Why Males Prefer Skinny Look: Fashion or Society?

[rocketboy]

I agree, huge like arnold isn't very sexy. But neither is skin and bones. I mean, let's think of two guys at the beach. What are women going to be more attracted to, the guy who has no chest, no abs, stick legs and arms, and no "tone" or muscular figure...or are they going to be attracted to the guy with defined muscles...a moderately built chest, toned arms, good abs?

I think there is an in-between where muscles meet attractiveness. Too skinny (in my opinion) is definitely not attractive (for girls and guys) and too built and it's also not attractive.

The members who said the word proportion are right in my view. Attractive muscles are muscles that aren't too big for your body, but at the same time complete lack of any "build" certainly is not sexy.

 

[Evo]

I'm more attracted to the 92 lb weakling.

The only time I let myself go for looks was my second husband. He was Ivy League (pre-med at Yale, Graduated from Dartmouth, some post graduate at Harvard) so I figured what the heck, he's not grossly over built.

I have decided to go back to skinny scientists.

Here's my ex.

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/1264/dman6wy.jpg

 

[ShawnD]

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/1264/dman6wy.jpg

I have muscle tone sort of like that, but he has a nicer tan. Bastard :tongue:

 

[russ_watters]

Well there is plenty of evidence pointing towards steroids beeing very safe to use. I could expand on this if anyone is interested.

Whoa - don't let any of our biologists see you saying that. To believe that despite the overwhealming evidence is...scary. Please be careful.

 

[zoobyshoe]

sad that the general population look at that movie with that mindset. To me its the ultimate show of dedication. Arnold is to physiques what Einstein is to physics.

This wasn't the general population, but a population of fairly bright college students. I think the general population was somewhat more open minded about his physique. What killed the issue for anyone on the fence about it was the amazing conceit and self-agrandizement he demonstrated in that film. He doesn't talk that way about himself anymore, but it was years before he toned it down.

 

[Cyrus]

I'm more attracted to the 92 lb weakling.

The only time I let myself go for looks was my second husband. He was Ivy League (pre-med at Yale, Graduated from Dartmouth, some post graduate at Harvard) so I figured what the heck, he's not grossly over built.

I have decided to go back to skinny scientists.

Here's my ex.

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/1264/dman6wy.jpg

Mmmmmmmm, who wears short shorts? Good ole 1980. Even magnum PIs shorts were longer. Thats underewear with trim.

 

[Evo]

Mmmmmmmm, who wears short shorts? Good ole 1980. Even magnum PIs shorts were longer. Thats underewear with trim.

That's when bathing suits didn't look like tents.

 

[Cyrus]

Im going to see Evo on VH1, I love 85'.

 

[Evo]

Im going to see Evo on VH1, I love 85'.

Love 80's music, but the 90's were better (for me).

 

[Azael]

Whoa - don't let any of our biologists see you saying that. To believe that despite the overwhealming evidence is...scary. Please be careful.

well I would tell them to look at Dr Bhasin studies at first and then do some polls among steroids users to really find out what the side effects are. Not only look at the rare guy that has abused(note abused, not used) steroids.
I am daily in contact with thousands of steroid users on the internet and I know atleast 20 irl that has been using for years and years and they always return with perfect bloodwork after doc visits. On the 4-5 years I have spent on online bodybuilding/fitness/steroid communitys I don't think I have once heard of one serious side effect in someone that knows what they are doing.

I don't think the avarage joe has any ide of how many steroid users there really are and how the majority never show any dangerous side effects.

I would also tell them to read this book, http://www.legalmusclebooks.com/ written by a lawyer that has specialised in defending steroid users in court. It cuts right through the myts and rumors spread around.

The schedualing of steroids was the biggest legal misstake any nation has ever made. To even compare steroids to rec drugs is a insult. No surprise that the majority of the medical comunity was against the schedualing.

Not trying to sound arrogant since I am honestly far from that. But I would welcom a debate with any biologist here. I would probably have to pull in some help from the docs/biologists on the steroid forums though since I don't have any credentials to back up my words.

 

[Azael]

This wasn't the general population, but a population of fairly bright college students. I think the general population was somewhat more open minded about his physique. What killed the issue for anyone on the fence about it was the amazing conceit and self-agrandizement he demonstrated in that film. He doesn't talk that way about himself anymore, but it was years before he toned it down.

Yeah he is truly a ******* in that movie no doubt. But it wasnt a true documentary. It was staged in many way to make arnold look superior and to make ferrigno look like a semi retard.
Arnold would probably have killed hos own mother to get ontop of the game and I bet he is still like that. Got to admire the drive, even if the methods are dubious.

When talking about pumping iron. If you remeber the third competitior in arnolds height class. Serge nubret. He has what I could call a perfect balance betwen muscularity and symmetri. His legs are a bit skinny. But if ignoring that his body is pure perfection. He still looks like that and is well into his 60's.

Im not suprised that college students dislike it more than the general population. Academics and strenght sports doesn't seem to go hand in hand for some weird reason.

 

[russ_watters]

...polls among steroids users to really find out what the side effects are.

I don't suppose those guys are having their sperm counts checked on a regular basis, or taking calipers to their testicles, are they? In any case, how do you think side effects are determined? Anecdotal evidence from satisfied customers is not a scientific way to gage it - in fact, you are asking precisely the wrong people. The people you want to ask are the ones who stopped taking steroids. Also, the worst side effects are the long-term ones that haven't manifested yet due to the age of the users. It'll be interesting to see what Arnold dies from.

Dr Bhasin...

...Did a study of the effect of steroids on muscle mass. Everyone already knows steroids increase muscle mass. That doesn't have anything to do with what the potential problems are with steroid use.

Beyond all that, doesn't steroid use detract from the "dedication" point you mentioned earlier? Steroids reduce the dedication required, and to me, that lessens the accomplishment.

Regarding classification, I'm not certain, but I don't think steroids are considered recreational drugs, just controlled substances. Steroids have a wide variety of legitimate medical uses.

 

[Astronuc]

One bad side effect of steroids is that the increased concentration in the body/blood stream suppresses the normal production in the body and those endocrine tissues may be adversely affected. One potential side effect is testicular atrophy.

 

[Monique]

The Russians used to secretly drug their top athletes, which I once saw a documentary on. There was a woman who had been on steroids since a young girl, her physique had been totally distroyed so she decided to continue her life as a guy, really sad.

 

[Azael]

I don't suppose those guys are having their sperm counts checked on a regular basis, or taking calipers to their testicles, are they? In any case, how do you think side effects are determined? Anecdotal evidence from satisfied customers is not a scientific way to gage it - in fact, you are asking precisely the wrong people.

Well offcourse they take sperm counts and offcourse they are very very low while they are on steroids as well as LH. But that is something all steroid users accept. Since the sperm count shoots up through the roof post cycle with proper suplementation(clomid, hcg, arimidex ect). It takes a few months to get all the levels back to normal after a cycle of steroids. But only a few have to go on HRT when they get older. But that is a acceptable risk most steroid users take. Its not in anyway a deadly consquense. I can tell you straight away that I have never heard of one single person going sterile because of steroids and neither have anyone else that I know. You might not like personal experiences as any kind of evidence, neither do I realy. But if the risk was big certainly I would have heard of atleast one.

Why I don't think asking steroid uses are wrong is because there is almost NO studies done on aas in the dosage ranges that is interesting.
The 2 that I can remember straight out is one where they did a dubble blind test with 500mg/testosterone week to se if those levels of testosterone increases agression. It didnt. I can't remember the name of the study or the one in charge of it but I can probably look it up.
Another one is
"Bhasin S THE EFFECTS OF SUPRAPHYSIOLOGIC DOSES OF TESTOSTERONE
ON MUSCLE SIZE AND STRENGTH IN NORMAL MEN The New England
Journal of Medicine VOLUME 335 JULY 4, 1996 NUMBER 1"

One steriod where more studies has been done is Oxymetholone, dosages comonly used to thread anemia and wasting disorders is as high if not even higher than what steroid users use. To no surprise it shows liver toxicity. But other than the liver toxicity and the rare case where water retention causes to high bloodpressure I am not aware of any other long term side effects. You could possibly explain that away to its incredibly weak binding to the androgen receptors though.


