• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Why Girls Love The Dad Bod

Status
Not open for further replies.
I know it's been proven that all newborn babies prefer to look at beautiful faces over unattractive faces. So I decided to look it up. Babies do not have the same preference for physiques like they do for faces. This study clames babies actually looked more at "chubbier physiques over more attractive toned figures, particularly when looking at men." This doesn't seem to manifest till 9 months. 6-month-olds displayed no particular preference for attractive or unattractive bodies and 3-month-olds could not tell the difference between the two body shapes.

So there you go. The science seems to back this up at the moment.

I had to laugh at the article title, since I find chubbier bodies much more attractive, at least in most cases on men.
 
What PEDs do you think she takes, because I know multiple military bodybuilders who absolutely don't take anything and look that big and ripped (both male and female).
This topic is really infuriating to me.
I look like those actors ALL the time, and I have for the past 10 years straight. There are times when I only have a 4 pack and times when I have an 8 pack (which is genetics) and I eat what I want when I want. I very rarely cut weight to get low body fat and would be considered on a "foreverbulk." I'm 40+ years old and I have a life and enjoy it. It's not rocketsurgery folks, and it's not PEDs.

Oh, and I workout because I don't just like it, I love it.
I have nothing against PEDs. I just don't believe she's completely clean. That's all.

Bodybuilding, even with the natural circuit, are full of people who dope.

Competitive Bodybuilding is just very tough on the body. Getting to those single digit body fat percentage wrecks havoc on your hormonal systems.

Many people don't just use PEDs for size, but to prevent the effects of hormonal shutdown.

Again, I have nothing against PEDs. I don't think they're unethical.

They've only been made illegal in the 90s. That's very recently.

I'm also not naive to believe that they're gone from sports, where millions are on the line.

I don't view them as cheat mode either. It takes work.

I'm not criticizing her dedication or effort. I just don't think that physique was achieved naturally.
 
See. I just want to look like this:

tumblr_ndbemnqv1K1qeq602o9_400.jpg

I don't ask for much. Just to have the body of a world class athlete who gets paid millions to keep himself in tip top shape.
 
I have nothing against PEDs. I just don't believe she's completely clean. That's all.

Bodybuilding, even with the natural circuit, are full of people who dope.

Competitive Bodybuilding is just very tough on the body. Getting to those single digit body fat percentage wrecks havoc on your hormonal systems.

Many people don't just use PEDs for size, but to prevent the effects of hormonal shutdown.

Again, I have nothing against PEDs. I don't think they're unethical.

They've only been made illegal in the 90s. That's very recently.

I'm also not naive to believe that they're gone from sports, where millions are on the line.

I don't view them as cheat mode either. It takes work.

I'm not criticizing her dedication or effort. I just don't think that physique was achieved naturally.
That doesn't really address my point at all.
She might not be on any PEDs.
I know plenty of people that size who don't do them.
Whenever I want to get that size, I don't use them.
I don't care if someone takes them or not. I won't. I don't need to, and I've lifted with people who took them as well and I still got bigger and leaner than them. So?
Edit: That physique can be achieved naturally. I've also been accused of using PEDs, and it's REALLY insulting to my dedication....lol, and also a little bit complementary in a weird way :D (to keep things light)
 
That doesn't really address my point at all.
She might not be on any PEDs.
I know plenty of people that size who don't do them.
Whenever I want to get that size, I don't use them.
I don't care if someone takes them or not. I won't. I don't need to, and I've lifted with people who took them as well and I still got bigger and leaner than them. So?
Edit: That physique can be achieved naturally. I've also been accused of using PEDs, and it's REALLY insulting to my dedication....lol, and also a little bit complementary in a weird way :D (to keep things light)

People in Hollywood don't do PEDs because they can't reach those sizes. They do them to get those physiques fast.

Most of the Hollywood physiques, save for The Rock, who is a mass monster, are attainable naturally with good training and diet.

You should take it as compliment, besides unless you're making money of your physique, why worry about other people speculate? Do you.

If she's not on PEDs, she's not them. I'm just highly skeptical personally. Again, that's not to shit on her dedication.

I don't think PEDs are magic bullets.

Heck, Arnold was on them, and he was a gym rat. He wasn't lazy.

I'm actually a pro PED myself. And I feel the current view on them is just faux moral outrage.

I don't use since I don't make money off my body or physique
 
How fast? Because again, I can bulk and cut faster and better than people on PEDs when we are given the same amount of time.

I might be a genetic freak, but I've also prepared workouts and nutrition for people that amazes them with their effectiveness.

I also realized my second point was more aimed at another poster who quoted the actor's photos. My bad.
 
Also, we're sort of derailing the thread now. My bad again.

On topic, I'm not worried about what these women like.
I've been married for 20 years and my wife is a fitness instructor and an amazing renaissance woman, so.....yeah, winning.
 
