# Body Fat Percentage



## Bullgrit (Dec 6, 2013)

Using the above photos and labeled body fat percentages, what do you think is most attractive for men and women? (Yes, men can identify an attractive male body, and women can identify an attractive female body.)

Do you think your own personal preference matches what our culture as a whole thinks is most attractive? Do you think your own personal preference falls within the normal or average?

Do you feel that some bodies are unfairly treated, (positively or negatively)?

Bullgrit


----------



## Umbran (Dec 6, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> Do you think your own personal preference matches what our culture as a whole thinks is most attractive?




I think that our media tells us what our culture finds most attractive, and they are factually incorrect in what they tell us.  

As in, the media tells us, "Men like X, Y, and Z."  Meanwhile, if you ask actual men, you'll be told, "I like X and Y.  I also think A is cute, B is great, and I'll take a couple of Qs any day..."



> Do you think your own personal preference falls within the normal or average?




Vaguely worded.

Do I think my own personal preference falls within the normal or average for personal preferences?  I don't care.  

Do I think my own personal preference falls within the normal or average for body fat percentages?  Again, I don't care.

It is good for humans to have a diversity of preferences.  



> Do you feel that some bodies are unfairly treated, (positively or negatively)?




Yes, insofar as how in our modern world, outside of a sexual relationship and a small number of professions where physical prowess is a real issue, body type does not really impact much.  It does not really matter if my travel agent is a bit heavier than is healthy for him, or if the librarian is skinny - they can both do their jobs just fine.  

Unfortunately, our ape-descended brains are wired with circuitry that passes judgement that we have to work to ignore.


----------



## Bullgrit (Dec 6, 2013)

Bullgrit said:
			
		

> Using the above photos and labeled body fat percentages, what do you think is most attractive for men and women?



I think the 20-21% woman and the 9-10% man are the *most* attractive. But I think a woman is completey acceptably attractive from 14-15% to 25-26%, and a man from 6-7% to 14-15%.



			
				Bullgrit said:
			
		

> Do you think your own personal preference matches what our culture as a whole thinks is most attractive?



From what I see in our media (including Internet comments), I think our culture expects a woman to be thinner than my preference.



			
				Bullgrit said:
			
		

> Do you think your own personal preference falls within the normal or average?



I think my choice for most attractive woman is within the normal, (or maybe slightly under), the cultural average size for women. My choice for most attractive man is definitely, significantly under the cultural average size for men.



			
				Bullgrit said:
			
		

> Do you feel that some bodies are unfairly treated, (positively or negatively)?



Definitely. For instance, the 25-26% woman would be called "fat" in most Internet comments, and that's just bad. And few people realize just how much work the 6-7% and 9-10% man shape requires -- not just dieting to get skinny like people expect of a woman -- yet it seems to be considered the baseline for male sexiness.

That is, it seems that in our culture, in general, a woman just has to be skinny, but a man has to be muscular. Some women can be skinny with no effort, but a man can't be muscular like that without a great deal of work.

Bullgrit


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 6, 2013)

Funny thing...

I've been every BFP on that picture from 7-30% (currently in the 20%s)...and I have _NEVER_ had 6-pack abs.  Once I got super chubby, I was never able to rid myself of enough fat in that area to make my abs visible.  Even when I got down to 7%, I was still had a gut.

As for the female side of things...well, my personal standards using those pix would be all but the 2 extremes- I like some curves on women, some softness- and my _dating_ rule of thumb is "nobody with an equivalent or worse weight problem than myself, because I don't need negative reinforcement of my bad habits."



> Do you feel that some bodies are unfairly treated, (positively or negatively)?




Without a doubt.

Too many overweight people have felt the sting of uninvited commentary on their weight by those in better condition.

And the other side gets some backlash, too- not in the same amount, but just as nasty.  There's a woman right now who is catching flack for posting selfies of her post-pregnancy physique 4 days post delivery.  She's in incredible shape- even showing her rock-hard abs again.  People are dogging her for presenting an unrealistic image to the public.

My personal take?  Screw "unrealistic"- this is REAL.  The problem lays within the observers who forget things like:

1) she is a well-known fitness nut & blogger, so she is going to take much more of her day in excise
2) her lifestyle includes habits that likely meant that she didn't pack in much excess pregnancy weight
3) there may be age, genetic or wealth & lifestyle components to the efficiency of her metabolism that others might not have, enabling her to she'd weight more efficiently.

Which means that while SOME can achieve her results, not everyone can, _and there's nothing wrong with that._


----------



## Bullgrit (Dec 6, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I've been every BFP on that picture from 7-30% (currently in the 20%s)...and I have NEVER had 6-pack abs.



6-pack abs requires muscular abs as well as low body fat. For an example, many marathon runners are very skinny (low BFP) but show no 6-pack.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Even when I got down to 7%, I was still had a gut.



If you show a "gut" at that low a BFP, the "gut" was probably just flaccid muscles. It's like when someone very skinny waves their arm and you can see their triceps wobble -- the muscle is just loose, not taut and tone.

Bullgrit


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 6, 2013)

Nope, it was fat, not flaccid muscles.

Essentially, it was like a Carmel's hump- almost all of my excess fat has hanging right over my belt.

And as for my build, well... at the time, I was 193lbs at 5'7"- which is something like 40lbs over the ideal weight listed and even 23lbs off the chart for "obese" on the on the Height/weight indexes.  I was a muscular fireplug of a human.  Benched over 300lbs; could do 3x 10 rep sets of 700lbs on the leg press machines; had enough vertical jump to touch the iron (not dunk) on a standard basketall rim.  I even retained the flexibility to reach 7 1/2" beyond my toes.*

My jacket size- shoulders, not sleeves- was the same as my 6'3" tall buddy.

IOW, I was a walking poster child for "those charts are just statistical averages" which may have little to do with your personal physique.








* I once demonstrated this by placing the backs of my hands on the ground while standing...then stepping into my open hands with straight legs.  I'm too chubby for that now- I can only step on my fingers...


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Dec 6, 2013)

Women: 17-26%.
Men: I don't care.

Society tells me I tend to like chunky girls.  I also don't care.  Girls gotta have some curve to 'em, IMO - at least for me to dig 'em aesthetically.


----------



## Bullgrit (Dec 6, 2013)

[MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION], were you in a sport that required that physical build?

Bullgrit


----------



## Janx (Dec 6, 2013)

From a "if you could choose from the picture" perspective, the ones over the 30% mark aren't in my preference zone, and I suspect not in the zone for modern fashion, etc, as we're bombarded by skinny people.

