot but I bet you all he talks about is fitness." This is why some of us can continue to be nerds even as we become pretty well built.
Women dont notice most men. So if they notice 20 out of 100 men and 18 are lean, strong and fit, they mean they prefer those 18 to the 2 Juiced beefcakes.
The problem is most girls actually have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to the numbers, and can't tell shit from pictures. You show them a picture of Frank Zane and they think they're grossed out, but he'd look WAY more human is person than in a posed photo. Same with like height for example. They think 5'9" is a literal midget but put them with a 5'9" dude in maybe some modest-heeled boots and they'll think he's 6'1".
Frederick & Haselton [13] have argued there may be a curvilinear relationship between strength and attractiveness such that extremely strong men may be less attractive than moderately strong men. The scatterplots in figure 2 how no evidence of this, but a more formal test was run using two functional forms: [...] We found no evidence of the inverted-U hypothesis; rather, in both samples, the strongest men were the most attractive, and the weakest men were the least attractive.
Notably - the study included pictures of people with gym access at UC-SB. Some body-builder types are likely in there, but they aren't going to compose a majority of the sample. I wish I could find the pictureset.
OMG YES. This reward is relatively huge, and culturally invariant.
The authors note that mate choice is for other factors, of course (facial attractiveness, social ability, money, etc.), but it is really neat to see the raw numbers. Elsewhere in this thread, I ran the numbers on exactly how much you need to lose/gain. Notably - losing 2 BMI points is mathematically equivalent to getting stronger than 15% of the competition (in perceived attractiveness).
If you read the study, there was no cut off where men looked too strong and thus less attractive. Stronger = more attractive, no exceptions.
My guess is that they don't like the BB monsters because of the extremely low bodyfat. That kind of a guy would probably die mid hunt if he lived in the stone age. Now someone like Mariusz Pudzianowski, massive yet lean strongman, would be a prehistoric pantywetter.
How big did they go in the study? Like was literally Ronnie Coleman on the list? In normie shit like this they usually go up to like Brad Pitt in Fight Club big, maybe throw in Frank Zane for shits and giggles. You never see these things studying attraction to dudes like Dorian or someone enormous like that.
Well the thing is, those monsters may not have even been in the study. There's so few of them but they just get a disproportionate amount of press because, well... they don't look human.
Eh disagree. I lift and power lifters are NOT desirable by women. I’m talking the men built like a tree stump and can’t scratch their back. That said they still get puss, but it’s not what I would call desirable
I disagree. I think once a man looks obviously unnatural in size, lean or not, that's the line where many women get turned off. Proportions are important too, a husky powerlifter physique isn't as attractive as a v-taper bodybuilder physique. I think Steve Reeves is the best example of an ideal body to most women.
Feel free to disagree, of course. However, in the actual article, actual strength and perceived strength are highly correlated (r=0.8, p=.0001). Further, perceived strength and perceived attractiveness are also highly correlated (0.85, p=.0001). There were no exceptions to the theory that "women stronger men are more attractive" in the study. There is a 0.1% chance that this is not true on the individual level. Further, women apparently guess actual strength from perceived strength reliably.
I agree completely. It’s semantics, or more specifically, 90% of women don’t have a shared point of reference for what people mean when they say “muscular men”.
It’s not just women too. Men who aren’t really athletic or haven’t spent time in the gym don’t really understand. When you talk about jacked and muscular guys, many will immediately think of guys who juice and are pretty huge. Not everyone likes this look.
But then they see a 5’10” male at a LEAN 170-175 lbs and it’s like, “Oh, he has muscles, but he’s not super muscular or jacked”, but they have no idea how much bigger that guy is when he is at a more normal body fat percentage and most importantly don’t understand how much work it takes to get there.
Being lean is literally everything when it comes to looking good jacked. If you're 5'10" 200 lbs 15% body fat, you're gonna look big and fluffy and gross. If you cut down to 170 shredded as fuck you're gonna look like an actual greek god. Same muscle mass, but one will be "too big."
Yep, a guy can lose body fat % and appear much more stronger. Also women and some men can think someone with visible muscle definition is stronger than a bigger guy with higher body fat %
Fat hides muscles, so while you got tone, all your cuts are hidden under fat. While bulking IS more muscle, tone is SHOWING more muscle.
I myself am at 185, and am working on cutting to 170-175. I got one last ridge of belly fat. I even got abs showing through my belly. This is me sucking it in ofc. Also sorry for shit quality, but it's all I got. If ya want a clearer picture, I'll show ya later.
I'm super fat, working on it, but I always assumed my last girlfriend liked me despite being fat, but when we broke up she immediately got with another super fat dude. Pretty weird tbh.
I have however met some women that are really into fat dudes. Pretty wild,
Well I know a guy who's into fat chicks. I can't fucking understand it but he's been a friend of mine and we've played in bands together for about 8 years now and it's the God honest truth. He's not doing it like a joke or anything. He's 100% seriously into it.
We would go out to eat after playing shows and ya know... you get your 3 a.m. Perkins or Denny's waitress that probably about 18 stone. He's sit there and be like "Oh yeah, that's so fucking hot."
But excess fat causes heart diseases, HR rythm disorders, breathing disorders, embolism etc. Not to mention sexual cons, like small dick, very low endurance and stuff.
​
If you have enough muscle mass to support it, maybe..
Benefits of being fat for a while I guess, if you can manage to lose the weight without losing much muscle you'll find there's a solid base under there. I feel bad for the guys who go from obese to hungry skelly and have to build back up again.
They don’t want the guy on the magazines that clearly is tanned, dehydrated, and full pump + steroids. They also don’t want the power lifter with a gut
You're pretty much what I would probably consider the line though. You're fucking big as shit and horrifyingly lean but any bigger or leaner and you're for sure into inhuman freak status. Pretty much exactly where I wanna be tbh.
To me this is "too much" territory. IMO the "sweet spot" is what those guys from super hero movies train to look like. Like the 3 Chris (Hemsworth, Pratt, Evans). But hey, even that is putting the bar high.
I think it boils down to a matter of taste. I agree with WaspOnAWall that most women probably like the "superhero" build, although your build is obviously going to get far more attraction than the average man's build, even if it isn't ideal to all but a subset of women.
You will "scare" away most women with that physique. The good news is that the girls who are into that stuff are really into it so it's easy to believe that you keep finding girls who are attracted to you. You attract the small niche group of women which most likely is enough.
Personally I prefer "superhero movie" sweet spot as another member already wrote. That sweet spot gets majority of women attracted to you and isn't "too much". Also you can achieve it naturally.