How fast? Because again, I can bulk and cut faster and better than people on PEDs when we are given the same amount of time.

I might be a genetic freak, but I've also prepared workouts and nutrition for people that amazes them with their effectiveness.

I also realized my second point was more aimed at another poster who quoted the actor's photos. My bad.

I've seen your photos. You have a strong foundation already.

Many of these actors did not previously. Look at Henry Cavill as an example. Dude blew up quickly.
 
I bulked pretty quickly back in 07'
Probably a 30 pound gain in less than 6 months.
But I did have a good amount of lean body mass going in. Thanks to my awesome wife and, believe it or not, body-for-life :D
 
The issue isn't achieving that type of body. Yes, it can be achieved naturally. The point in question is how fast they reached it. You aren't putting on 25 lbs of muscle in 5 months. Just isn't happening naturally.
 
The issue isn't achieving that type of body. Yes, it can be achieved naturally. The point in question is how fast they reached it. You aren't putting on 25 lbs of muscle in 5 months. Just isn't happening naturally.

Um, it did for me....oh, wait, I did use the drug...creatine! Dun dun duuuuuuuuun!
(And no, it wasn't all water weight because I maintained 25lbs of my 30 pound bulk after stopping the creatine.
 
Some people want to work out because they want to improve their current life style (lose weight, get stronger, whatever)

Just because a friend likes to workout, doesn't mean they are meatheads or whatever. It's a hobby.

I'm sorry. When I first posted that, I thought meatheads was an endearing term. I've known some guys who own that term, so it didn't occur to me that it was offensive.

That said, I don't understand the need to get stronger stronger stronger unless you're in a physically demanding job. Most of Western society is not. So it's a different kind of excess to me. That's why I find slim and fit attractive but not ripped or cut like most super heros and body builders.
 
Again, this is false and needs to be corrected. We see variance all the way from ~.65 to ~1 across entire cultures (let alone individuals), and this seems to be a trade off between estrogen and androgen.

The fact that women, pragmatically, tend not to have sexually "ideal" proportions, on average, in most societies isn't necessarily disproving of the idea that that ideal exists. Indeed, the relative rarity of individuals that match that ideal is what makes it, well, an ideal, and ideals exists to judge other things against, not to be adhered to strictly. Indeed, the authors even mention that A) a low WHR does seem to correlate with longevity and fecundity, and B) less sexual attraction to men as a tradeoff that women in societies with higher average WHR make, one that does not necessarily reduce their fitness levels if there are compensating advantages that make them more able to raise children in their particular environment. Indeed, the point of the paper seems to be that the male sexual ideal, while it is able to shift a little bit toward a higher WHR to match the reality of the female population around them, is not the be-all and end-all of what is evolutionarily fit in a given environment, which is not at all incompatible with what I said in the first place - namely, that a lower waist-to-hip ratio is what men seem to gravitate toward, sexually, in terms of what they prefer in the abstract, unless there is a counterbalancing political and/or socioeconomic reality that makes such low WHR either impractical or a marker of an undesirable status or temperament within that society.

Couldn't you say the same things about current fitness levels? You seem to be suggesting that before it was just cultural influence, but now we have returned to our "natural" or "correct" preferences.

I suggest both are heavily culturally influenced.

How is that what I'm suggesting? My point is that non-heaviness is what is preferred, in terms of sexual attractiveness, by the vast majority of human societies, probably because overweight and obesity can be actively difficult (though, admittedly, not impossible) to achieve in the absence of modern dietary options, but that heaviness can be a marker of something deemed culturally more important or desirable in mate selection than pure appearance, especially since human culture can loop back around on itself and push such things to extremes, e.g. cultures where women are artificially fattened to almost cartoonish proportions in order to create the illusion of wealth and status. (Things that, incidentally, humans in our own society are often attracted to and oriented around, albeit with different markers.)

I agree that they exist, no question. Symmetry is the primary example. But these tend to be hugely overstated, as people tend to believe that beauty is more persistent and consistent than it actually is.

In other words, there are both cultural and genetic influences in what we find appealing, but people tend to overestimate the genetic or innate preferences significantly, and particularly tend to believe that our current culture is closer to the "correct" or "natural" ideal.

I don't necessarily think that the people that actually live in our modern culture are any closer to an ideal, but I definitely think the figures we depict in our media hover in the neighborhood of that partially, but not indefinitely malleable ideal. You may see fluctuations, which I never denied, but Beyonce looks a heck of a lot more like Grace Kelly looks a lot more like Setsuko Hara than any of them look (or looked) like average women of the societies they inhabit(ed).
 