However, in real life, not every girl or guy is that skinny, and you gotta accept what's available.  As they say in Hedonism land, 8's end up with 8's and 3's end up with 3's.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 6, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION], were you in a sport that required that physical build?
> 
> Bullgrit




Alas, no.  Most of it was just a genetic gift, wasted.  According to MDs, I have @10% more bone & muscle mass than the typical human male.  At my peak of fitness & activity level, even if I had 0% body fat, I would not have been able to reach a weight that would have put me back on the aforementioned height/weight charts.

While I did enjoy participating in soccer, football, and other sports, I largely didn't participate in any organized sports after HS except in intramural or social groups.  I took a Weight Training class for my college's common curriculum requirement, which led me to bulk/power up at a frightening rate.

But I found organized sports too disruptive to the rest of my life.  Too much of a time commitment, too much travel for me to do the other things I loved.


----------



## PigKnight (Dec 9, 2013)

Women: 17-21%
Men: 9-15%


----------



## Bullgrit (Dec 9, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Most of it was just a genetic gift, wasted. According to MDs, I have @10% more bone & muscle mass than the typical human male. At my peak of fitness & activity level, even if I had 0% body fat, I would not have been able to reach a weight that would have put me back on the aforementioned height/weight charts.



But I don't know how you could be down to 7% body fat and not show ab definition. That's just impossible from everything I've read and seen. And to show a "gut"?

Bullgrit


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 9, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> But I don't know how you could be down to 7% body fat and not show ab definition. That's just impossible from everything I've read and seen. And to show a "gut"?
> 
> Bullgrit



I think there are several possibilities.
1. All 7% of his body fat were was concentrated in his gut.
2. horrific accident that required surgery, and ruined his abs so they didn't show.
3. He is exaggerating about his body fat percent, or the amount of muscle mass he had.
4. He may have made a mistake about his body fat percent.

More than likely, it is possible that the correct answer is the first one. Everyone's body is different. Some guys can show abs while having a bit higher percentage of fat. Some guys require a bit lower body fat to show off their abs. 

Also, some people who have been fat, and lose a lot of weight, can have trouble losing fat in certain areas. Even though they are in great shape, they may have areas where they just can't get rid of all the fat, or enough of it.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 9, 2013)

Additionally, loose skin can be an issue when losing weight. A low body fat percentage can't help with that. (Not that I'm saying it applies in this case).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 9, 2013)

It's a bit of #1- all the excess fat on my body was deposited on the front of my torso- plus a bit of the loose skin issue.  Result: ripped arms & legs, doughboy front torso.

And it didn't matter how many crunches, twists, etc. I did, it simply wouldn't go away.  My MD suggested lipo might be the only way to rid myself of it, but I declined (for a variety of reasons).


----------



## Janx (Dec 9, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It's a bit of #1- all the excess fat on my body was deposited on the front of my torso- plus a bit of the loose skin issue.  Result: ripped arms & legs, doughboy front torso.
> 
> And it didn't matter how many crunches, twists, etc. I did, it simply wouldn't go away.  My MD suggested lipo might be the only way to rid myself of it, but I declined (for a variety of reasons).




Indeed.

I think the stomach is a primary fat collection zone on a guy.  So I expect anomalies around that area, despite the guy being fit by any other metric.

In both my underweight era, the good shape era and my current slightly rounder era, I've never had six pack abs (and I never had a massive weight loss).

It seems to me, that six pack abs are the men's version of unrealistic body expectations.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 9, 2013)

Janx said:


> Indeed.
> 
> I think the stomach is a primary fat collection zone on a guy.  So I expect anomalies around that area, despite the guy being fit by any other metric.
> 
> ...



Nah... 
It's not unrealistic to think you can get a six pack. You just have to dedicate your self, eat right, and exercise properly. Yes, some people have a harder time than others, but it's not unrealistic. Not by far.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 9, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Nah...
> It's not unrealistic to think you can get a six pack. You just have to dedicate your self, eat right, and exercise properly. Yes, some people have a harder time than others, but it's not unrealistic. Not by far.




It does take quite a bit of work (or some luck - I got them once because I managed to give myself food poisoning...)

I think as I get older I question more why it matters to people, though.  What advantage does one get from six-pack abs which are worth the lifestyle compromise?  I used to try hard to stay in really good shape, but these days I'm happy with just being a healthy weight.  It's not like I'm a model or a movie star or anything; it just doesn't affect me on a daily basis.

So when I hear "unrealistic expectations", I tend to see that not as it being unrealistically difficult to do, but that the media presents it as being unrealistically important, and portrays it almost as an expectation.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 9, 2013)

> What advantage does one get from six-pack abs which are worth the lifestyle compromise?




It's plumage.

Just like the male lyretails and peacocks have ridiculous tailfeathers- which DO impact ability to evade predators- to attract mates, 6-pack abs do attract a certain section of the human female populace.

It also turns some off.  My Mom _hates_ the ripped/muscular look.  Good thing she married Dad- no chance of THAT!


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 9, 2013)

Morrus said:


> It does take quite a bit of work (or some luck - I got them once because I managed to give myself food poisoning...)



If you got them from food poisoning, it's obviously not very hard to get them.


> I think as I get older I question more why it matters to people, though.  What advantage does one get from six-pack abs which are worth the lifestyle compromise?  I used to try hard to stay in really good shape, but these days I'm happy with just being a healthy weight.  It's not like I'm a model or a movie star or anything; it just doesn't affect me on a daily basis.
> 
> So when I hear "unrealistic expectations", I tend to see that not as it being unrealistically difficult to do, but that the media presents it as being unrealistically important, and portrays it almost as an expectation.



Actually, good abs are a sign of a strong core, which has several health benefits. Aside from signifying that you have low body fat, and all the health benefits that you get from that alone, having a strong core helps to mitigate certain pains. You are less likely to end up with back pain, which as I'm sure some people here know, can be debilitating. You are less likely to injure yourself doing certain activities. This can be beneficial at work or at home. You also have better balance, among other benefits. 
So yeah, abs are good. They do provide benefits.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 9, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It's plumage.
> 
> Just like the male lyretails and peacocks have ridiculous tailfeathers- which DO impact ability to evade predators- to attract mates, 6-pack abs do attract a certain section of the human female populace.
> 
> It also turns some off.  My Mom _hates_ the ripped/muscular look.  Good thing she married Dad- no chance of THAT!




