Misogyny/MRA is a sign of weakness

Post Reply New Topic

That's what kills me about this discussion.

"Weight-lifting" and "body-building" are not the same thing. Furthermore, someone's "fitness" is not measured solely by how "muscular" they appear, nor is the supposed "difficultly" of their workout (people who run ultras are typically not very "muscular," but anyone who says they don't train hard is a #$%^ing moron).

Anyway, not to add yet another anecdote, but, at my most active, I was running 35 miles a week, lifting weights for an hour and a half three times a week, and attending three-hour-long Brazilian ju-jitsu classes twice a week. Additionally, I had to get up at 0500 every morning because I was in charge of running the "fat kid" remedial PT program for my unit.

However, I never achieved a "six pack" nor did I ever look like a super model. I was never "muscular" either.

With regard to:

http://www.bodyfatguide.com/CelebrityBodyFat.html

Ejem... Marilyn Monroe... 7.64% fat? Seriously???

http://ris.fashion.telegraph.co.uk/Rich ... 99549a.jpg

Y'know, I've got nothing against a good gender argument, but this has become one of dumbest I've ever read. Seriously, I'd like to know why any of you are bothering with it.

I'm enjoying all the male tears, personally.

Because it's been slow on WP lately and I've been trying to distract myself from the recent death of my cockatiel.

Ultimately, I couldn't care less what over-paid celebrities do to be pretty, and I think anyone, male or female, who stresses out over trying to look like them deserves what they get.

What your body "wants to" is besides the point. The higher your bodyfat percentage, the higher the fat/muscle ratio from weight loss will be; the lower the bodyfat, the lower the fat/muscle ratio from weight loss will be.

There's litteraly no such thing as starvation mode or set points. Carrying a 200 lb body requires more energy than carrying a 120 lb body--and the former will require more just to keep the core body temperature at 100 degrees fahrenheit.

Like I said: The laws of thermodynamics are universal. Eat less, and after a few weeks or months, you'll be significantly leaner. Your body can't adjust the resting metabolic rate down to below the basal metabolic rate; this is as feasible as faster-than-light travel or perpetual motion machines.



I know everything one needs to know about weight loss. I first went from 270 lbs to 160 lbs and then bulked up enough muscle to reach about 225 lbs.



The fact that you seriously believed that Teri Hatcher had 4.7% bodyfat, proves that you know very little about what bodyfat and lean mass really is.

Like I said:



Very rarely do you see actresses below 18%, but 20% seems to be the mean. You have some that are constantly shredded and fairly muscular after their careers are over the hill (Sarah Jessica Parker, Madonna and so on), but most Hollywood acresses generally stay between 18 and 22%--with no more than average levels of muscle mass. As a reference, Angelina Jolie in the second Tomb Raider movie was 20% bodyfat (allthough at her most shredded, when you could see the veins in her arms, she was probably at around 15%).



I'm well aware of that. Body building will automatically make you stronger, though--and if weight lifting is done the right way, it will give you more muscle.

And running an ultra marathon would be beneficial in Hollywood because? It's reasonable to assume most actors and actresses do not run regular marathons, nor half marathons or ultra marathons.

Actually, there's too much focus on stamina in most phys. ed. classes in both elementary and high school--and too little on strength.





Because you carried more than 15% bodyfat, which the fitness women do for 50 weeks of the year as well. Hollywood actresses do not have six-pack abs either.

Looking like a supermodel doesn't have much to do with fitness; it's about staying between 18 and 22% bodyfat (20-22% is probably the most common, as most have no muscle definition) and having various God given assets (i.e. big eyes, rounded hips, large breasts etc.). No exercise is generally needed, as evidenced by the fact that many of the Hollywood divas don't workout nearly as hard as the men do.

I do heavy baselifts and have 18.5" biceps without being overweight; I don't look like a Hollywood actor either, because I'm not at 8% bodyfat and I do not wan't to lose a sh!tload of muscle mass getting there either.

If you weren't muscular, you either didn't lift heavy enough (i.e. you didn't progressively overload your muscles) or you didn't eat enough protein. You need 0.9 grams per pound of bodyweight to a actually gain muscle at a decent pace. I was at the gym today, litterally all the girls were easily at the same bf levels as most Hollywood actresses; pretty much everyone who lifted were more muscular as well. One really hot chick who asked me to spot repped 135 lbs at the bench press and repped 45 lb dumbbells at the incline press.