Why I think its crucial to ask steroid users about side is because a lot of steroid users do regular health checkups. Cholesterol, bloodpressure, liver and kidney values ect. So monitoring what values they have is a very effective way of seeing what impacts steroids have on health. If you have enough people doing it it becomes pretty convincing evidence. Acctualy a doctor in göteborg(Thord rosen) in sweden is doing a study now. Steroid users can go to him for free and get health checkups and he will use the results of all those checkups. It will be very interesting when he publishes the results.

The worst side effect of steroids imo is that most steroids, especialy the heavy androgenic, raise LDL, lower HDL and raise homocysteine. But those 3 things can easily be balanced out with proper diet and supplementation.

If steroids are used responsibly in a knowlegable way they are safe. If the regular joe goes to the local dealer, buys a bunch of anadrol or dianabol and starts cramming down 20 tabs a day indefenetly offcourse he will suffer consequenses.

The people you want to ask are the ones who stopped taking steroids. Also, the worst side effects are the long-term ones that haven't manifested yet due to the age of the users. It'll be interesting to see what Arnold dies from. ...Did a study of the effect of steroids on muscle mass. Everyone already knows steroids increase muscle mass. That doesn't have anything to do with what the potential problems are with steroid use.

Well I guess we can say that almost all elite athletes are doing a experiment right now. If steroids are so lethal in the long run we are going to se not only powerlifters and bodybuilders dropping dead. We will se a lot of elite sprinters, martial artists, rugby, football players, shot putters ect drop dead. offcourse football and wrestlers(the wwe stuff not real wreastling) is at even higher risk because of the insane pain killer abuse.
Arnold is over 55 now if I don't remember wrong and he started using steroids as a 16 year old. I think long term side effects should have shown themself in his case by now...

Beyond all that, doesn't steroid use detract from the "dedication" point you mentioned earlier? Steroids reduce the dedication required, and to me, that lessens the accomplishment.

No not realy. You got to realize that in bodybuilding and powerlifting there is no possible way to be a contender without steroids. You just can not grow that big or get that strong without steroids and possibly other anabolic substances like GH, insulin or igf-1.
Even at the absolutely lowest amature level everyone is using steroids. Using steroids in those sports(and sprinting, weightlifting and other explosive sports for that matter) is a neccesity if you compete. In professional bodybuilding it isn't even against the rules to use steroids.

It does in no way reduce the dedication required. It just makes the hard work pay off more. I can promise you that competitive bodybuilding is one of the mentaly most straining sports imaginable. The dieting most of all and the endless hours of cardio. It is a 24 hour a day comitment for those that compete. Even more so than most sports at elite level. its not possible to be more dedicated. Its hard to explain how utterly exhausting mentaly and physicaly a hard cutting diet is.

Regarding classification, I'm not certain, but I don't think steroids are considered recreational drugs, just controlled substances. Steroids have a wide variety of legitimate medical uses.

Steroids are schedual 3. So in the eyes of the law they are the same as ketamin and some hallucinogens.

Anyway sorry for this very long post. But this is a subject I am very interested in.

 

[Azael]

The Russians used to secretly drug their top athletes, which I once saw a documentary on. There was a woman who had been on steroids since a young girl, her physique had been totally distroyed so she decided to continue her life as a guy, really sad.

I totaly agree, its sad what the eastern block strenght coaches did to the poor girls back than.

 

[Azael]

One bad side effect of steroids is that the increased concentration in the body/blood stream suppresses the normal production in the body and those endocrine tissues may be adversely affected. One potential side effect is testicular atrophy.

thats quite easily prevented or reversed with gonadotropins.