Untouchable_Fire Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 This interesting study points to some strong conclusions about what men look for physically in a woman. It's actually somewhat shocking to me that BMI is a better indicator of female attractiveness than WHR. However, that might be because I was born and raised in a more rural area, and although I live in a big city... I am much less influenced by mass media. Do you guys find this to be accurate in real world experience? Is there really a big difference in what guys want based on rural vs. urban? http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/m.j.tovee/Malaysian-paper.pdf
Author Untouchable_Fire Posted March 11, 2011 Author Posted March 11, 2011 So my muffin top is keeping them away? If you live in a big city... that may be the case. If you actually read the study it's very interesting.
fishtaco Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 Too many words, no pictures of women. I'm disappointed. BMI is inaccurate for people that are athletic. They'd all be considered on the fatter side, because muscle weigh more than fat. So people with good BMI are probably just skinny. For me, I'd say WHR does it for me. Oh wait, WHR stands for whore right?
SmileFace Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 Oh wait, WHR stands for whore right? In the context of this thread, yes.
fishtaco Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 In the context of this thread, yes. Ok, then I definitely like WHR.
elzilcho Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 Too many words, no pictures of women. I'm disappointed. BMI is inaccurate for people that are athletic. They'd all be considered on the fatter side, because muscle weigh more than fat. So people with good BMI are probably just skinny. For me, I'd say WHR does it for me. Oh wait, WHR stands for whore right? I agree. I'd have a better idea of which influences me more if there were examples, a way to measure my preferences. Also, I have vastly different criteria for "Woman A is better looking than Woman B" and "I'd rather date Woman A than Woman B." I do tend to find waifishness or girls with their bones stickin' out less attractive than women with a little extra. I like women who look healthy, not starving.
somedude81 Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 (edited) BMI is inaccurate for people that are athletic. They'd all be considered on the fatter side, because muscle weigh more than fat. So people with good BMI are probably just skinny. How many women with a lot of muscle do you know? BMI really is perfectly acceptable for 90% of women. For me though, I'm more concerned with her BWHR. Breasts-waist-hip ratio. Edited March 12, 2011 by somedude81
fishtaco Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 How many women with a lot of muscle do you know? BMI really is perfectly acceptable for 90% of women. Actually I work out at a body builder's gym. So I know more than the average person would. But I don't find female body builders attractive. There are a number of chicks doing "bikini" type fitness competitions. They are pretty delicious. Well, BMI is a scale. You get back a number. So women that are athletic will return a bigger number, even if they're more fit and have lower body fat than a couch potato. You don't need to be a body builder to encounter the BMI inaccuracies. Being that I like athletic women over skinny couch potatoes (yes, one can be skinny AND flabby at the same time), I would discount BMI measurements and go with WHR.
SmileFace Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 BMI has to be the worst thing to go by. I have a higher BMI (25) - which is fine since I am working on lowering it but my body fat is lower than most women with reasonable lower BMI's than myself. Most of my weight is pure muscle thanks to lifting heavy. Anyway BMI is huge mind ****. Many girls can have a low BMI and be skinny-fat, which I don't find attactive. When it comes to WHR it should be an overall view because I know chicks with an impressive WHR , however that is just a ratio.
somedude81 Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 (edited) BMI is easier to calculate than WHR is. And as I said, it's accurate for 90% of women. If a girl is 5'6 and 160lbs, with a BMI of 25.8 odds are that she isn't a body builder. She's just overweight. I'm sure you know that the vast majority of women don't have muscle weight. They don't get big unless they juice. So a woman who works out a lot isn't going to be significantly heavier than the average woman, in fact she might be lighter. Unless she actually lifts heavy like SmileFace does. Obviously BMI absolutely fails for men who work out. Edited March 12, 2011 by somedude81
fishtaco Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 BMI is easier to calculate than WHR is. And as I said, it's accurate for 90% of women. I'm not talking about body builders, and I'm not drawing the line at BMI of 25. Given two girls, one has BMI of 20, the other 22, it doesn't mean BMI 20 will have a nicer body. She could be skinny-fat just like what SmileFace said. The BMI 22 could be into recreational fitness, i.e. not body building, just resistance training, and have a vastly superior body. Plus some people just weigh more naturally. WHR of course, doesn't say if she's a 300lb freak. I've seen that before. Really fat girl, but you can rest a can of coke on her ass while she's standing straight up. But I like women with curves. Big boobs, big butt, and having a high WHR will show off that even more. Hence I go with WHR. But either way, I would add body fat percentage into the mix, which the study didn't include. Low body fat + high WHR? Winnar!
SmileFace Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 (edited) But either way, I would add body fat percentage into the mix, which the study didn't include. Low body fat + high WHR? Winnar! Correct! For example a pluz size girl at my gym - her WHR is amazing. I mean she is solid with her weight but vastly overweight. Next girl she is about 125, tall and lean but WHR is just like the pluz size girl. Now do people really want to go only by WHR. Edited March 12, 2011 by SmileFace
fishtaco Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 Correct! For example a pluz size girl at my gym - her WHR is amazing. I mean she is solid with her weight but vastly overweight. Next girl she is about 125, tall and lean but WHR is just like the pluz size girl. Now do people really want to go only by WHR. Actually now that I think about it, somedude81 has a point. I always forget how many people DON'T work out. To me working out is such a normal part of my life that it's a no-brainer. Plus to gym rats, no one cares about BMI, we all know that doesn't mean crap. But I forget what the rest of the population aren't like this. So for fit people, WHR is the winner. But most people aren't fit. So now that I think about it, I guess BMI would be a better indicator.
depplover_1980 Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 I'm fit and my bmi is now 22. When I wasn't fit it was around a chubster 27! Only competitive levels atheletes would it not be relevant i'd say.
fishtaco Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 I'm fit and my bmi is now 22. When I wasn't fit it was around a chubster 27! Only competitive levels atheletes would it not be relevant i'd say. Unless you compare with a skinny-flabby chick that never exercised in her entire life, and managed to hit sub 20 BMI based on her genetics and repeated yo-yo dieting. I would say you'll have a nicer body even though your BMI is higher, simply because you're fit. But after thinking about it, I do agree with somedude81. It applies to most people. I was in my gym mindset and forgot about the rest of the world.
depplover_1980 Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 Unless you compare with a skinny-flabby chick that never exercised in her entire life, and managed to hit sub 20 BMI based on her genetics and repeated yo-yo dieting. I would say you'll have a nicer body even though your BMI is higher, simply because you're fit. But after thinking about it, I do agree with somedude81. It applies to most people. I was in my gym mindset and forgot about the rest of the world. I like you fishtaco - there aren't many people who'll admit they may have been wrong on forums. It's a good trait.
utterer of lies Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 All this study shows is that cultural factors are more important than genetical factors when judging the attractiveness of a female. Big news....not.
Recommended Posts