5% isn't impossible, it's extremely unhealthy. If you lack enough fat, you don't necessarily die; you just start experiencing negative health consequences. More negative consequences the less fat you have.

Wrt. Marilyn Monroe:
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php ... ize-12-16/

Essential fat for a woman is 9-10%. You can't cut down to half of that and still live. If it's possible, then please explain why female bodybuilders on every androgenic drug known to man in only exceptional cases reach less than 11%.

As far as Marilyn Monroe goes, she was a size 6; fairly lean, but not underweight.

5% fat on a male isn't impossible and it's quite common, I just don't think/know if it'd be possible on a female simply because I don't think any female has ever done it and lived to tell about it. And wiki says this:


But I dunno, Kurgan linked to a woman who was 7%, who presumably was the leanest woman ever. I'm gonna say 5% is impossible, I mean I'm sure with enough drugs it's possible, but since women pretty much have double the amount of essential fat needs as men, I'd presume it'd take a LOT more drugs (which is to say the woman would be a female Andreas Munzer and promptly die after achieving such a feat.)

Actually, "fitness" doesn't have much to do with staying between 18 and 22% body fat either.



....which you still haven't established.

Whether or not a person looks "muscular" does not determine how difficult their workout is.



No, it's because I'm built like a scarecrow and I don't have the luxury of focusing exclusively on "size."

Last edited by XFilesGeek on 09 Jun 2013, 2:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

Intermittent wi-fi has led to the loss of about half an hour's work of link searching, and frankly I don't care enough to repeat it.

Now you see, friends? Feminists vampirically feed their evil ways with the despair of the men they crush beneath their stylish heels

I actually don't think protein intake in number of grams has much to do with muscle size, actually. Studies by actual scientists (and not bodybuilding broz) have concluded that power/strength athletes only need about 1.6g max per kilo of bodyweight. Even an old Russian study from the 80s studying Olympic weightlifters said they needed to up their protein to a whopping 16-18% of calories with training loads being about 7 tons. Most bodybuilding people are WAY over that. 16-18% is pretty attainable eating entirely "normally" without any supplements/eating a pound of meat a day/etc. I think what determines "size" is pretty simply, caloric intake. However, with caloric intake, a point of diminished returns comes, ie, you can eat 8-10K calories a day and gain a ton of muscle, and a ton of fat with it. The body needs calories to create muscle mass, and most "mass" is simply water anyway, as far as it's weight in pounds. Same way a pound of meat becomes like 3-4oz of beef jerky once it's dehydrated. Sergio Oliva, probably the "biggest" bodybuilder before growth hormone and insulin came along, would post workout have an entire large pepperoni pizza and a liter or two of Coca Cola. Supposedly he'd also say "CALORIES AND WATER, BABY!" The reasoning is, insulin is actually more anabolic than testosterone, but if you have fat cells, it'll shuttle triglycerides into fat cells, thus making you fat. Loads and loads of carbs=lots of insulin.

Anyway, not that this is relevant to you (or me really, for the same reason) as you compete in a weight classed sport and generally you want to have the most power to weight ratio, but if you ever one day decided you wanted to be hyoogzors for no real reason at all, yeah. But that's the way to "get big." This makes most logical sense, as muscle strength isn't really correlated to muscle size at all. Muscle strength is more neurological, your brain having the ability to fire off muscle cells with the right timing and activate more of them. The other limiting factor is tendon/ligament strength. This is the reason why a 110lb mother can lift a car off a child in an emergency, there's enough "strength" in the muscles to do it, but the body doesn't normally let you just lift cars whenever you feel like it, because you'll probably break a lot of stuff in the process.

Anyway, since we're so far OT...

And Hollywood's standard's don't expect fitness or exercising from the female actresses either. Hollywood does indeed epect men to exercise, though.


Irrelevant. Endurance isn't required in most roles and it doesn't affect your appearance, thus, once can safely assume most people in Hollywood does not run 35 miles per week.



Linda Hamilton was like a scarecrow before preparing for Terminator 2. If it was all genetics that affected one person's muscularity, 99.5% of all Hollywood actresses would have more muscle mass than an average woman.