Depends. 5'10" 162 pounds with a small frame and low bodyfat is excellent physique.
Depends. 5'10" 162 pounds with a small frame and low bodyfat is excellent physique.
rolling wrote:
Depends. 5'10" 162 pounds with a small frame, low bodyfat, and a vagina is excellent physique.
It’s all personality. 100%
1. Learn attention getting signals
2. Make a move
3. Don’t take it personally if you get shut down
4. It’s a numbers game
5. Be yourself
Or it’s because in your late 20s you’re not an idiot anymore around women. I get way more eyes at 135 than I do at 145, but is that because I’m older or because I’m much lower body fat?
(below) had more hot women than all of Letsrun put together.
If you think muscles get women, you haven't been paying attention.
https://fashionsizzle.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/12198_1.jpg
rolling wrote:
Some background on me. I am 26 years old. I was a 4:31 miler in high school. I went to a D3 school and ran all 4 years and senior year hit my PR of 4:17
Obviously that is respectable time, but in the grand scheme of things nobody cares and it didn't have any improvement on my life. If I had 3:47 talent I'd go out and try and make some money and get on the Olympics. That's when you actually monetize this running stuff, when you're world class. 4:17 isn't even close. It wasn't even good enough for a D1 scholarship.
I graduated high school at 5'10" 125 pounds. Girls would tell me I was cute as an 18 year old teenager, but they would say I was skinny and it put them off. I graduated college at 5'10" 132 pounds. Again, I was a built like a rail. I was always self conscious about it. My body just didn't look good and I knew it. I was putting in all this grueling hard work for a 4:17 mile and for what?
So at 23 post college I just said screw it. I tapered off my running, now I go for a run about twice a week for general health. I can only bust out a 5:20 mile now. But in the 3 years since I started lifting weights I added 30 pounds of muscle to my frame. Now instead of looking like skin and bones I look lean, slim, muscular and athletic.
Clothes fit better, I don't look like a wimp. And I've been banging a lot of hot chicks. Women love it, they don't like dudes who are 5'10" 132 pounds soaking wet. You would not believe how much attention and attraction I get with an athletic body versus an underweight body. It's night and day and I've seen a quality of life improvement.
Lol. I've been anywhere from 130lbs rail to 165lbs quite lean. With clothes on it makes almost no difference. Attention/looks goes up slightly at the beach/pool but nothing special.
Runners body murders guys who are a little muscular but soft. About the only thi thing it loses to is somewhat muscular and absolutely shredded. And it doesn't lose that bad.
It's a much bigger deal with guys tbh. Difference in how other guys respect and treat you is what changes the most as frame changes.
If you're having more success with women now...its not your physique. It's your self consciousness over your physique and now feeling confident about how you look.
I hear what you are saying but I'm going to disagree. I've added 30 pounds of muscle to my frame. There is a massive visual difference. 30 pounds alters your appearance just no way around that.
My neck is massive compared to what is was when I was running. Huge visual change. I had a pencil neck before I started lifting weights.
SomeoneWhoKnowsMore wrote:
SomeoneWhoKnows wrote:
4:17 is not respectable for a college athlete.
Now you have women wanting you who are only attracted to your physique. Means they are shallow and money spenders. Good going. I suggest you don't marry any of these women you are shagging. Your quality of life will go downhill fast. You would have ultimately found a better life partner with your former body...someone who liked you for your personality. Though, maybe you were always a douche and now just have a body to match.
There's a lot of spin here. Unless you've actually cultivated a masculine physique post running so you can speak to the contrast, you have zero clue what you're talking about. It's night and day in terms of the partners you're able to attract when you look and carry yourself with a robust, masculine frame. It's not just a bimbos who want some meat head, we're talking intelligent, successful, beautiful women from good families. The underpinnings of attraction between men and women reward men who have markers of strength, it's simple biology.
Agree it's not just "bimbos", but muscular frame really doesnt make a big difference at all, having been at various places over the map.
Obviously, there is a difference, but as mentioned before biggest differences is how other dudes view you and the inherent space and respect you get.
In other words, if all you're attracting is mediocre quality women who barely meet your standards, and you bulk up to a 1% physique...maybe you're going to get some more attention from woman slightly above average. It's a small effect, even for an elite physique.
Face is just far more important for initial attraction. A guy with a top tier face will turn every head in the area even if he is a 150lb, soft dude. A guy with a top tier physique wont. Especially in 99% of situations in life because you have clothes on and that just kills a huge portion of that physique advantage.
Past that initial attraction it's all personality and how you carry yourself.
Again not true. Having an actual physique and not bird legs, pencil neck and shoulders like a 60 year old woman translate in clothes.
You can deny it all you want. Having a masculine physique generates way more female attraction than being a scrawny 130 pound dude. Or a soft and squishy 150 pound guy.
So weird. I just posted the following at letsbanghotchicks.com:
"First, some background. I'm 27 and in high school I used to bang 2 hot chicks a day. In college I was up to 3 hot chicks a day. I have somewhere around 145 illegitimate children...not really sure.
Now that is clearly a respectable amount of hot chicks, but ultimately nobody cares and child support and abortions cost a fortune. If I could be a porn star I'd do that but I can't bang that many hot chicks. I'd be drained all the time.
When I finished high school I was 5'11 and 170lbs. Chicks loved it. At the end of college I was 180 and I'd spend 2 hours per day looking in the mirror when I wasn't banging hot chicks. But I felt empty inside and the STDs were more than I could handle.
One day I went for a run with a hot chick and my ego was bruised because she was faster than me. Even though I was a bro I cried. I decided I'd be faster than any hot chick. Now I bang hot chicks occasionally but spend most of my time running and shitposting at letsrun.com. And I can run a 4:16 flat mile. Not faster than any chick, but still faster than any hot chick."
Lol well yeah that's to be expected. Some skinny ass, skinny necked, no muscle guy isn't going to get laid much unless he's rich.
Keep lifting and doing some cardio. It's wayyyy better for your health and obviously your social life lol. Good on ya, congrats!
5'10 162 isn't very big. Caster Semenya has been listed as 160 so as long as you're shredded that weight shouldn't hamper performance over the middle distance races too much.
I got up to 177 at 5'10- but it was the excess fat and lack of lower body development in comparison with the upper body which made running tough. I've cut down to 170 since getting back into running and I'll be confident in running fast at 160 shredded.
Your previous weight would have yielded a sub-optimal reaction from the "mass" of females out there. But 162 at 5'10 isn't heavy enough to prevent someone from running a 4:17.
Pretty funny. You obviously put some time and work into the post, but your diction could use sharpening.
If you couldn't get girls @ 5'10" 130, you ain't getting them @ 160 . Use the self confidence I see in the last 2 paragraphs of your post and it will happen. Chicks dig confident, secure dudes, muscles or not.
Wake up Napoleon! Pedro is at the front door go answer it!
Ca$hclay wrote:
Pretty funny. You obviously put some time and work into the post, but your diction could use sharpening.
If you couldn't get girls @ 5'10" 130, you ain't getting them @ 160 . Use the self confidence I see in the last 2 paragraphs of your post and it will happen. Chicks dig confident, secure dudes, muscles or not.
Girls dig muscular big guys. The body builders I see at the gym are surrounded by good looking ladies. You don't want to go through life where your upper arms are no bigger than your wrists - girls don't dig that. Big muscles rule! ?
rolling wrote:
And I've been banging and getting banged by a lot of hot guys. Boys love it, they don't like dudes who are 5'10" 132 pounds soaking wet. You would not believe how much attention and attraction I get with an athletic body versus an underweight body. It's night and day and I've seen a quality of life improvement in my homoerotic lifestyle.
Corrected for you.
I'm significantly more muscular than Semenya. So either he/ her listed weight is wrong or he/she just carries the weight differently than I do.
Can someone tell me why the administrators of this site feel the need to change the title of whatever thread they want to? On the main page now they've renamed this thread about "having lots of sex". It was only yesterday they were talking about a doll leg being a dildo in the background of a Rudisha post. Less than 24 hours later they are at it again.
5’9”, 160lbs here. I run about 35mpw, 4:53, 17:03 this summer, 38 years old. I get the only chick I want and I think I’m pretty thin. Weighed 155 in HS 20 years ago.
As a 4:17 guy in your 20’s, anything over 5 is junk.....and you’re probably not that muscular, maybe you look like Symmonds but probably not.