And sorry to break your illusion but no, girls do not only associate that kind of physique with status but to steroid abuse and lack of mental capacity (ofc the latter isn't necessarily true atleast at the beginning but my old friends who have been on and off for ~15 years are getting slower, there has been a significant change in their cognitive abilities and verbal communication but I don't know which kind of drug abuse causes this - I doubt that T cycles alone would cause it).
I mostly like fitness girls that are in shape anyway and they love this look.
Exactly, even if the odds are "against" you, why would you care because you attract the niche group you are attracted to as well. I'd say you have it easier when it comes to women thanks for the work you have put into your physique.
And nice job with the physique, most people don't realize how much work and dedication it requires to get to that level no matter how roided up you are. The muscle doesn't grow with juices alone.
Yes it does. Studies have shown then a sedentary male on steroids will gain more muscle mass then a male weight training 4 days a week naturally.
After a 8 week period the enhanced sedentary group put on like 8lbs of lean muscle while the unenhanced group put on like 3.
Now when the gear stops the muscle growth does too. So one could argue about keeping the muscle. But the truth is you could take gear indefinitely and sit around and be more jacked them most natty guys at the gym
Gear is such a huge game changer. Lifting naturally is almost a waste of time.
Well yes ofc that happens to a degree. Same thing happens when guys hit puberty. They gain several pounds of muscle mass without doing anything.
But it's not like you get jacked or even to a good condition with steroids without working out.
Sedentary guy on roids get to average somewhat physically active guys level at best.
And in this context I somewhat agree with you that "lifting naturally is almost a waste of time". I've been working out over 10 years now. If I could go back 10 years I would consider getting on cycle and gain this same muscle mass in 2 years instead of 10 and then stop roiding and maintain this naturally maintainable muscle mass from there on. The good thing doing things slowly naturally is that the nerves and supporting ligaments like tendons had time to adjust.
Again a guy taking gear and doing absolutely no weight training will in fact have more more muscle than guy who’s natural but works out.
I know it’s crazy but it’s true. Now that didn’t mean his cardio will be good. But who gives a fuck about that. The guy doing gear will be more jacked. And will appear more muscular assuming he doesn’t eat a gallon of ice cream a day.
I agree with you about the overall health. But that’s not the discussion.
The point is the guy sitting around doing gear WILL be more, bigger, more muscular, and by most measures stronger than a natty guy lifting 4 days a week.
The point is the guy sitting around doing gear WILL be more, bigger, more muscular, and by most measures stronger than a natty guy lifting 4 days a week.
So are you saying that a guy on gear keeps putting on 8lbs of muscle every 8 weeks without doing anything? Well that's bullshit. Yea hi may put couple of pounds more on top of that 8lbs without doing nothing but that's pretty much it.
Dude there's no such thing. I've been doing workout for years. There was not a single time, that any of my body part was less-built. It's not easy to loose the proportion.
Im a woman that regularly goes to the gym... Im just saying Ive seen men with pathethic skinny legs because they only focus on their arms and chest. Lol
If you consider most guys start hitting the gym by doing bench and curls for two years straight, yeah, there are a lot of dudes with hunched shoulders and chicken legs out there. Not a good look.
Love it, read it, great article. get big it's great just read Section 1b. 'Securing resource investment.'
But for the benefit of my brothers I will try to add some healthy skepticism, which I think
ties in as a good trp concept in itself tbh. I know this is probably just some students project but we should always try to think critically about info presented to us and not take it at face value without thinking it though ourselves. Obviously not irritate everyone with constant skepticism but definitely THINK it but don't say it. It will make you more resistant to manipulation and blue pill bullshit and anyway skeptical thinking is exactly how red pills are uncovered in the first place.
So some observations:
The female groups were roughly of ages 20 to 25. Can we reproduce results across age groups?
The females are described as 'Griffith University and Oklahoma State University student volunteers.' The population they sample from isn't that broad, there could be some University-specific culture bias being reflected in results. This applies to the results in general and therefore also the research question no.3: do some significant set of women prefer physically weaker men?
We could go to a university dominated by students of a different culture, beliefs, attitudes and find different results. You might think this is unlikely and a baseless criticism but much of the 'debunking' that happens within academia and science is simply a result of lack of sampling and method rigour for the original 'discoveries.'..
Also since they are volunteers (they nominate themselves), the degree of blindness pre test (specifically lack there of) could have resulted in some degree of self selection in test raters, i.e 'are you into 'hot' dudes!? do you want to come and rate their 'bodies'?'. Something like this making results relate to this 'type' of women and thereby making them hard to generalise. Not saying they did this, but they don't explain how so they may have.
They tested the inverted-u hypothesis (whether the relationship between strength and attractiveness is linear or possibly non linear: after a certain point,the stronger you are the less attractive you are) but produced no standards or estimates for what the tipping point, the vertex of the parbola, would be if the inverted-u hypothesis was true.
Therefore, a reasonable question to ask is did they have enough variance in strength of their test subjects, was the distribution 'wide' enough to confidently conclude that no non-linear relationship exists?
Answer: 1 point higher BMI drops you significantly.
1 point of strength* gets you a 0.8193 gain. 1 point of BMI** gets you a .2983 loss. Huh***.
​
*Strength is measured relative to the others, on a 1-7 scale. Perceived shirtless strength may as well be real strength for all intents and purposes. Generally, 1 point of strength is a lot.
**BMI is an absolute measure.
***The data seem to indicate that "yes, it is literally as simple as adding these up"
interesting. bmi would be on a bell curve for attractiveness, right? with too small being unattractive and then it becoming less attractive after a certain point. What is ideal bmi? i can look online myself but curious what your perspective is.
1 - BMI is pretty lousy. Look at its history - It was essentially created as a Wild Ass Guess (WAG) for military/population fitness. In the specific - it is uncorrelated with strength, size, fitness, body fat percentage, or anything else. In the general - all the "18" BMI people can probably safely be considered "fit for boot camp".
2 - As part of (1), lower BMI is better (see the supplementary analysis - higher BMI, on the whole, is bad for attractiveness).
There was a reason that the original authors didn't include BMI measures (until reviewers forced them to, and then they buried it in a supplementary analysis webpage).
Exact followup - getting strong than an additional 15% of the general population is worth "1 point".
I am 5'9", 160, gymnast. Gaining 16-23 pounds bumps my BMI up 3 points.
You can think of 20 pounds vs. "stronger than additional 15% of population" as roughly equivalent in attractiveness. As such, putting on 10 pounds makes you more attractive if you get stronger; no surprise here, but the numbers work out mathematically.
Directionally correct and obvious, but they missed one big measurement - perceived total width from should to shoulder. A broad guy with skinny arms still looks bigger than a skinny guy with jacked shoulders.
AllahHatesFags 5y ago
Does that mean we can skip leg day?