What PEDs do you think she takes, because I know multiple military bodybuilders who absolutely don't take anything and look that big and ripped (both male and female).
This topic is really infuriating to me.
I look like those actors ALL the time, and I have for the past 10 years straight. There are times when I only have a 4 pack and times when I have an 8 pack (which is genetics) and I eat what I want when I want. I very rarely cut weight to get low body fat and would be considered on a "foreverbulk." I'm 40+ years old and I have a life and enjoy it. It's not rocketsurgery folks, and it's not PEDs.

Oh, and I workout because I don't just like it, I love it.
Women typically don't have enough testosterone to support that much muscle at such a low body weight. Shredded, 3D abs, capped delts and massive traps are exceedingly rare on a natty of that gender.
 
OK :)
Except I did.
I like you Mook but you need to slow down on the insistence that you put on 25-30 pounds of muscle in 6 months. I don't deny that you truly believe you did but that's impossible naturally and especially so for an experienced lifter like yourself.
 
Women typically don't have enough testosterone to support that much muscle at such a low body weight. Shredded, 3D abs, capped delts and massive traps are exceedingly rare on a natty of that gender.

Nope, not typically, they don't.
But there are plenty of things they can do, including working out and diet, that can help them attain that.
A natural bodybuilder (truly) that knows their body enough to bulk and cut effectively can attain it.
I'm not going to say, specifically for the linked example, that it's as easy to achieve as it would be for a male at all.
 
I like you Mook but you need to slow down on the insistence that you put on 25-30 pounds of muscle in 6 months. I don't deny that you truly believe you did but that's impossible naturally and especially so for an experienced lifter like yourself.
Not really. I had just come off an extended rest period because of an injury followed by a lean period as stated. I then bulked exclusively with nothing to do but eat all I wanted to and work out for those 6 months (Navy deployment).
It was during this time that I was also accused of taking PEDs, which I didn't.
I ate A LOT and all the time including mid-rats and protein shakes, and even junk, and then I cut a bit at the end. I still have my workout log which is extensive.
But believe it or don't, I don't really care. I lived it. And like I said, it was probably 30 pounds of weight with a 5 pound loss of fluids and fluctuation at the end.

This was the end result. I look pretty much the same right now because this weight has been my plateau for a long time.

~160 to ~185 from 26 Feb 2007 to 28 August 2007

I hit 200lbs one time during another extended deployment with a lot of food and focus, but it was too much weight to sustain while still remaining quick during my running.

I've pretty much hovered around 190 since then.
 
You're crazy. But, seriously, I would say majority yeah it's personality. But, you can't deny looks are a big factor when it comes to liking someone.

For men yeah. I think women tend to dig deeper. Looks to women mean do you take care of yourself rather than are you ripped.
 
Women's no 1 preference has been and will always be the face in terms of what they deem as most important to be attractive.

That's the moneymaker right there. Strangely, men don't have the same priorities, which is a shame.


Have a pretty face.
 
Women's no 1 preference has been and will always be the face in terms of what they deem as most important to be attractive.

That's the moneymaker right there. Strangely, men don't have the same priorities, which is a shame.


Have a pretty face.

Good luck changing a face.
 
Let me just say that everyone in this thread has been taken for a ride. This "trend" is not a trend. It's satire. The fact that this thread has turned into discussion regarding proper body types is strange. Don't worry gym-goers, your muscular and fit figure is still safe.
 
Nope, not typically, they don't.
But there are plenty of things they can do, including working out and diet, that can help them attain that.
A natural bodybuilder (truly) that knows their body enough to bulk and cut effectively can attain it.
I'm not going to say, specifically for the linked example, that it's as easy to achieve as it would be for a male at all.
It's not a matter of diet or exercise. You need a certain amount of testosterone to keep that much muscle on your frame, and women don't naturally produce enough of it to achieve that look. She either has a genetic abnormality or she is taking anabolic steroids.
 
Not really. I had just come off an extended rest period because of an injury followed by a lean period as stated. I then bulked exclusively with nothing to do but eat all I wanted to and work out for those 6 months (Navy deployment).
It was during this time that I was also accused of taking PEDs, which I didn't.
I ate A LOT and all the time including mid-rats and protein shakes, and even junk, and then I cut a bit at the end. I still have my workout log which is extensive.
But believe it or don't, I don't really care. I lived it. And like I said, it was probably 30 pounds of weight with a 5 pound loss of fluids and fluctuation at the end.

This was the end result. I look pretty much the same right now because this weight has been my plateau for a long time.

~160 to ~185 from 26 Feb 2007 to 28 August 2007

I hit 200lbs one time during another extended deployment with a lot of food and focus, but it was too much weight to sustain while still remaining quick during my running.