Sure.  Maybe I misphrased myself.  I understand what it is.  I was just observing the actual benefit level as compared to the cost, and that it seems to me that it really doesn't make all that much difference to one's life. I mean, I've had 'em, and not had 'em, and honestly my life was exactly the same except that some of the time I got to relax and eat nice stuff.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 9, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> If you got them from food poisoning, it's obviously not very hard to get them.




Well, I was always just a few pounds off.  A few days of diarhea will take care of that!  These days, more like 10lb off, which is comfortable.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 9, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Well, I was always just a few pounds off.  A few days of diarhea will take care of that!  These days, more like 10lb off, which is comfortable.



Well there you go, more proof they aren't that hard to get, and they have health benefits.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 9, 2013)

But how would things be for you today if you had flaunted those abs- via half-shirt, mesh shirt and no-shirt fashion statements- where they were likely to be seen and appreciated by those ladies who were into those things?

Maybe you'd be different.  Or maybe you'd have found you didn't care for the women you were attracting, or...


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 9, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> But how would things be for you today if you had flaunted those abs- via half-shirt, mesh shirt and no-shirt fashion statements- where they were likely to be seen and appreciated by those ladies who were into those things?
> 
> Maybe you'd be different.  Or maybe you'd have found you didn't care for the women you were attracting, or...



Or...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 9, 2013)

That is definitely "or".


----------



## Morrus (Dec 9, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> But how would things be for you today if you had flaunted those abs- via half-shirt, mesh shirt and no-shirt fashion statements- where they were likely to be seen and appreciated by those ladies who were into those things?




Heh, well, the big change there wouldn't be physical.  It would be much more extensive - it would require a personality transplant!  In which case, who knows how my life would have gone differently.


----------



## Bullgrit (Dec 9, 2013)

For a 40+ year old man, going through mid-life crisis, having a toned mid-section is a good way of building one's ego back up from years of being a "dorky dad." 

Bullgrit


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 9, 2013)

Morrus said:


> See, the big change there wouldn't be physical.  It would be much more extensive - it would require a personality transplant to turn me into the sort of person who would act like that.  If my personality changed to that extent, I'm sure the ramifications on my life would have been far, far greater than my merely having met different girlfriends in my 20s than I did.




No doubt, no doubt!

But people DO sometimes have radical personality changes when they find they have a taste for something they didn't know about, for good or ill.

For (a positive) example: a guy I've known since high school was a real neurotic, overweight, panicky, depressed mess.  Even his global trekking on business didn't change him, and being trapped in Asia during the SARS outbreak didn't help.

But when he settled down in San Francisco, he discovered bicycling, and it changed his life.  He's dropped a ton of weight, found & won the woman of his dreams via participation in cycling events, and has a new calmness about him.  He is the definition of "a changed man."


----------



## Umbran (Dec 9, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Well there you go, more proof they aren't that hard to get, and they have health benefits.




A solid core is not unreasonable.  The visible six pack abs may be, for some folks.

Not all bodies are the same.  Some folks will have a bit of padding at particular places on their bodies that just will not be removed by normal healthy exercise.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 9, 2013)

Umbran said:


> A solid core is not unreasonable.  The visible six pack abs may be, for some folks.



 A strong core isn't unreasonable, and while harder to get, a six pack isn't unreasonable either.  Yeah, you have to work harder to get it, but for most people, it's doable. Now if you're a five hundred pounds wheelchair bound 80 traded year old, yeah, a six pack is unreasonable. But let's not pretend like it's impossible and has no benefits. 


> Not all bodies are the same.  Some folks will have a bit of padding at particular places on their bodies that just will not be removed by normal healthy exercise.



Your a little late to the party, homie.I mentioned that a while ago, and so did Danny.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 9, 2013)

Double post. Damn you Morrus!!!


----------



## Janx (Dec 9, 2013)

Umbran said:


> A solid core is not unreasonable.  The visible six pack abs may be, for some folks.
> 
> Not all bodies are the same.  Some folks will have a bit of padding at particular places on their bodies that just will not be removed by normal healthy exercise.




That was the point I was alluding to.  As Morrus could just get sick and pick up a six pack, I was fit enough to do the 100 pushup, situps, upside down situps, etc and pretty much kept the same basic gut.

It may have been technically possible for me to get a six pack, but the level of work needed for me when I was already training for karate and in good shape was not worth it to find out.

So, in my view, the only people with six pack abs are professional exercisers or anorexics.  And having been naturally super skinny, even that's not a guarrantee.

I suspect I had the muscles for a six pack just fine (back then), but any body fat I had (remember, skinny dude with high metabolism) was stored in my gut.  Thus, I looked less fit than I actually was.

six pack abs aren't practical for everybody, even if they are fit.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 9, 2013)

Janx said:


> That was the point I was alluding to.  As Morrus could just get sick and pick up a six pack, I was fit enough to do the 100 pushup, situps, upside down situps, etc and pretty much kept the same basic gut.
> 
> It may have been technically possible for me to get a six pack, but the level of work needed for me when I was already training for karate and in good shape was not worth it to find out.
> 
> ...



You know, it's possible that you had higher cardio requirement and your body just kept on storing carbs. It happens. Look at marathon runners. They may be thin, but they carry around a bit of fat. In any case, you could probably have gotten six pack abs if you had tried a few things in addition to making some changes to your diet.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 9, 2013)

Genes are cruel (as are jeans).

My college sophomore year roomie & best bud was the Stan Laurel to my Oliver Hardy.*  At 5' 11", he just kissed 125lbs, and you could see his heartbeat from across a room if he were shirtless.

With him consuming an extra 5000 calories a day in Joe Wieder shakes and other stuff coupled with intense workouts for a month, we managed to boost his bench over 150lbs, and his weight to an astounding *133lbs.*

He revealed, however, that his genetics had a cruel, cruel fate in store for him.  After about age 40, his hummingbird metabolism would radically slow down, and he'd develop a paunch.  It happended to all of the men in his family.  His dad was a former Olympic cyclist, and even he had one, despite continuing an active regimen of weightlifting and cycling.

I told him what he could do with his paunch.








* and the Norse salt to my Creole pepper, but I digress...


----------



## Jhaelen (Dec 10, 2013)

Judging from the OP pictures, I find a range of 17-26% attractive for the women and 6-15% for the men.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Dec 11, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I think there are several possibilities.
> 1. All 7% of his body fat were was concentrated in his gut.
> _*2. horrific accident that required surgery, and ruined his abs so they didn't show.*_
> 3. He is exaggerating about his body fat percent, or the amount of muscle mass he had.
> ...