ZestyyyClamMeat 5y ago
Social game trumps all
​
Skinny party boys and frat guys get laid way more than your average gym rat/bodybuilder
[deleted] 5y ago
The big issue a great number of people here seem to be missing is the genetic aspect of what the study is discussing. If it was that simple that everyone could just work out and all would have the same upper body development, there would be 0 evolutionary pressure on selecting for upper body strength (in so far as muscle response alone is concerned).
RPSilverfox 5y ago
If I wear tighter shirts that show off my shoulders, pecs and 32” waist I get stared down by women everywhere I go and their eyes will focus on that region. Eight years in the gym has served me well.
pnzndltn 5y ago
Very true. I'm an intermediate lifter with decent genetics for broad shoulders/delts/chest thickness. I normally wear form fitting stuff but if I ever thrown on a t shirt that's actually tight, I noticeably get stared down by girls in a way not unlike guys staring at a girl with full visible cleavage. Weird but cool.
apost54 5y ago
In another edition of Common Sense Ideas That Did Not Need Researchers To Prove Them, Exhibit A.
[deleted]
Razkolol 5y ago
Lel, no shit. Why are they doing studies on common knowledge?
SunTzuWarmaster 5y ago
Because a bunch of people in this thread seem to think that "oh, body-builder types with 'too much muscle' are unattractive." That theory was explicitly tested in this study, and its wrong.
plokman 5y ago
No, from the study : "The men whose bodies were photographed (henceforth subjects) were taken from two databases of young college students at US universities. " I would guess near zero were bodybuilder level aesthetics.
DaftOdyssey 5y ago
One thing is theory, another is providing proof.
Razkolol 5y ago
Read Evolutionary Psychology by David Buss from 98, it has all the proof in there, women's opinion is not really a valid metric if you ask me.
DaftOdyssey 5y ago
I would argue it does contain some validity if you research properly without letting them know what's happening.
Also new data is weighted more than old, but I'll give it a read.
Don_Himself 5y ago
don't go skipping leg day either. glutes for some reason drive women wild. it may be due to glutes signifying virility or some shit. but of all the girls who ever asked for nudes, the #1 thing theyve requested are pics of the butt.
FKaroundNfindOUT 5y ago
To some extent, it's the same reason we like their glutes. It's where the power hides.
Seriously, if your knee isn't bent the only power mover is the glute complex. If the knee is bent, the glutes are working with the help of your quads. Most people in today's sedentary habits don't use the glutes as more than a cushion and as a result have tight hip flexors, tight hamstrings, weak glutes, lower back problems and an anterior pelvic tilt.
Free_From_Reddit 5y ago
For real. And it's super easy to grow your glutes if you're not stick thin. The noobie gains come fast down there.
Don_Himself 5y ago
squats and deadlifts bb
i dont know anyone who've stuck for SS5x5 for 6 months and still looked weak afterwards. this is why lifting may be #1 spiker of your sex appeal ahead of fame and money
Casanova-Quinn 5y ago
Yeah girls definitely like glutes. My theory is that, subconsciously, good glutes show that you can fuck her hard, because glutes are the main muscles involved in hip thrusting. It could also be an aesthetic thing, just as men like women's butts, women like men's butts.
Devoidoxatom 5y ago
Also one of the strongest muscles. Having strong glutes give an overall idea of strength/athleticism
buttgoogler 5y ago
TL;DR: Chicks dig jacked dudes.
_Anarchon_ 5y ago
Women want to fuck us muscular guys. They'll keep skinny ones in orbit if they're rich or can fix their computer.
moltenw 5y ago
Most guys that I know who pull crazy are not muscular, but skinny. One of my friends is 19 and has 6+ HB8+ russian eastern europe plates on a rotation. Sure, he lives an incredibly social life, is street smart, agressive, takes smart risks etc. He said he might have bpd, considering it comes in his family, and by his attitude, I wouldn't be surprised.
Lifting on TRP seems a bit like a circlejerk. It mostly serves as a way to get you in the door, but if you lack game, you'll still have problems. It's good as a starting point and a supplement.
Game > lifting, always.
_Anarchon_ 5y ago
I have to agree with that. A good body will make a chick look/approach, but if you open your mouth and insecurities and cringe comes out, she's going to the next one.
[deleted] 5y ago
This study still faces the problem of relying on women's responses to questions. Even if they don't know the full extent of the study, they can guess why they're being asked questions about male attractiveness and strength. Women online always claim to prefer a body like David Beckham's.
Please, do an image search for David Beckham. Does he look good? Of course not. He has the muscle definition of a 17-year-old. Women like big, strong guys. When they claim that they don't like guys who are too buff, they are talking about gross-looking bodybuilders. They want a guy with a superhero build.
AshyLarry27 5y ago
It amazes me despite all the research that we get confirming the need to lift on this forum, that there are still devil's advocates that like to pretend muscle bulk and looking in shape is "overrated, and all you need is GAME."
stedi-akk 5y ago
And they always will be. We should just ignore them
SalporinRP 5y ago
Good content. I wish they would have shown the other photos they used though.
This study should be shown to all the idiots out there who play video games all day and expect a hot girl to drop in their lap because of their "personality."
OutsideTheCage3 5y ago
Really, you don't need much beyond the title, but:
There is a reason why lifting, diet, and body are the first things RP and game guys tell you to work on. They are within your control and they matter if you're going to be in the game. Women judge you based on your strength and fitness. Women prefer stronger to weaker men, all else being equal.
moltenw 5y ago
Not saying not to lift, but it is highly overrated when it comes to attracting females.
It gets you in the door, but without game - you'll be kicked out in a couple of minutes.
Have a skinny 19yr old friend who has like 6+ HB8 plates on rotation. Obviously these guys are the exceptions, but all of them have incredible game and usually a very agressive risk approach type attitude.
Bing_Bang_Bam 5y ago
I dunno I met a few bi women who preferred girly guys. They say though the ones on birth control have more testosterone and tend to look at manly men as competition.
[deleted]
FOREVERTRIP 5y ago
The whole article is a great read, not just the title. It contains succinct and to the point academic confirmation of many trp concepts/truths. Even mentions cucks hehe
FOREVERTRIP 5y ago
When I say academic confirmation, I don't mean to say trp precedes the science but the other way around; the trp shit is borne from science.
oh_no_aliens 5y ago
The black pill everyone ignores. Like an elephant in the room.
Proto_Sigma 5y ago
Hardly a black pill considering making yourself stronger isn't that difficult in 95% of cases. It just takes time and dedication.
[deleted] 5y ago
[deleted]
LightCrazy 5y ago
It states that your looks are what matter the most, all other things only play a small role in attracting others and basically none if you don't have the looks.
Ramp_Up_Then_Dump 5y ago
Geting looks is hard work, some blackpillers say it is not worth if reward is women.
AshyLarry27 5y ago
My problem with this "black pill" is I've seen plenty of guys overcome "unattractive-ness" with gym work and muscle build.
Having good looks is a supplement to this, not the rule.
[deleted] 5y ago
Having a great body is part of being good looking. A dude with a 9 body and a 6 face is gonna out do a guy with a 10 face but a 4 body.
Proto_Sigma 5y ago
Since facial aesthetics are linked to body fat percentages I'm skeptical the latter scenario is even possible.
Eat_Animals 5y ago
I have tried to make this point with guys in here before when they start a BJJ/MMA circlejerk. Women won't be able to to tell that you're a total badass at wrestling on a mat. They see what you look like in your jeans and shirt. So if you don't already have a very attractive face or naturally great build being large and muscular is more important for the SMV than having fighting skills.
(That is not to say fighting skill are bad in anyway)
swampbastard1415 5y ago
I lift and do BJJ - what BJJ does for my overall presence is irreplaceable, after an intense roll - when I walk into any public space all my tension and any anxiety is gone. Lifting doesn't do that. Still I agree - lifting is mandatory, if you want to do a sport as a hobby you have to work in time for lifting.
beginner_ 5y ago
The MMA circlejerk is not about looks but confidence and I think we can agree that women will pickup on that.
oliknox 5y ago
Bjj will increase your fitness as well as your social skills and confidence. But these are secondary reasons to do it No 1 beingt that it's fun.
Managicall 5y ago
I'll do one better, wear under armor and shoulder pads.
aDrunkenWhaler 5y ago
I'm quite sure most people that do BJJ/MMA don't do it for pussy or to increase their SMV. Life is more than getting pussy, which is cheap anyways.
jekporkins77 5y ago
But a lot of guys who fight are good fighters but not exactly strong
AlphaGinger66 5y ago
Fighters are strong but lean. If they are serious fighters they try not to bulk up too much and move up in weight divisions.
jekporkins77 5y ago
Yes but a 220lb bodybuilder or powerlifting will demolish a 150lb fighter
[deleted]
[deleted] 5y ago
There are countless videos of bjj black belt/mma fighter vs power lifter/body builder. Spoiler, the trained fighter always wins.
magx01 5y ago
This is not only hypothetically wrong it's demonstrably wrong (there are videos).
aDrunkenWhaler 5y ago
You obviously never stepped foot on a fighting mat
[deleted]
omega_fat 5y ago
If he could land one hit, sure. If.
jekporkins77 5y ago
No you just wrap up and body slam them
oooKenshiooo 5y ago
It is actually really hard to wrap someone up, who knows what he is doing. I am not even that good and I have beaten unexperienced lifters 60 pounds above me multiple times. It is a regular occurence at BJJ and MMA gyms.
[deleted] 5y ago
Lol people are getting mad as fuck but you're (basically) right. A 220 bodybuilder with zero skill is going to get wrecked, but a 220 blue belt is gonna take a dump on the 150 brown belt. There's a reason there are weight divisions in combat sports.
dza76wutang 5y ago
What brown belts did you roll with? That kind of size gap might be worth a belt, certainly not two.
[deleted] 5y ago
If any brown belt gets crushed by a blue belt with a 70lbs weight advantage, they should have their brown belt taken away. Hell, even a purple belt would win that.
jekporkins77 5y ago
Yes, thank you. There’s like a rule in BJJ where every 15lbs heavier you’d need one belt higher
[deleted] 5y ago
I assure you, a healthy brown or black belt is not going to lose to a heavier, stronger, more athletic blue belt.
Zech4riah 5y ago
I can agree on this. When I was a white belt and had done bjj about 1,5 years (long enough to avoid stupid mistakes), our smallest black belt instructor really struggled with me. Our matches were kind of even and neither one could finish them.
I had about 90lbs weight advantage.
Oh and then there is even bigger difference (not so surprisingly) with women with same weight difference. I think it took like 3-4 months to train and I was already able to beat purple belt women with basic arm bars and/or lapelchokes - they saw them coming but they just couldn't deal with significant strength/weight advantage I was having.
aDrunkenWhaler 5y ago
90 lbs over or not, if the black belt didn't know how to submit a white belt with only 1.5 years of training, it's on him. Timing would of been enough to get the upper hand.
Razku 5y ago
Well yeah but also I think what a lot of dudes forget sometimes is that women have varying degrees of intelligence. Some of them surely value fighting skills and protection over roid muscles if they know the difference. Really dumb ones probably not as much, but you don't want to be associating with morons at the end of the day.
[deleted]
rus9384 5y ago
All else being equal women prefer many other things. Ranging from penis size to amount of money. But IRL "all else being equal" almost never occurs.
I don't debate that enhancing body is a good thing to do. But "all else being equal" is not really useful. It's always better to enhance yourself in multiple ways.
FatmanO 5y ago
Not lifting is like non negotiable, people who don't lift and are in TRP due to not ''finding time'' is like you are waiting infront of the club or the party and waiting to get in while the line is empty.
ruga2 5y ago
Asking for a woman's opinion is not the right way to find truth.
20mcgug 5y ago
The truth lies in their actions
ALLTHEUSERNAMESRFUKI 5y ago
It is if done in an empirical setting without them knowing the purpose.
party_dragon 5y ago
No, what matters is whom they fuck, not whom they find attractive.
Why do they find Christian Grey attractive if they don’t even know how he looks like?!
Vikingcel 5y ago
They all would fuck Grey if they could.
jackmack786 5y ago
They’d be asking their opinion if they said to the women: “do you find muscular men attractive?”.
They didn’t. They instead just got women to rate men that they were shown based on attractiveness. They didn’t tell the women that they had to pick based on muscularity. So the women could have picked based on anything, such as eye colour or hair colour, but analysis of the data showed that they tended to pick based on muscularity.
This is scientifically valid.
ruga2 5y ago
No is not.
​
Women don't know what they want. Here is an example
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IyuZPSxuPA
​
She says she likes something, and 4:09 she is confused by recognizing that she doesn't likes it.
​
Women are socially conditioned to believe certain things, and they sincerely believe those things, but they don't act accordingly, and even after the fact, they fail to knowledge that what they think is not what they do.
​
So a woman choosing an image doesn't means that she would choose the photographed person in real life.
​
I see it repeatedly on a gym. It is full of muscular dudes who approach girls, and they never get anything.
Most, maybe ALL, dudes on the gymnasium are there because they don't feel enough, so they want to compensate by developing muscles, but their muscles give them nothing.
To the contrary. Displaying muscles to a woman sends the message that the dude has no value, and needs to gain the girl's approbation. That's what women perceive from those dudes.
​
Women are attracted to personality. If muscles make a dude feel security, then muscles work, but is not the muscle. Is the self acceptance.
jackmack786 5y ago
So you basically believe that choosing images still has an element of socialisation involved that would not be present in picking partners in real life. Fair enough criticism of the study, but not really concrete reasoning to back it up imo.
Then you started going on about how you don't believe muscles are important, or even necessary.
Stop, dude. Leave TRP.
LIFT has been the first rule since fucking forever. The importance of it has been explained in ridiculous detail by the heavyweights of this sub for years.
It has never been up for debate.
I don't visit this sub often anymore, but guys like you who can't be fucked to read the sidebar and absorb tons of material before even thinking about commenting seem to be far too common nowadays.
You'd have been told to STFU and read the sidebar. This isn't your sub to spout your own hamstering, it's for you to learn from, and maybe then develop the ideas further, not argue against them.
[deleted] 5y ago
[--removed--]
cupshadow 5y ago
I like to see women's reaction to the questions but I hate the "in the red pill community" introduction. Why the fuck these guys have to say were it came from? I don't want angry woman rallying against the community because of some retard youtuber.
ruga2 5y ago
The point is demonstrating the red pill concepts experimentally.
​
I didn't said "proving", but demonstrating.
​
He doesn't seems to be getting angry woman, which demonstrates the importance of the way in which communication is made.
​
This is not against women. Is just the search for the truth. Many concepts are not nice to accept, neither for woman or men.
​
Most people would prefer the blue pill world, but it doesn't works. It makes both men and woman unhappy.
The red pill is the search for the truth, no matter how ugly, because the truth is necessary to know were we are located, and in what direction we need to move.
​
Feminists hate the red pill for emotional reasons. But the negation of reality makes feminists to fail at diagnosis and administer the wrong remedies. The wrong remedies make everything worse. That's why women happiness had been dropping catastrophically despite all the feminist "progress"
​
https://www.nber.org/papers/w14969
​
​
​
cupshadow 5y ago
Like I said, show the concepts but don't talk about the community. Don't say it's "from the red pill". This is something I'm even doing myself, testing the concepts among friends in a very subtle way and in small doses.
First rule of fight club, remember?
melungeonmuscle 5y ago
Yea but lil dude let me tell you
Muscles can make a personality. Yea maybe there is something wrong with us and we need to go in there and grow armour around our bones. But there's just something instinctively hot to a woman about a man who looks like he's oozing testosterone. You can blame evolution but it's a reality that I and many other guys have discovered after toiling to make ourselves stonger, bigger and leaner.
ruga2 5y ago
You are wrong, because, as a man, you believe that woman are like men, attracted to looks.
Man spend money and time getting porn. Men pay for it.
Women spend money and time getting romantic novels. That's what women pay for. They don't buy photographs of world champions at lifting. Women don't pay for sports TV. Women don't watch the olympic champions on Netflix.
Women aren't attracted to looks. Otherwise humans would not be the weakest primate around. We would be gorillas with a ton of muscle. We would be able to lift a car with one hand and trow it away.
What we are evolved for? Minds. Women get horny at minds. But is not a Nobel prize mind, and is not a nerd what they want. They want social intelligence. Women need to talk to a man to get horny.
Comeup420 5y ago
You're both right. Look at the covers of those romance novels that is woman porn, those dudes are wearing tight fitting blue jeans, no shirt-absolutely cut up, white teeth smile and some cheesy ass cowboy hat. Looks are definitely part of the equation, I think you're 'look' is more important than classical handsomeness.
But, it's no secret that girls like six pack abs and muscle definition. For one it makes them feel small, not to mention it is nice to look at. But this guy can talk himself out of puss, while a less attractive guy CAN talk himself into puss. So just have both to optimize your results.
[deleted] 5y ago
Are you good looking? Rocking a nice v-taper?
ruga2 5y ago
You are trying to pull an ad hominem fallacy.
I'm not the point.
halfback910 5y ago
Well then what are they supposed to do? You can hardly conduct a controlled study that involves asking women to fuck them and seeing if they say yes.
I_Dont_Type 5y ago
fMRI brain scans and showing them pictures of non- muscular and muscular men is one option. I’m sure tingles generate quite the view on a brain scan
ruga2 5y ago
Not being possible to do what is needed doesn't mean that what they made is valid.
oh_no_aliens 5y ago
By definition an opinion has nothing to do with truth anyway. It's only someone's interpretation of a subject. Waste of time.
SunTzuWarmaster 5y ago
Unless, of course, you anonymously ask for the opinion of lots of people, and they all correlate at the 0.1% chance level.
Why I agree, in principle, that "opinion has nothing to do with truth", when literally all of the opinions are the same, and the truth is a subjective measure, you really do have to give it some thought.
ruga2 5y ago
If you survey women asking them to choose between a PHD dude or an ugly jailed criminal, they all will answer that they prefer the PHD dude.
​
But then they go and have sex with the convict, not even caring at all about the PHD dude.
​
If you ask this girl if she prefers an avocado or a banana, she always says avocado, but she always pick a banana, and she doesn't even understand why.
​
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJvZQumfxB0
​
So, their opinions doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if their correlations have an r=0.99999999
ALLTHEUSERNAMESRFUKI 5y ago
Well no, attraction is objective. No matter what, you aren't gonna want to fuck a dead corpse if your not a necrophiliac.
[deleted]
MammothPassenger 5y ago
Attraction is 100% subjective what the fuck are you on about
FatmanO 5y ago
Thats a stupid thing to say. It might be subjective by a point up or down.
ALLTHEUSERNAMESRFUKI 5y ago
Not it's not u dumb ass lmao. Are you trying to say there aren't universally attractive things like tits or ass.
MammothPassenger 5y ago
It's still subjective you fucking moron
ALLTHEUSERNAMESRFUKI 5y ago
Can't cure stupid I guess. Literally just google it.
MammothPassenger 5y ago
You don't seem to understand what objective or subjective actually means, and it's truly embarrassing. Even if every single human on earth finds something attractive, it is still subjective by definition. There is no universal state of "attractiveness", as it requires both an object and a subject, you fucking spastic gook. The human brain is obviously hardwired to find certain traits attractive, like symmetry and signs of health and fertility, but that doesn't mean attraction itself is an objective thing, which doesn't even make sense. It's like me saying asian men are objectively ugly because nearly all women find them unattractive. That's wrong. Asian men are subjectively ugly.
[deleted]
Vikingcel 5y ago
You could say that the asian men are objectively less likely to be considered attractive. ;)
TRP8myfeels 5y ago
I find that even women that say they dont like muscular men, do actually.
They just dont want super over built men, but that's years of dedication so it takes a certain type of person to appreciate that anyways.
DeplorableRay 5y ago
Don’t listen to what they say. Watch what they do.
dza76wutang 5y ago
Men's Open BB is grotesque to many women (and people, for that matter). Men's physique and likely Classic would be more what they want, physically anyway.
Arnold's are in about two weeks if you want to see the different categories.
TRP8myfeels 5y ago
Oh no shit, thank you. I'll take a look when they happen.
dza76wutang 5y ago
It also has, arguably, the better strongman event (compared to WSM). That's more fun but less relevant to SMV type of discussions.
Auvergnat 5y ago
I think that it’s not the “over built” physique which they dislike but the stereotypical lifestyle associated with it and what it means about him: they picture a guy whose only activity besides work is the gym, whose only discussion topic is calories, whose pantry is mostly filled with tubs of dodgy named powders. Worse, they picture a man who has centered his life around how good he looks, for the sole purpose of getting women, and compensate for some deep insecurity.
I think they may unconsciously get tingles at the sight of a fine body, but also at the same time feel some repulsion at how mono-dimensional they imagine his life is. I think that it’s this repulsion they verbalise with “I don’t like guys who are muscular”.
Trenned_out 5y ago
Yea it's definitely not the physique, it's the autism that often goes with it lol. I definitely stand out, I'm 6'3 255 and have lifted for 8-9 years but I don't look freaky. Most of my best friends back from college were giant guys, talking near 500lb benches some 800lb squats and deads etc. All stupidly cartoon level jacked and lean. Despite what girls may say, they're into it, if it comes with game.... Particularly girls get a few drinks and start to listen to their instincts instead of societal conditioning a bit more... Then the arm grabbing starts etc.
I think too many people want to focus on one aspect of SMV or game at the expense of the others.
All that being said, getting huge is not the pussy magnet a lot of guys think. It does improve your SMV but women still rarely approach, it's going to be other dudes asking "how much you bench bro."
[deleted] 5y ago
And they will even sometimes be honest about it...."Yeah, that's pretty hot but I bet you all he talks about is fitness." This is why some of us can continue to be nerds even as we become pretty well built.
8380atgmaildotcom 5y ago
Could it be that those dudes have some sort of body dysmorphia that reeks of beta? Kinda what you said but tried to put a phrase to it.
p3n1x 5y ago
They want super built. They don't want YOU to be higher value. If they say anything else it is their bullshit insecurity blubbering away.
TRP8myfeels 5y ago
Alright I can agree with crabs.
redpillcad 5y ago
Women dont notice most men. So if they notice 20 out of 100 men and 18 are lean, strong and fit, they mean they prefer those 18 to the 2 Juiced beefcakes.
Even those 2 get noticed though.
Make sure you lift
TRP8myfeels 5y ago
Oh me? It's overhead press day.
[deleted]
[deleted] 5y ago
The problem is most girls actually have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to the numbers, and can't tell shit from pictures. You show them a picture of Frank Zane and they think they're grossed out, but he'd look WAY more human is person than in a posed photo. Same with like height for example. They think 5'9" is a literal midget but put them with a 5'9" dude in maybe some modest-heeled boots and they'll think he's 6'1".
TRP8myfeels 5y ago
I'm 5'8 and have never ever thought I was short or wanted to be taller.
[deleted] 5y ago
[deleted]
TRP8myfeels 5y ago
If a woman makes it a hard no point it becomes a joke. Unless they are built for giant men, it doesn't phase me.
I'll flirt and be nice to larger women, but I've never been all that attracted to taller women as sexual partners.
SunTzuWarmaster 5y ago
From the study:
Notably - the study included pictures of people with gym access at UC-SB. Some body-builder types are likely in there, but they aren't going to compose a majority of the sample. I wish I could find the pictureset.
TRP8myfeels 5y ago
I would have built myself up mush sooner if I knew the social reward
SunTzuWarmaster 5y ago
OMG YES. This reward is relatively huge, and culturally invariant.
The authors note that mate choice is for other factors, of course (facial attractiveness, social ability, money, etc.), but it is really neat to see the raw numbers. Elsewhere in this thread, I ran the numbers on exactly how much you need to lose/gain. Notably - losing 2 BMI points is mathematically equivalent to getting stronger than 15% of the competition (in perceived attractiveness).
Vikingcel 5y ago
If you read the study, there was no cut off where men looked too strong and thus less attractive. Stronger = more attractive, no exceptions.
My guess is that they don't like the BB monsters because of the extremely low bodyfat. That kind of a guy would probably die mid hunt if he lived in the stone age. Now someone like Mariusz Pudzianowski, massive yet lean strongman, would be a prehistoric pantywetter.
[deleted] 5y ago
How big did they go in the study? Like was literally Ronnie Coleman on the list? In normie shit like this they usually go up to like Brad Pitt in Fight Club big, maybe throw in Frank Zane for shits and giggles. You never see these things studying attraction to dudes like Dorian or someone enormous like that.
halfback910 5y ago
Well the thing is, those monsters may not have even been in the study. There's so few of them but they just get a disproportionate amount of press because, well... they don't look human.
Truedemocracy4 5y ago
Eh disagree. I lift and power lifters are NOT desirable by women. I’m talking the men built like a tree stump and can’t scratch their back. That said they still get puss, but it’s not what I would call desirable
8380atgmaildotcom 5y ago
I think there is body dysmorphia in those dudes that women might find beta. That's my hypothesis
Casanova-Quinn 5y ago
I disagree. I think once a man looks obviously unnatural in size, lean or not, that's the line where many women get turned off. Proportions are important too, a husky powerlifter physique isn't as attractive as a v-taper bodybuilder physique. I think Steve Reeves is the best example of an ideal body to most women.
SunTzuWarmaster 5y ago
Feel free to disagree, of course. However, in the actual article, actual strength and perceived strength are highly correlated (r=0.8, p=.0001). Further, perceived strength and perceived attractiveness are also highly correlated (0.85, p=.0001). There were no exceptions to the theory that "women stronger men are more attractive" in the study. There is a 0.1% chance that this is not true on the individual level. Further, women apparently guess actual strength from perceived strength reliably.
TRP8myfeels 5y ago
Yah he looks great in his photos.
Vikingcel 5y ago
He's alpha as fuck. Several times WSM, extremely well educated, does MMA. Decently handsome lad too.
halfback910 5y ago
The face leaves a lot to be desired imo, but that has very little to do with his working out.
TRP8myfeels 5y ago
I'd still fuck him if I could put a bag over his head.
Kurokaffe 5y ago
I agree completely. It’s semantics, or more specifically, 90% of women don’t have a shared point of reference for what people mean when they say “muscular men”.
It’s not just women too. Men who aren’t really athletic or haven’t spent time in the gym don’t really understand. When you talk about jacked and muscular guys, many will immediately think of guys who juice and are pretty huge. Not everyone likes this look.
But then they see a 5’10” male at a LEAN 170-175 lbs and it’s like, “Oh, he has muscles, but he’s not super muscular or jacked”, but they have no idea how much bigger that guy is when he is at a more normal body fat percentage and most importantly don’t understand how much work it takes to get there.
[deleted] 5y ago
Being lean is literally everything when it comes to looking good jacked. If you're 5'10" 200 lbs 15% body fat, you're gonna look big and fluffy and gross. If you cut down to 170 shredded as fuck you're gonna look like an actual greek god. Same muscle mass, but one will be "too big."
Truedemocracy4 5y ago
Yep, a guy can lose body fat % and appear much more stronger. Also women and some men can think someone with visible muscle definition is stronger than a bigger guy with higher body fat %
Vikingcel 5y ago
Nope. Read the study.
The women 'guessed' the strength of the men very accurately.
paniconomics 5y ago
I read the study and it wasn't very accurate at all... the authors assert that it is accurate, but you're looking at a 60% correlation.
Truedemocracy4 5y ago
Stronger isn’t always better though. And never takes study as pure fact
FatmanO 5y ago
So you will appear stronger at lower bodyfat? Shoudnt it be the other way around tho
Rimefang 5y ago
Fat hides muscles, so while you got tone, all your cuts are hidden under fat. While bulking IS more muscle, tone is SHOWING more muscle.
I myself am at 185, and am working on cutting to 170-175. I got one last ridge of belly fat. I even got abs showing through my belly. This is me sucking it in ofc. Also sorry for shit quality, but it's all I got. If ya want a clearer picture, I'll show ya later.
FatmanO 5y ago
I see. Im pretty bulked up now but that means I look better in clothes? Dmed!
TRP8myfeels 5y ago
Yes I bet the perception of most women is undoubtedly leaning towards thinking men should just naturally hold an excellent form.
I have however met some women that are really into fat dudes. Pretty wild, but also very rare I imagine.
[deleted] 5y ago
I'm super fat, working on it, but I always assumed my last girlfriend liked me despite being fat, but when we broke up she immediately got with another super fat dude. Pretty weird tbh.
Jaereth 5y ago
Well I know a guy who's into fat chicks. I can't fucking understand it but he's been a friend of mine and we've played in bands together for about 8 years now and it's the God honest truth. He's not doing it like a joke or anything. He's 100% seriously into it.
We would go out to eat after playing shows and ya know... you get your 3 a.m. Perkins or Denny's waitress that probably about 18 stone. He's sit there and be like "Oh yeah, that's so fucking hot."
Tastes man, they can be unpredictable.
apost54 5y ago
If he’s happy, I don’t see a problem.
Field_Of_View 5y ago
Being fat literally makes you stronger. It would be "pretty wild" if they preferred anorexic men.
TRP8myfeels 5y ago
AHAHAHA YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH THATS TRUE.
[deleted]
odaklanan_insan 5y ago
But excess fat causes heart diseases, HR rythm disorders, breathing disorders, embolism etc. Not to mention sexual cons, like small dick, very low endurance and stuff.
​
If you have enough muscle mass to support it, maybe..
​
[deleted] 5y ago
Benefits of being fat for a while I guess, if you can manage to lose the weight without losing much muscle you'll find there's a solid base under there. I feel bad for the guys who go from obese to hungry skelly and have to build back up again.
Truedemocracy4 5y ago
They don’t want the guy on the magazines that clearly is tanned, dehydrated, and full pump + steroids. They also don’t want the power lifter with a gut
They want muscles and proportion
[deleted]
goodboy1112111 5y ago
Great body but that android photo quality....lol
[deleted] 5y ago
You're pretty much what I would probably consider the line though. You're fucking big as shit and horrifyingly lean but any bigger or leaner and you're for sure into inhuman freak status. Pretty much exactly where I wanna be tbh.
WaspOnAWall 5y ago
To me this is "too much" territory. IMO the "sweet spot" is what those guys from super hero movies train to look like. Like the 3 Chris (Hemsworth, Pratt, Evans). But hey, even that is putting the bar high.
Philhelm 5y ago
I think it boils down to a matter of taste. I agree with WaspOnAWall that most women probably like the "superhero" build, although your build is obviously going to get far more attraction than the average man's build, even if it isn't ideal to all but a subset of women.
Zech4riah 5y ago
You will "scare" away most women with that physique. The good news is that the girls who are into that stuff are really into it so it's easy to believe that you keep finding girls who are attracted to you. You attract the small niche group of women which most likely is enough.
Personally I prefer "superhero movie" sweet spot as another member already wrote. That sweet spot gets majority of women attracted to you and isn't "too much". Also you can achieve it naturally.
And sorry to break your illusion but no, girls do not only associate that kind of physique with status but to steroid abuse and lack of mental capacity (ofc the latter isn't necessarily true atleast at the beginning but my old friends who have been on and off for ~15 years are getting slower, there has been a significant change in their cognitive abilities and verbal communication but I don't know which kind of drug abuse causes this - I doubt that T cycles alone would cause it).
[deleted]
Zech4riah 5y ago
Exactly, even if the odds are "against" you, why would you care because you attract the niche group you are attracted to as well. I'd say you have it easier when it comes to women thanks for the work you have put into your physique.
And nice job with the physique, most people don't realize how much work and dedication it requires to get to that level no matter how roided up you are. The muscle doesn't grow with juices alone.
Echo609 5y ago
Yes it does. Studies have shown then a sedentary male on steroids will gain more muscle mass then a male weight training 4 days a week naturally.
After a 8 week period the enhanced sedentary group put on like 8lbs of lean muscle while the unenhanced group put on like 3.
Now when the gear stops the muscle growth does too. So one could argue about keeping the muscle. But the truth is you could take gear indefinitely and sit around and be more jacked them most natty guys at the gym
Gear is such a huge game changer. Lifting naturally is almost a waste of time.
Zech4riah 5y ago
Well yes ofc that happens to a degree. Same thing happens when guys hit puberty. They gain several pounds of muscle mass without doing anything.
But it's not like you get jacked or even to a good condition with steroids without working out.
Sedentary guy on roids get to average somewhat physically active guys level at best.
And in this context I somewhat agree with you that "lifting naturally is almost a waste of time". I've been working out over 10 years now. If I could go back 10 years I would consider getting on cycle and gain this same muscle mass in 2 years instead of 10 and then stop roiding and maintain this naturally maintainable muscle mass from there on. The good thing doing things slowly naturally is that the nerves and supporting ligaments like tendons had time to adjust.
Echo609 5y ago
No, see you’re wrong.
