Natural Freedom
http://www.naturalfreedom.info/

Testing the Waters
http://www.naturalfreedom.info/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=4759
Page 2 of 2

Author:  rant [ Sun Aug 12, 2018 1:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Testing the Waters

Jared wrote: *
Altair wrote: *

Thoughts:
I've been cutting bodyweight for a while I'm at 11% bodyfat right now at 188 6'1. I should have got lean a long time ago. It makes a huge difference in how much attention you get.

Yes, in my exp, the single most prominent factor,
right there w/ shoulders-waist form a V and skull is warrior-type.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxwKibwHYEw

It is what it is.

I'm 6'1" also helps when you're above average in height.

Male average height 174 cm (5' 8.5") Canada
Male average height 179 cm (5' 10") Finland

Front attracts clout keeps.

There's also chances of this being true http://www.naturalfreedom.info/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4750

She's accessing her value for potential mate switching because i don't see the relevance of the boyfriend in the conversation or the interaction.

Author:  rant [ Sun Aug 12, 2018 1:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Testing the Waters

Angel vs Witch Skulls In Women.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3--uqTarXA

Author:  PimpDee [ Sun Aug 12, 2018 9:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Testing the Waters

From observing couples at the beach, most of them are in the same weight range. More or less 65 kilos...but here you rarely find a 180cm dude/girl.

Author:  zogler [ Mon Aug 13, 2018 4:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Testing the Waters

Altair wrote: *
"Do you have a boyfriend"
Quote:
Heterosexuals who are partnered but not married have the same probability of having dates and hookup partners (other than their primary partner) as unpartnered heterosexuals have in finding any partners. Heterosexual relationships that lack the marital commitment appear to impose few constraints on dating outside the relationship.
https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rose ... g_apps.pdf

Quote:
In urban settings, WCR was the primary component of attractiveness ratings, with BMI playing a smaller role and WHR not reaching significance. In the rural setting, BMI was the primary predictor of attractiveness, with WCR playing a more minor role and WHR not reaching significance. In general, urban participants were more reliant on body shape and chose a relatively slim figure with an ‘inverted triangle’ shape; rural participants were more reliant on body weight and chose a heavier figure with a less triangular shape.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf
Quote:
The results showed that, regardless of the cultural setting, WCR was the primary determinant of men's physical attractiveness to women, with BMI playing a minor role. However, there were also cross-cultural differences: The Greek women showed a stronger preference for a lower WCR and smaller overall body weight than did the British women.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ural_Study

Author:  fufe [ Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Testing the Waters

I Can't even read those graphs. And I fucking tried.
Can somebody explain how the WCR is exactly calculated. I just can't make myself read that text, it's painful as hell

Author:  Jared [ Mon Dec 07, 2020 6:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Testing the Waters

Natty Gains at pro natty show level...

w/ Average genetics and beast training mode and excellent nutrition

At 5% body fat, your height in cm to lbs ratio is expected

So at 185cm 5% bf you're expected to reach to about 185lbs bone dry on stage
175 cm = 175 lbs

Just an observation, you'd lose 4-5lbs of gains if you diet is impeccable

Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC+01:00
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/