I am told that because of how things ended up after all of my surgeries, I will never have a 6-pac, and I am never to work out targeting ab muscles only as it will, with a great possibility, give me a hernia. Not fun sounding.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 11, 2013)

Scott DeWar said:


> I am told that because of how things ended up after all of my surgeries, I will never have a 6-pac, and I am never to work out targeting ab muscles only as it will, with a great possibility, give me a hernia. Not fun sounding.



That's pretty harsh. The reason I said it was because I saw one of those History channel or A&E (can't remember which one), about gangs. They had some guy, maybe 19, who was in a gang, and because of it, he got jumped one day by some members of another gang. The stabbed him a bunch of times. The guy said he took off running, and he had to hold in his guts because the cuts he got on his abdomen were so bad, his guts were spilling out. 

He ended up having several surgeries to save him. He showed off his stomach, and he had a bunch of scars. It looked like someone took a chainsaw to his stomach. He wasn't able to run any more. He couldn't pick up anything heavy. That guy couldn't even attempt to do a single crunch.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Dec 11, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> He ended up having several surgeries to save him. He showed off his stomach, and he had a bunch of scars. It looked like someone took a chainsaw to his stomach. He wasn't able to run any more. He couldn't pick up anything heavy. That guy couldn't even attempt to do a single crunch.




Sounds like what I have on my plate. including the heavily scarred abdomin. I could post a pic, maybe tomorrow.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 11, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Your a little late to the party, homie.I mentioned that a while ago, and so did Danny.




You said, "some people have a harder time than others, but it's not unrealistic," 

I said, "some people will have padding that _cannot be removed_ with reasonable amounts of diet and exercise". (emphasis mine)

Your statement isn't really the same as mine.

This is at the center of unrealistic expectations, and the harm they can do.  Some people just are *not* going to get those abs, or super-skinny legs, or whatever particular feature is under discussion.  And to lightly say, "this is what you should have, and getting it isn't unrealistic," can be pretty ugly for those for whom it really is unrealistic.  While I don't expect anyone where's going to be given a body-image problem from one particular message board post, I think it useful to raise the point that for some, it really is unrealistic.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 11, 2013)

Or, to put it differently, *what is realistic for some may be utterly impossible for others*.  And I do mean that literally.

I mentioned being able to reach 7" beyond the bottom of my feet if seated, when at my peak of fitness.  At the same time, my twiggy Norse roomie had to bounce to touch his toes while standing.  It wasn't even close- his fingertips were more than an inch away from the ground with normal effort. (Appropos of nothing, he is a dead ringer for David J, bass player/vocalist for Bauhouse and Love & Rockets.)

Nothing he could do short of skeletal reconstruction surgery would enable him to touch his toes without extra effort.

Meanwhile, even in my current (round) shape,I can still do stunts like clasp my hands behind my back- one hand going over my shoulder, the other coming up from the waist.  I can be properly handcuffed, and get my hands to the front, seated or standing*.  With ease.

And lets be clear- I am no contortionist.

Similarly, the effort I'd have to go through to actually get a six-pack without surgery would involve a starvation-level caloric intake.  And that's not healthy.






* BTW, don't do this if you are arrested.  Policemen don't like this, and will often use additional restraints.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 11, 2013)

Umbran said:


> You said, "some people have a harder time than others, but it's not unrealistic,"
> 
> I said, "some people will have padding that _cannot be removed_ with reasonable amounts of diet and exercise". (emphasis mine)
> 
> Your statement isn't really the same as mine.



Actually, what I said was:


Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I think there are several possibilities.
> 1. All 7% of his body fat were was concentrated in his gut.
> 2. horrific accident that required surgery, and ruined his abs so they didn't show.
> 3. He is exaggerating about his body fat percent, or the amount of muscle mass he had.
> ...



While not word-for-word, the message is pretty much the same. 



> This is at the center of unrealistic expectations, and the harm they can do.  Some people just are *not* going to get those abs, or super-skinny legs, or whatever particular feature is under discussion.  And to lightly say, "*this is what you should have, and getting it isn't unrealistic,*" can be pretty ugly for those for whom it really is unrealistic.



No one has said that in this thread.


> While I don't expect anyone where's going to be given a body-image problem from one particular message board post, I think it useful to raise the point that for some, it really is unrealistic.



For some? I'd say for a very small number of people. For the average person, it isn't unrealistic. It is difficult. It may require a change in the person's life style, but they can get their abs to show if they are able to make those changes.
So here is a question for you: Why is it useful to bring up the point that "for some, it really is unrealistic"?


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 11, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Meanwhile, even in my current (round) shape,I can still do stunts like clasp my hands behind my back- one hand going over my shoulder, the other coming up from the waist.  I can be properly handcuffed, and get my hands to the front, seated or standing*.  With ease.
> 
> And lets be clear- I am no contortionist.
> 
> * BTW, don't do this if you are arrested. Policemen don't like this, and will often use additional restraints.



 Must be a useful skill for a lawyer.


> Similarly, the effort I'd have to go through to actually get a six-pack without surgery would involve a starvation-level caloric intake.  And that's not healthy.



I'm pretty sure with the right workout regimen, and proper guidance from an experience, and knowledgeable nutritionist, you could get there without surgery, or killing yourself.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 11, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I'm pretty sure with the right workout regimen, and proper guidance from an experience, and knowledgeable nutritionist, you could get there without surgery, or killing yourself.




According to the nutritionists and other MDs I talked to when I was at 7% body fat, to rid myself of the gut without surgery would have required a pro-level diet & exercise regimen, which would not have been feasible with my study schedule.  There simply were not enough hours in the day, so it was a binary choice: pro athlete diet & exercise regimen with virtually zero chance of being a pro athlete, or continue my studies and have a good education and all that came with it.

IOW, possible, but not realistic.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 11, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> According to the nutritionists and other MDs I talked to when I was at 7% body fat, to rid myself of the gut without surgery would have required a pro-level diet & exercise regimen, which would not have been feasible with my study schedule.  There simply were not enough hours in the day, so it was a binary choice: pro athlete diet & exercise regimen with virtually zero chance of being a pro athlete, or continue my studies and have a good education and all that came with it.



I'm going to assume this was years ago. You're no longer a student. You now have the time, and more importantly, the funds to hire a good nutritionist and trainer.



> IOW, possible, but not what I wanted.



Fixed that for you.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 11, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It's plumage.
> 
> Just like the male lyretails and peacocks have ridiculous tailfeathers- which DO impact ability to evade predators- to attract mates, 6-pack abs do attract a certain section of the human female populace.
> 
> It also turns some off.  My Mom _hates_ the ripped/muscular look.  Good thing she married Dad- no chance of THAT!




While I am all for being in shape, i am wary of the notion that six pack abs are desireable or should be encouraged. I used to be pretty involved in sports and new a lot of guys who used dangerous diets to achieve that physique, because it is such a challenging shape to acquire and maintain. It is funny, i trained in martial arts and boxing for years (regularly with road work and weight lifting). It wasn't until i got sick with crohns disease, lost most of my muscle, that i ended up with abs. I always knew some guys with very low body fat percentage who naturally found it easy to achieve, but I am always careful about stuff like this where it is more about heavy dieting than your actual level of health.

in terms of media and body types, i think in the states we have had a very narrow definition of attractive indthe media that simply doesn't match my tastes. It seems like it has been changing in recent years though. Going by that chart, I believe I have historically been attracted to women in the 25-26% range. Buy I also wouldn't use something like that as a basis for who I allow myself to date. Physical looks usually get you to notice someone initially, but charm is what ultimately seals the deal for me, and that is more than just the physical side of attraction.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 11, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Actually, what I said was




You _also_ said, in post #17 of this thread: "You just have to dedicate your self, eat right, and exercise properly. Yes, some people have a harder time than others, but it's not unrealistic. Not by far."

So, you said two things, and left a bit of a mixed message.  I thought some clarification was in order, is all.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 11, 2013)

Umbran said:


> You _also_ said, in post #17 of this thread: "You just have to dedicate your self, eat right, and exercise properly. Yes, some people have a harder time than others, but it's not unrealistic. Not by far."
> 
> So, you said two things, and left a bit of a mixed message.  I thought some clarification was in order, is all.



Why would there be any clarification required? I said:







Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Your a little late to the party, homie.I mentioned that a while ago, and so did Danny.



Which is true since the post I quoted for you was post #13. You were late to the party, homie.


----------



## Janx (Dec 11, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I'm pretty sure with the right workout regimen, and proper guidance from an experience, and knowledgeable nutritionist, you could get there without surgery, or killing yourself.




You may not be aware of this, but repeatedly saying variants of the quoted text is exactly why we are perceiving that you are implying it is trivial.

You haven'ted defined what this level of work actually entails, or why you think that's achievable.

For an unemployed MILF or FYLF, spending all day at the gym to get that level of fit is possible,

normal people have jobs, lives, etc, and are not going to radically change their diet to extreme levels (and yes, I've seen the diets fitness trainers suggest to their clients and they are extreme), as well as working out 2+ hours in the gym daily.

None of us deny "it's possible."

What we challenge is that it is practical for anybody who isn't devoting a majority of their time and effort to it.

Most of of us jobs.  Regular healthy is the feasible level of expected effort.  Hyper-fit is not.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 11, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I'm going to assume this was years ago. You're no longer a student. You now have the time, and more importantly, the funds to hire a good nutritionist and trainer.



I had the funds for the nutritionist- as I said, I actually saw more than one- and a trainer as a student.  I didn't have the time.

And none of that has changed in my favor: i still have the $$$, i still consult nutritionists, but the time commitment of a pro-level fitness regimen would require I give up being employed.



> Fixed that for you.




Please don't put words in someone's mouth- it is rude and not cute.  Especially when it is wrong.

After years of being fat, I would have LOVED to have been able to get rid of the gut.  I am not going to undergo surgery to rid myself of it, though, unless medically ordered to do so.  (Which is highly unlikely.)


----------



## Janx (Dec 11, 2013)

I can't say how busy a lawyer is, but I would assume some chunk of us adults with full time jobs put in more than 40 hours a week.  There really is LESS time.

personally, I haven't used a day of vacation in 4 years.  I've had weeks where I got 4 hours of sleep before going back to work to lather, rinse repeat.  Heck, I work more hours now in my small business than I ever did in my big corporate job.


So for somebody like me, what's feasible is eating better and trying to walk the dog more often


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 11, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I had the funds for the nutritionist- as I said, I actually saw more than one- and a trainer as a student.  I didn't have the time.
> 
> And none of that has changed in my favor: i still have the $$$, i still consult nutritionists, but the time commitment of a pro-level fitness regimen would require I give up being employed.



And that would be your choice. It's not as if it's impossible. You just happen to have other things you would rather do. That's fine. No one, especially me, is holding that against you. If you feel fine with yourself, then that's all that matters. If you don't want to get a six pack, that's fine. You don't have to. You aren't required to do so. If you decided that you did want to, that's also fine. That is your choice. From what you've said, it would be difficult, but you achieving that is not unrealistic.


> Please don't put words in someone's mouth- it is rude and not cute.
> Especially when it is wrong.



How was it wrong? It wash't what you wanted. You chose to study and become a lawyer. You chose a career over working out at the level required for you to show off your abs. It's not unrealistic for you to be able to get abs. It may be impractical because of how many hours you put in at work, or how many hours you had to put in while you were in law school studying, but that's a completely different argument.


> After years of being fat, I would have LOVED to have been able to get rid of the gut.  I am not going to undergo surgery to rid myself of it, though, unless medically ordered to do so.  (Which is highly unlikely.)



Who said anything about you getting surgery to remove it? If you want to do that, it's your choice.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 11, 2013)

Janx said:


> You may not be aware of this, but repeatedly saying variants of the quoted text is exactly why we are perceiving that you are implying it is trivial.



No, that's you just wanting to see things that rent there. I've said it isn't easy, but it is not unrealistic. How is that making it seem trivial?


> You haven'ted defined what this level of work actually entails, or
> why you think that's achievable.



Tell you what, if you know everyone's level of fitness, and how much fat they are carrying let me know, so I can calculate develop workout regimens them to be able to show off their abs. That way I could define for you the level of effort it actually entails for each one to show off their abs.


> For an unemployed MILF or FYLF, spending all day at the gym to get that level of fit is possible,
> 
> normal people have jobs, lives, etc, and are not going to radically change their diet to extreme levels (and yes, I've seen the diets fitness trainers suggest to their clients and they are extreme), as well as working out 2+ hours in the gym daily.
> 
> ...



So what you're actually arguing is "practicality." In that case, you shouldn't say "It's unrealistic." You should just say it's "impractical."

Those are two completely different things. Since you're arguing "practicality," I'm not sure why you'd continue to argue with me as I am not arguing practicality. Physiologically it's not impossible or unrealistic for a person to expect that if they put in the effort, they can get their abs to show.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 11, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> And that would be your choice. It's not as if it's impossible. You just happen to have other things you would rather do. That's fine. No one, especially me, is holding that against you. If you feel fine with yourself, then that's all that matters. If you don't want to get a six pack, that's fine. You don't have to. You aren't required to do so. If you decided that you did want to, that's also fine. That is your choice. From what you've said, it would be difficult, but you achieving that is not unrealistic.




I didn't say getting a 6-pack was impossible, just unrealistic, given that I still had a paunch at 7% body fat, a good diet, and an active lifestyle.

_Medical doctors _ (plural) advised me of what it would take.




> How was it wrong? It wash't what you wanted.



It is 100% wrong.

I _did_ want to be rid of my paunch.  As stated, _MDs_ advised me I had 2 choices: a pro athlete level diet & exercise regimen or surgery.

Given that I was already @20 years old, adopting a pro athlete lifestyle would not have left me time to do anything else.  That would have meant I would need to find employment that needed that kind of fitness...which is pretty much being a pro athlete.  

But by that age, I was already well behind the curve of training that it would take to succeed as a pro athlete, even in the sports I participated in.  Ditto the networking required to get an opportunity.  IOW, my odds of supporting myself had I opted for the 6-pack abs via lifestyle change as opposed to surgery were, essentially, nil.

Therefore, my original statement stands: achieving a 6 pack at that time was unreasonable.


----------



## Janx (Dec 11, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Those are two completely different things. Since you're arguing "practicality," I'm not sure why you'd continue to argue with me as I am not arguing practicality. Physiologically it's not impossible or unrealistic for a person to expect that if they put in the effort, they can get their abs to show.




You're arguing on the basis of semantics.

Everybody else in the room equated unrealistic to impractical to infeasible for "most people" because it is unrealistic to expect most people to allocate a large set of resources to achieve the goal, thus making it infeasible.

By choosing to do so, you are being obtuse in order to win your point.

Don't be the semantic arguer guy.  he's frustrating to talk to because it feels like he is being deliberate in not understanding another persons words.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 11, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I didn't say getting a 6-pack was impossible, just unrealistic, given that I still had a paunch at 7% body fat, a good diet, and an active lifestyle.
> 
> _Medical doctors _ (plural) advised me of what it would take.
> 
> ...


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 11, 2013)

Janx said:


> You're arguing on the basis of semantics.
> 
> Everybody else in the room equated unrealistic to impractical to infeasible for "most people" because it is unrealistic to expect most people to allocate a large set of resources to achieve the goal, thus making it infeasible.



And you made the incorrect assumption that I was using the terms the same, or that I would assume that those few who are having this discussion with me had done so. Making assumptions is bad. Don't do it.


> By choosing to do so, you are being obtuse in order to win your point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Umbran (Dec 11, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Achieving a six pack at the time wasn't unreasonable...




You keep using that word.  I don't think it means what you think it means.  *Reasonable:* of sound judgement, appropriate, fair, sensible, not exceeding the bounds of moderation.

From what he's described, sounds "outside the bounds of moderation" to me.  So, unreasonable.  

You may continue to believe what you wish, of course.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 11, 2013)

Umbran said:


> You keep using that word.  I don't think it means what you think it means.  *Reasonable:* of sound judgement, appropriate, fair, sensible, not exceeding the bounds of moderation.
> 
> From what he's described, sounds "outside the bounds of moderation" to me.  So, unreasonable.
> 
> You may continue to believe what you wish, of course.



Before we start discussing this, are you willing to concede that you were "late to the party?"


----------



## Cyclone_Joker (Dec 11, 2013)

Wow, my Econ teacher would have a field day here. 

Re:Unreasonable.It's perfectly reasonable. It'd require more work than he'd have been willing to put into it, but that doesn't make it impossible or unreasonable. Trade-offs, it's really not complicated. You putting other priorities in front of having a six-pack doesn't change a thing.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 11, 2013)

Too many people being jerks in this thread. After yesterday, tread carefully, please.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 11, 2013)

Cyclone_Joker said:


> Wow, my Econ teacher would have a field day here.
> 
> Re:Unreasonable.It's perfectly reasonable. It'd require more work than he'd have been willing to put into it, but that doesn't make it impossible or unreasonable. Trade-offs, it's really not complicated. You putting other priorities in front of having a six-pack doesn't change a thing.




Your Econ teacher would give you an "F" for your analysis.

I _might_ have been able to do the workout described by the physicians.  Let's assume I could.

The opportunity cost would have been trading high odds of a self-supporting income (based on past performance) for extremely long odds at becoming a pro athlete (based on physical size, other physical attributes,  lack of training, not attending a Div I school, etc.) able to commit time & energy to that lifestyle long-term.

Here's the thing: in sports and entertainment, opportunities are far rarer than talent.  Assuming men with the raw physical gifts of Michael Jordan are 1 in 1 Million, you'd expect to see @ 3500 in the world at a time.  Only a few of those ever made it to the NBA.  And even if they all tried out, only 450 could make it.

And i'm no MJ (nor a basketball player): even with the genetic gifts I _was_ given, my height and other factors diminished my odds of being a pro athlete to virtually nil.

Contrast that to the number of attorneys in the USA alone: over 1M and counting.

So, it is objectively unreasonable to incur an opportunity cost of a choice with odds of success many orders of magnitude greater than trying to live a pro athlete's lifestyle.


----------



## Cyclone_Joker (Dec 11, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Your Econ teacher would give you an "F" for your analysis.



Nah, it'd be on you for failing to understand the analysis.


> The opportunity cost would have been trading high odds of a self-supporting income (based on past performance) for extremely long odds at becoming a pro athlete (based on physical size, other physical attributes,  lack of training, not attending a Div I school, etc.) able to commit time & energy to that lifestyle long-term.



Irrelevant. You were more than capable of doing it. Just because you have other priorities, it doesn't change the analysis.


> So, it is objectively unreasonable to incur an opportunity cost of a choice with odds of success many orders of magnitude greater than trying to live a pro athlete's lifestyle.



So? This statement is entirely irrelevant both to my and your original statement.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 11, 2013)

Cyclone_Joker said:


> Nah, it'd be on you for failing to understand the analysis.
> Irrelevant. You were more than capable of doing it. Just because you have other priorities, it doesn't change the analysis.
> So? This statement is entirely irrelevant both to my and your original statement.




No, my original statement was that the goal was possible, but unreasonable.

The analysis from an economic viewpoint would examine all economic costs- of which opportunity costs are one- versus the probable ROI- return on investment.

The opportunity cost- which is what your Econ professor would look at- greatly outweighed probability of a meaningful ROI.  Had I actually adopted the regimen doctors told me would be required, I would have gotten my 6-pack abs...and not finished college, not gone to law school or business school, and would probably NOT have been in any pro sport.

That is the definition of an unreasonable decision in economics terms.


----------



## Cyclone_Joker (Dec 11, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The opportunity cost- which is what your Econ professor would look at- greatly outweighed probability of a meaningful ROI.  Had I actually adopted the regimen doctors told me would be required, I would have gotten my 6-pack abs...and not finished college, not gone to law school or business school, and would probably NOT have been in any pro sport.
> 
> That is the definition of an unreasonable decision in economics terms.



If you desired to, you could have gotten it. Hell, I'd be willing to bet you could have done both the exercise and the school if you wanted, especially given your oh-so-precise statement of "pro athlete-level." You, however, chose to make the trade-off. You could have reasonably done it, but you elected to put other priorities in front of it. It's not my, nor anyone else's, problem.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 11, 2013)

> If you desired to, you could have gotten it. Hell, I'd be willing to bet you could have done both the exercise and the school if you wanted, especially given your oh-so-precise statement of "pro athlete-level."




The program that I was told would be required would have been an 6-8hr/day exercise commitment- the doctors _did_ have slightly varied opinions- not something you can maintain while attending school and/or working like a normal person.  There is zero point in doing that much exercise unless you're being paid to do so on some level.  (At the time, I was getting @3hrs/day in weights, aquatics, & intramural sports participation).

Since I was not at a Div 1 school, _that_ wasn't going to happen as a student.

Still, I was the same weight and BF% when I graduated.  What about starting after college?

Well, the odds of a 5'7" male making a living as an athlete are slim, and the sports in which the probability is highest were ones that I didn't excel in (except soccer).  Given that I would also lack the training to be competitive further reduce the odds.  Mere fitness doesn't give you the hand/eye coordination to hit a curveball, the speed or mass to play football, the ability to shoot buckets.  That takes training over time, building muscle memory and connections within the brain.

The odds of a 22 year old initiating such a program and succeeding are functionally zero.

IOW, unrealistic.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 12, 2013)

Putting in a full time workday of training, when you have other responsibilities and no interest or prostects of an athletic career, seems the definition of unreasonable to me. I have trained that much in the past, in times of my life when it was feasible, but I had also had bigger goals than a six pack. Spending 6-8 hours a day, six to eight hours you could be working, purely in the pursuit of abs, seems quite unreasonable (unless abs mean more to you than a stable job and healthy relationships).


----------



## Cyclone_Joker (Dec 12, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The odds of a 22 year old initiating such a program and succeeding are functionally zero.
> 
> IOW, unrealistic.



IOW, excuses.

It's simple. You just didn't want it enough for it to be worth it to you. And that's totally fine, but let's be honest about it.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Dec 12, 2013)

Cyclone_Joker said:


> IOW, excuses.
> 
> It's simple. You just didn't want it enough for it to be worth it to you. And that's totally fine, but let's be honest about it.




I disagree with you.
I believe he wanted it, he just didn't have the time to put into it. Hell, I would like a 6 pack too, but with my work schedule and responsibilities, there is no way I could spend enough time to get it, no matter how much I wanted it. Unless I want my wife and kids to starve, be homeless, and me be unemployed. There simply isn't enough time in a day.


----------



## Cyclone_Joker (Dec 12, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> I disagree with you.
> I believe he wanted it, he just didn't have the time to put into it. Hell, I would like a 6 pack too, but with my work schedule and responsibilities, there is no way I could spend enough time to get it, no matter how much I wanted it. Unless I want my wife and kids to starve, be homeless, and me be unemployed. There simply isn't enough time in a day.



Then you choose not to have a six-pack. This is one of the relatively few things that're pretty much completely under your control, all you have to do is work for it.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Dec 12, 2013)

Cyclone_Joker said:


> Then you choose not to have a six-pack. This is one of the relatively few things that're pretty much completely under your control, all you have to do is work for it.




When?

I don't think you understand.
If one spends ones time working and taking care of responsibilities, one simply doesn't have enough time for some things.
I would love to play test war games all day, but I simply can't if I want to feed my family and make sure they are taken care of.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 12, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> When?
> 
> I don't think you understand.
> If one spends ones time working and taking care of responsibilities, one simply doesn't have enough time for some things.
> I would love to play test war games all day, but I simply can't if I want to feed my family and make sure they are taken care of.



You could get a job at a war game company.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Dec 12, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> You could get a job at a war game company.




In Pittsburgh?

All the companies I have play tested for are from the Left Coast.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 12, 2013)

Cyclone_Joker said:


> IOW, excuses.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk


----------



## Umbran (Dec 12, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Before we start discussing this, are you willing to concede that you were "late to the party?"




I'll discuss it as I see fit.  You don't want to without getting a concession on something that's irrelevant to the actual topic, that's your decision.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 12, 2013)

Umbran said:


> I'll discuss it as I see fit.



Well then you are welcomed to discuss it with someone else.


> You don't want to without getting a concession on something that's irrelevant to the actual topic, that's your decision.



Actually, I was just curious if you were willing to have a reasonable discussion and were able to admit when yo were wrong, or if you just want to argue. Since it appears that you just want to argue, I'll let you go ahead and do that with someone else. Have fun.


----------



## Janx (Dec 12, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> I disagree with you.
> I believe he wanted it, he just didn't have the time to put into it. Hell, I would like a 6 pack too, but with my work schedule and responsibilities, there is no way I could spend enough time to get it, no matter how much I wanted it. Unless I want my wife and kids to starve, be homeless, and me be unemployed. There simply isn't enough time in a day.




I agree with you.

the argument Cyclone seems to be using is that Danny simply made a choice.

But the reality is, there are billions of choices we technically are making, but many of the alternatives are trivial, impractical, or downright not good for our long term being and as such the actuality of those choice options are self eliminating.