I've pretty much hovered around 190 since then.
What you may be overlooking here is that even lean weight gain is not all muscle. If you gain 30lbs and stay at the same bodyfat %, you will still have added fat. Most people will add a few % bf as well, even during a clean bulk. Plus the additional retention of water and glycogen that comes with the extra weight and even a little increase in assorted bits and pieces like bone density, connective tissue etc... You may have put on 30lbs relatively cleanly in 6 months (although if you were regaining prior mass there's actually a difference in how the body reacts so "put on" isn't the most accurate), but that's not the same as 30lbs of muscle alone. That's not to downplay your efforts, it's just that the conversation can easily get confused when people are talking about different studies on the limits of muscle growth, personal anecdotes and eyeballing numbers for movie stars, or even worse, taking them (or their trainers) at their word!
 
Women have different tastes. News at 11.

What I find worrying is all the people trying to explain that it's better (in any way other than taste) to have a belly rather than be fit. Do people not understand the consequences of having a gut like a lot of the photos posted on the link at the OP, compared to having a fit body? Not visually and not regarding how many girls you can or cannot attract, but rather health issues that can come up years later.

I'm not saying people should strive for being a bodybuilder (hell, I don't like it either, but good for the people aiming for that!), but being fit is, if nothing else, healthy. Don't like it? Then don't do it. But don't try to make it sound like it's a bad thing to be fit.
 
Not that hard to do. Depending on your starting line. Some of us start out pretty damn puny.

Yea, it's not that ridiculous of a sentiment as some people think. My buddy went from being a 130-140 twig to a 70-180, with solid dedication and, nutrition, and creatine.
Not 100% sure of the timeline, it wasn't 6 months but it was still relatively fast.
 
Women's no 1 preference has been and will always be the face in terms of what they deem as most important to be attractive.

That's the moneymaker right there. Strangely, men don't have the same priorities, which is a shame.


Have a pretty face.

I do, face and personality, an ugly personality is the single biggest turn off.

And for me vanity is pretty ugly.
 
I think people are confusing "I gained 30lbs of muscle/fat tissue and have some water retention in 6 months" with "I gained 30lbs of muscle in 6 months!"

Think about it. 30lbs of muscle in 6 months is over a pound of muscle gained a week which is scientifically absurd.
 
Next month Mom Bod.

Next month?

GAF has been fawning over Christina Hendricks for years now.

Originally Posted by pgtl_10

Call me crazy but I thought women are more into personality than looks.

Everyone knows that's BS. If not how come we don't see more broke, ugly guys with great personality (whatever that is) with hot women?

The only difference is that women also care a lot about status (money/power etc) while most men would leave a rich women for a hot one without even giving it a second thought.
 
Basically a normal man's body. It's absurd to think this is some kind of trend. The amount of men walking around leaner than #dadbod is what? 10%, and that's very, very generous. Bravo has today's youth thinking typical is visible abs propping up a clean shaven pair of pectoral muscles bigger than pizza peels.

Pretty much. I think this should be celebrated, in that a healthy appearance is actually accepted and preferred, neither ultra muscular and unattainable, nor overweight and unhealthy.
 
I think people are confusing "I gained 30lbs of muscle/fat tissue and have some water retention in 6 months" with "I gained 30lbs of muscle in 6 months!"

Think about it. 30lbs of muscle in 6 months is over a pound of muscle gained a week which is scientifically absurd.
Except I always stated "weight". I just noticed you all kept insisting "muscle" I even broke it down. I know how it works. I gained A LOT. Enough that plenty of people like you and the rest started hollaring "PEDs" like it's impossible.
It isn't.
It also isn't impossible to maintain for going on a decade.
 
Except I always stated "weight". I just noticed you all kept insisting "muscle" I even broke it down. I know how it works. I gained A LOT. Enough that plenty of people like you and the rest started hollaring "PEDs" like it's impossible.
It isn't.
It also isn't impossible to maintain for going on a decade.

I think the confusion was when FallingEdge said you didn't gain 30 pounds of muscle and you said you did.

Again, I like your attitude and I have seen your post before and you're very inspiring. I don't think you're lying, but putting 30lbs of lean muscle mass in 6 months is something that many will take with a grain of salt.

Don't take it personally. You work hard and seem to be a classic mesomorph.
 
I think the confusion was when FallingEdge said you didn't gain 30 pounds of muscle and you said you did.

Again, I like your attitude and I have seen your post before and you're very inspiring. I don't think you're lying, but putting 30lbs of lean muscle mass in 6 months is something that many will take with a grain of salt.

Don't take it personally. You work hard and seem to be a classic mesomorph.
Yeah, sorry for the misrepresentation.
 
Pretty much. I think this should be celebrated, in that a healthy appearance is actually accepted and preferred, neither ultra muscular and unattainable, nor overweight and unhealthy.

This is beyond dumb.

I understand acceptance, but why should we celebrate flabbiness? Its a victory for laziness and unhealthiness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom