The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding • Hacker News Board

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#211

Post by Lopiolis » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 2:53 AM UTC

valenterry wrote: post #210

Guthur wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd strongly second resistance training, it doesn't really take that much time either. A simple program like Starting Strength will have you train for not much more than 60 minutes three days a week and you'll make significant strength gains up to 1.5x body weight easily.

Speaking in effective time, it is obviously more than 60 minutes, I would say rather 160 minutes in the beginning and then getter lower with experience and getting used to it. Resistance training is great, but let's not oversell it to others! A beginner not only needs to buy stuff (or commute to/from the gym) and create their plan and schedule it, they also need to account for spending extra time to correct their pos…

> Speaking in effective time, it is obviously more than 60 minutes, I would say rather 160 minutes in the beginning and then getter lower with experience and getting used to it.

I seriously disagree with this. 60 minutes is more than sufficient if you aren't screwing around. I also think it's baffling that people are still recommending Starting Strength when there are far more efficient and productive programs to start off with.

Especially as a beginner, you can get a significant training stimulus without having to waste 2-3 hours of your day. How absurd. Think 80/20. I even think spending that much time would be more detrimental than beneficial in the beginning.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#212

Post by SamPatt » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 2:54 AM UTC

Retric wrote: post #90

rmah wrote: post #82

I usually don't read articles like this, but it was so well written that I was sort of sucked into it. What was most interesting to me was not the various controversies about body aesthetics or even health consequences. What stood out to me was the author's description in the early parts of the article of how much she seemed to crave the approval of strangers, especially men. It was thought provoking and I'm still pr…

You don’t need that validation, but it’s still very noticeable. The difference between being slightly overweight and ripped is shocking. The world is suddenly a different place where you show up at a large party and several hot women hit on you etc. Granted you need to be otherwise attractive, but it’s not just women men also treat you more positively. Women see a wider range of responses, yet it’s still generally a…

The difference from being obese to being fit has been night and day for me.

Self confidence plays a role so it's a sort of self fulfilling prophecy, but there's no question others treat you differently.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#213

Post by graeme » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 3:01 AM UTC

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #193

DoreenMichele wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was a ridiculously cute little girl and I'm pretty damn sure a lot of my social issues as a young adult were rooted in getting essentially trained to play to the crowd as a toddler. At that age, it's a form of brainwashing and it's amazingly hard to root out after you become an adult and are puzzled that your antics no longer get you adoration. (PSA: Please don't do this to your own children. It's an awful thing to…

On a tangentially related note, I've noticed that many heterosexual men imagine the comedian Felix Kjellberg (AKA Pewdiepie) must be the height of attractiveness for women, while few heterosexual women find him particularly attractive. I found this very confusing, but after a few discussions with heterosexual female friends of mine we've come to the conclusion that the kind of playfulness and disinhibition this perso…

Do you mean personality wise?

Physically, I just googled and found he won a most beautiful faces award this year and consistently ranked on the same list. Never heard of TC Candler but their youtube lists have millions of views. I doubt he’s actually objectively #1 but clearly they don’t think he’s unattractive.

There’s a lot of variance in female taste, so you frequently see comments along the lines of “[Objectively attractive celebrity X] is not attractive AT ALL”. And the comment is true, for that woman.

But it’s very risky to generalize based on a small sample, especially if it’s all from your personal bubble. I guarantee that if Pewdiepie wasn’t famous and you put his photos on Tinder they would do well. He’s lean, young, 5’10”, has good skin and a reasonable fashion sense, and there’s nothing obviously wrong with his face. That alone more or less puts him in the 90% percentile.

https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/pewdiepie-most-handsome-20...

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#214

Post by asiachick » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 3:10 AM UTC

tkgally wrote: post #176

rmah wrote: post #82

I usually don't read articles like this, but it was so well written that I was sort of sucked into it. What was most interesting to me was not the various controversies about body aesthetics or even health consequences. What stood out to me was the author's description in the early parts of the article of how much she seemed to crave the approval of strangers, especially men. It was thought provoking and I'm still pr…

I also found the article fascinating for the insights the author shows about her own thoughts and motivations. When I started working out at a gym, when I was in my early fifties, I barely knew that bodybuilding existed. But the gym I happened to join in Tokyo turned out to be popular with amateur bodybuilders, and I exercised near them most evenings for more than ten years. I became acquainted with quite a few of th…

RE language acquisition, I often wonder how much is circumstance. I have an engineer friend who on the one hand is making excuses but he points out his job doesn't really require him to talk to anyone, further, his programming job is almost entirely in English, looking up API docs or language docs in English, writing code while thinking in English, further he's somewhat introverted. So, his language skills are not so great for the amount of time he's lived abroad. Conversely his sees socialite colleagues doing jobs that require interaction doing much better.

My point is, some adults don't need so much intrinsic motivation. Their situation effectively carries them or at least is a strong helpful push.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#215

Post by aksss » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 3:15 AM UTC

SamPatt wrote: post #212

Retric wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t need that validation, but it’s still very noticeable. The difference between being slightly overweight and ripped is shocking. The world is suddenly a different place where you show up at a large party and several hot women hit on you etc. Granted you need to be otherwise attractive, but it’s not just women men also treat you more positively. Women see a wider range of responses, yet it’s still generally a…

The difference from being obese to being fit has been night and day for me. Self confidence plays a role so it's a sort of self fulfilling prophecy, but there's no question others treat you differently.

Like walking into a bank wearing a suit and a good haircut vs ragged jeans and long hair. It’s also a big weakness of humans that they dole out trust this way, but it makes all the sense in the world that we do so.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#216

Post by aksss » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 3:23 AM UTC

Noumenon72 wrote: post #199

jlos wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The traits associated with technical skills definitely bump the distribution more to the side of 'neckbeard'. So, yes, most programmers are normal (well groomed, exercise, developed social skills) but the number people who show no compelling evidence they possess a theory of mind is noticably higher and account for the tropes.

I like that "no compelling evidence they possess a theory of mind". I spent some time worrying about what "people" would think when I was young, but never "what does that individual person think?" And I never spent any time trying to be attractive because I didn't find men attractive. Reddit helped me read everyone else's minds and made me more normal, but I still don't have conversations where I'm thinking "How are…

I see you, Larry David.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#217

Post by austhrow743 » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 3:30 AM UTC

valenterry wrote: post #210

Guthur wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd strongly second resistance training, it doesn't really take that much time either. A simple program like Starting Strength will have you train for not much more than 60 minutes three days a week and you'll make significant strength gains up to 1.5x body weight easily.

Speaking in effective time, it is obviously more than 60 minutes, I would say rather 160 minutes in the beginning and then getter lower with experience and getting used to it. Resistance training is great, but let's not oversell it to others! A beginner not only needs to buy stuff (or commute to/from the gym) and create their plan and schedule it, they also need to account for spending extra time to correct their pos…

Nope 60 minutes as a beginner sounds about right with correcting posture and whatnot. Once I was familiar with it that dropped right down. Starting Strength is a very minimal program.

Obviously no one is going to account for commute in how long a program takes. Some take hours to get to the nearest gym and others have home gyms.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#218

Post by robocat » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 3:32 AM UTC

darkerside wrote: post #181

Retric wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t need that validation, but it’s still very noticeable. The difference between being slightly overweight and ripped is shocking. The world is suddenly a different place where you show up at a large party and several hot women hit on you etc. Granted you need to be otherwise attractive, but it’s not just women men also treat you more positively. Women see a wider range of responses, yet it’s still generally a…

I'd say you probably don't even need to be attractive physically in terms of having a pretty face. If you've got a charming personality and you are reasonably in shape, you'll get plenty of attention. You're signaling that you have value and people act accordingly.

> you'll get plenty of attention

But qualitatively different attention IMHO.

Great looking guy with zero personality: shallow attention e.g. one-night stands or pure accessory.

Ugly guy with great personality: veer towards long-term relationships or maybe friend-zoning.

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#219

Post by robocat » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 3:44 AM UTC

kkielhofner wrote: post #188

linspace wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My reasoning is the following, and as someone who likes to do weight lifting I would love to be proved wrong: if steroids are not necessarily bad and we surely know they work wonders how is it possible that, in a world obsessed with looks and moving so much money in all kind of (absurd) products, they have not been legally commercialized somehow.

They absolutely have been legally commercialized. In the United States (and presumably elsewhere) you can easily find a doctor who will legally prescribe you a host of steroids, growth hormones, and various other "anti-aging medications". My understanding is that many of them don't do bloodwork to test existing hormone levels and many that do use very liberal interpretations of what standard levels in men should be a…

> medical "interventions" are prevalent in Hollywood and elsewhere. For example, Hugh Jackman

Another factor is that there is relentless competition from a huge number of people trying to become a famous star: severe filtering that will select for intensely driven people (amongst other attributes that would drive someone towards interventions).

Re: The Feminine Physique: On Women's Bodybuilding

#220

Post by gamblor956 » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 4:10 AM UTC

noarchy wrote: post #66

gamblor956 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern actors aren't as willing to sacrifice their health for muscle as their historical counterparts, especially because the lean look is preferred over the muscle-bound appearance of yesteryear. Thus, (with rare exceptions, like Christian Bale between The Machinist and Batman Begins ), what you see on screen today is hard-earned through hours a day in the gym, a very regimented diet, and hydration timing. Generally…

>while Pratt spent nearly 6 hours a day, 6 days a week, for over 6 months on cardio activities to cut weight for the first Guardians movie (as he already had the muscle for the character underneath his excess bulk and just needed to reveal them). The problem is that they tell these stories, and people believe it. If he had really done six hours of cardio per day he'd likely disappear and have no muscle. Diet and exer…

If he had really done six hours of cardio per day he'd likely disappear and have no muscle.

I suppose if you spend all of your day in front of a computer, you'll have difficulty understanding what the human body is capable of on its own with enough time and discipline and you'll just assume everyone is taking shortcuts. Najani isn't some special case; he's a prototypical example of "easy gains" that pretty much any guy can get with a year of dedicated training and diet if you're focused on muscular appearance rather than muscular performance. (For those who understand the lingo, this means he focused heavily on large fast-twitch muscles which grow quickly and easily, at the expense of the slow-twitch and medium twitch muscles that would relevant for most athletic performance.)

Members of the military routinely do 12+ hours a day of physical exercise, including hours of cardio, and yet none of them have problems disappearing (and only about 2.5% of military personnel use steroids). Triathletes, similarly, can spend 6 hours a day or more on exercise.

Cardio doesn't consume muscle unless you combine it with starvation. Muscles are the last-ditch choice of fuel. On a proper diet, cardio burns glycogen and fat. And if you're as fast as Pratt was when he started his that exercise regime, you've got plenty of fuel for hours of daily exercise, no steroids or hormones required (except for the ones your body generates itself in response to exercise and diet).