Again a guy taking gear and doing absolutely no weight training will in fact have more more muscle than guy who’s natural but works out.
I know it’s crazy but it’s true. Now that didn’t mean his cardio will be good. But who gives a fuck about that. The guy doing gear will be more jacked. And will appear more muscular assuming he doesn’t eat a gallon of ice cream a day.
I agree with you about the overall health. But that’s not the discussion.
The point is the guy sitting around doing gear WILL be more, bigger, more muscular, and by most measures stronger than a natty guy lifting 4 days a week.
That’s how much gear changes the game.
Zech4riah 5y ago
So are you saying that a guy on gear keeps putting on 8lbs of muscle every 8 weeks without doing anything? Well that's bullshit. Yea hi may put couple of pounds more on top of that 8lbs without doing nothing but that's pretty much it.
EosMermaidGoddess 5y ago
Seriously guys - don't skip leg day. It makes you look like you have the body of a chicken.
odaklanan_insan 5y ago
Dude there's no such thing. I've been doing workout for years. There was not a single time, that any of my body part was less-built. It's not easy to loose the proportion.
EosMermaidGoddess 5y ago
Im a woman that regularly goes to the gym... Im just saying Ive seen men with pathethic skinny legs because they only focus on their arms and chest. Lol
[deleted] 5y ago
If you consider most guys start hitting the gym by doing bench and curls for two years straight, yeah, there are a lot of dudes with hunched shoulders and chicken legs out there. Not a good look.
FOREVERTRIP 5y ago
Love it, read it, great article. get big it's great just read Section 1b. 'Securing resource investment.'
But for the benefit of my brothers I will try to add some healthy skepticism, which I think ties in as a good trp concept in itself tbh. I know this is probably just some students project but we should always try to think critically about info presented to us and not take it at face value without thinking it though ourselves. Obviously not irritate everyone with constant skepticism but definitely THINK it but don't say it. It will make you more resistant to manipulation and blue pill bullshit and anyway skeptical thinking is exactly how red pills are uncovered in the first place.
So some observations:
The female groups were roughly of ages 20 to 25. Can we reproduce results across age groups?
The females are described as 'Griffith University and Oklahoma State University student volunteers.' The population they sample from isn't that broad, there could be some University-specific culture bias being reflected in results. This applies to the results in general and therefore also the research question no.3: do some significant set of women prefer physically weaker men? We could go to a university dominated by students of a different culture, beliefs, attitudes and find different results. You might think this is unlikely and a baseless criticism but much of the 'debunking' that happens within academia and science is simply a result of lack of sampling and method rigour for the original 'discoveries.'..
Also since they are volunteers (they nominate themselves), the degree of blindness pre test (specifically lack there of) could have resulted in some degree of self selection in test raters, i.e 'are you into 'hot' dudes!? do you want to come and rate their 'bodies'?'. Something like this making results relate to this 'type' of women and thereby making them hard to generalise. Not saying they did this, but they don't explain how so they may have.
They tested the inverted-u hypothesis (whether the relationship between strength and attractiveness is linear or possibly non linear: after a certain point,the stronger you are the less attractive you are) but produced no standards or estimates for what the tipping point, the vertex of the parbola, would be if the inverted-u hypothesis was true. Therefore, a reasonable question to ask is did they have enough variance in strength of their test subjects, was the distribution 'wide' enough to confidently conclude that no non-linear relationship exists?
peace
[deleted]
Camp_KillYourself 5y ago
Lean waist and broad shoulders
tb0n 5y ago
So better to be big, strong and chubby than small/medium build and cut? At least for the purposes of attracting women...
AwakenedSovereign 5y ago
Yes. Skinnystrongbro here and I can tell you that even uglier, shorter guys (but not betas) that are big and wide get advantages.
It's a "size club". Bigger is better. Not fat blob with own gravity, but anything other than that.
SunTzuWarmaster 5y ago
Daily Double! Supplementary analysis with BMI.
Answer: 1 point higher BMI drops you significantly.
1 point of strength* gets you a 0.8193 gain. 1 point of BMI** gets you a .2983 loss. Huh***.
​
*Strength is measured relative to the others, on a 1-7 scale. Perceived shirtless strength may as well be real strength for all intents and purposes. Generally, 1 point of strength is a lot.
**BMI is an absolute measure.
***The data seem to indicate that "yes, it is literally as simple as adding these up"
tb0n 5y ago
interesting. bmi would be on a bell curve for attractiveness, right? with too small being unattractive and then it becoming less attractive after a certain point. What is ideal bmi? i can look online myself but curious what your perspective is.
SunTzuWarmaster 5y ago
Two answers here:
1 - BMI is pretty lousy. Look at its history - It was essentially created as a Wild Ass Guess (WAG) for military/population fitness. In the specific - it is uncorrelated with strength, size, fitness, body fat percentage, or anything else. In the general - all the "18" BMI people can probably safely be considered "fit for boot camp".
2 - As part of (1), lower BMI is better (see the supplementary analysis - higher BMI, on the whole, is bad for attractiveness).
There was a reason that the original authors didn't include BMI measures (until reviewers forced them to, and then they buried it in a supplementary analysis webpage).
SunTzuWarmaster 5y ago
Exact followup - getting strong than an additional 15% of the general population is worth "1 point".
I am 5'9", 160, gymnast. Gaining 16-23 pounds bumps my BMI up 3 points.
You can think of 20 pounds vs. "stronger than additional 15% of population" as roughly equivalent in attractiveness. As such, putting on 10 pounds makes you more attractive if you get stronger; no surprise here, but the numbers work out mathematically.
Vikingcel 5y ago
More or less. The study says the women had a significant preference for leanness and height as well.
Truedemocracy4 5y ago
Leanness and strength don’t go hand and hand
[deleted]
Vikingcel 5y ago
Women don't care. They want a guy with abs who's strong as fuck as well.
[deleted] 5y ago
[deleted]
FatmanO 5y ago
Abs on a skinny guy is like big tits on a woman
​
JurassicSteven1 5y ago
Lol did anyone look at the pictures they used.
tb0n 5y ago
Yes I’m confused. Are those the examples of strong men they used?
nakedborg 5y ago
No, they are showing the two types of shots used (sets 1 & 2).
FrancisNevettshire 5y ago
The one guy has really poor posture but overall they look relatively fit, don't they? I mean not veteran lifters but okay lean and with some muscle.
AutoModerator 5y ago
Why are we quarantined? The admin don't want you to know.
Register on our backup site: https://www.trp.red and reserve your reddit name today.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[deleted]
memphisjohn 5y ago
Directionally correct and obvious, but they missed one big measurement - perceived total width from should to shoulder. A broad guy with skinny arms still looks bigger than a skinny guy with jacked shoulders.