Danny's not going to smash his head in with a 10lb weight on purpose.  Even though he could CHOOSE to do so if he really wanted it. Arguing that it he chose otherwise is nonsensical.  Only in the technical sense was it a choice, otherwise, it was a foregone conclusion that he wouldn't do that because it wasn't even somewhat useful to him to choose it.

the option to quit school and workout all day was not sustainable (he'd be unemployed, uneducated and wouldn't qualify for pro athlete jobs).  So while he COULD have done it, it wasn't a viable choice for a rational acting person working in his own best interests.

To keep arguing that "he didn't want it bad enough" isn't conducive to any practical application or discussion.    In some ways, it's actually offensive as it dismisses any serious considerations (that Danny gave) as if the option to dedicate himself to a highly strenuous exercise program was of greater importance than getting educated.

Nobody in their right mind in college/career is going to drop everything solely to get 6 pack abs.


----------



## Cyclone_Joker (Dec 12, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> When?
> 
> I don't think you understand.
> If one spends ones time working and taking care of responsibilities, one simply doesn't have enough time for some things.
> I would love to play test war games all day, but I simply can't if *I want to feed my family and make sure they are taken care of.*



...There you go. I accept your concession.


Dannyalcatraz said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk



That's adorable. Posting a clip to a movie instead of arguing after you've clearly been established as wrong. 


Umbran said:


> I'll discuss it as I see fit.  You don't want to without getting a concession on something that's irrelevant to the actual topic, that's your decision.



IOW, "I don't care about petty things like 'facts,' I am right because I say so."


Janx said:


> Nobody in their right mind in college/career is going to drop everything solely to get 6 pack abs.



And it doesn't matter. All that means is that everyone who, in your judgement, is "in their right mind," will make the same choice. It's still a choice.

Also, if he is incapable of finding six hours in a day, then he's just not trying. Even if he were to have to work on his education ten hours a day every day, he still has room for eight hours of sleep after his six hours of working out. He just decided that those six hours had better uses. Not my problem.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Dec 12, 2013)

I made no concession.

It's ok sweetie... you can admit when you're wrong. The bad man won't touch you anymore....


----------



## Cyclone_Joker (Dec 12, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> I made no concession.



What do you call agreeing with my argument, then?


> It's ok sweetie... you can admit when you're wrong. The bad man won't touch you anymore....



Look, Hoodsie, copying my insults is bad enough, but when you can't even deliver them well, it's just sad.


----------



## Janx (Dec 12, 2013)

Cyclone_Joker said:


> .
> IOW, "I don't care about petty things like 'facts,' I am right because I say so."
> And it doesn't matter. All that means is that everyone who, in your judgement, is "in their right mind," will make the same choice. It's still a choice.
> 
> Also, if he is incapable of finding six hours in a day, then he's just not trying. Even if he were to have to work on his education ten hours a day every day, he still has room for eight hours of sleep after his six hours of working out. He just decided that those six hours had better uses. Not my problem.




It's an absurdist choice.  a rational actor isn't going to choose it and therefore the fact that it is an option on the menu doesn't make it a SIGNIFICANT choice.

It's likely a factor of how much effort it would have taken.  So if it only takes 20 minutes a day and healthy eating, then yes, Danny could have achieved that while learning/working, etc, and he effectively didn't want it bad enough.

But if it would have taken 8 hours a day and external financial support (he needs to get paid to get super-fit), and he didn't actually have that money available to him, then it was not a viable choice and is effectively eliminated in a rational person's mind.

Danny already indicated the option was at the latter extreme

To insist otherwise is to disrespect a person's real life considerations and concerns that an absurd option had equal value to the actual choice they made.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 12, 2013)

Cyclone_Joker said:


> Then you choose not to have a six-pack. This is one of the relatively few things that're pretty much completely under your control, all you have to do is work for it.




While I agree that it is - largely - a choice (excepting medical issues), it isn't always a reasonable choice. Prioritising getting a six pack over working and feeding your family is, yes, a choice. It's not a reasonable one, though. It's a bad choice. 

Everything's a choice, for sure, in that we have free will and decide things. That's just a discussion about the meaning of the word 'choice'. But our lives revolve around reasonable choices, not absolutes, and in common vernacular, one if these things aren't viable choices.

Choice, yes. Reasonable or viable choice? Not always.



> Not my problem.




Danny's physique, like everything else on this messageboard, is indeed not your problem.  It's a discussion forum. Participants in the discussion are either interested or not.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 12, 2013)

Morrus said:


> While I agree that it is - largely - a choice (excepting medical issues), it isn't always a reasonable choice. Prioritising getting a six pack over working and feeding your family is, yes, a choice. It's not a reasonable one, though. It's a bad choice.




This. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. Danny clearly said, the doctors told him what he had to do specifically to get six pack abs. No one is denying it was possible, but people are saying it would not have been wise for him to do so. So characterizing his choice as "he just didn't want it enough" implies a judgment of his decision that seems unwarranted. The amount of hours he would have had to put in to achieve a superficial fitness goal of 300-style abs, would have potentially cost him money and time he needed for more important things. Now, if his livlihood was competing in body building competitions or starring on the Jersey Shore, that would be different.


----------



## Cyclone_Joker (Dec 12, 2013)

Janx said:


> But if it would have taken 8 hours a day and external financial support (he needs to get paid to get super-fit), and he didn't actually have that money available to him, then it was not a viable choice and is effectively eliminated in a rational person's mind.



Except this exactly true. 

If it was really worth it to him, he could have found six or eight hours. The day is long, and you can adjust your sleep schedule to get more out of it. He_ could_ have gotten it, probably could have gotten it with his degree if he was willing to sacrifice other things


> To insist otherwise is to disrespect a person's real life considerations and concerns that an absurd option had equal value to the actual choice they made.



No, it's a statement of fact.


Morrus said:


> Everything's a choice, for sure, in that we have free will and decide things. That's just a discussion about the meaning of the word 'choice'. But our lives revolve around reasonable choices, not absolutes, and in common vernacular, one if these things aren't viable choices.



Not true. No matter how much I want to, I can't stick my arm out, jump, and fly at several times the speed of sound. This was a simple matter of priorities.


> Danny's physique, like everything else on this messageboard, is indeed not your problem.  It's a discussion forum. Participants in the discussion are either interested or not.



Actually, his physique wasn't what I was expressing disinterest in, but hey, I'll give you points for effort.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 12, 2013)

Cyclone_Joker said:


> but hey, I'll give you points for effort.




You'll stop making snotty little remarks like that, is what you'll do. Immediately. I hope that is clear, because my patience this week is close to zero.


----------

