R
randomuser2407
Noble Natty
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 6,923
- Reputation
- 9,944
Framepill Debunked
Frame doesn't matter. There are lots of actors who are natural and have a nice physique because they have a smaller frame.
Wide shoulders make you wider but smaller, narrow shoulders make you narrow but bigger.
Here is proof of what I am talking about:
Here is Henry Cavill in Man of Steel at 30 years old (natural), he has wide shoulders so a wide/big frame:
Because his shoulders are wide, his lats are wide but not very thick, and his chest doesn't look huge because the muscle is spread out on a larger area, this is the downside of having a wider frame.
Here is Stephen Amell at 31 years old (natural), he has narrow shoulders so a narrow/small frame:
Because his shoulders are narrow, his chest is narrow so it looks very big even though he doesn't have a lot of muscle mass in reality. His look is what I can expect to get after around 1 year and a half of training, in 3 years I can be even bigger than that, but since I have narrow shoulders, the muscle will be stored in a more narrow place so it will be more visible.
The most interesting thing about this comparison is that Stephen Amell was actually far less muscular in that photo than Henry Cavill was in Man of Steel but they look very similar. This means that if Amell had as much muscle mass as Cavill, he would look much bigger, simply because his frame is so stocky that the muscle mass is spread out on a very small area. And we must not forget the fact that Henry Cavill was at a much higher body fat than Amell so he should look bigger but he doesn't.
And this proves that the framepill is actually wrong, there is no best frame, there are only differences, or pros and cons, because the wider you are, the thinner your muscles will be. This means that being wider doesn't give you a bigger muscular potential, it just means that you're wider. And it is a lie that women prefer wider frames because if that was the case, then they wouldn't find the physique of Chris Hemsworth attractive because he has narrow shoulders, in fact, most hollywood actors and most people in general have narrow shoulders, people like Cavill are the exception, not the norm. Chris Hemsworth is considered to be one of the most attractive men in Hollywood even though he has a small frame. Some here will say that it's because of his face but there is much more to it than that, muscles are a much stronger halo than most of you can understand.
I have a friend who is as muscular as Cavill was in Man of Steel and he has wide shoulders too and he has the same problem, his chest looks tiny because his lats are very wide and his lats are thin because of their width.
And, those who have wide shoulders don't even have normal hips, their shoulders are only wide because their hips are extremely narrow. So if you have normal hips, you won't have shoulders that are very wide because it's simply not possible.
So, in the end, women only care about the size of the muscles and how proportional they look to each other, not the frame itself. The upper body is more important to women but the lower body matters too.
We can think that women only like muscular actors because of their face but if they were skinny, they wouldn't be reacting that way. If you're really ugly and you gymmax, you're not going to become a supermodel of course but you'll still be considered much more attractive than you are right now no matter how your face looks so you'll have more success with women.
Since actors are not picked in the same way as models, many of them don't look like Chads, but when they were muscular for a role, their female co-stars really liked their look even though they didn't have the most attractive face. This debunks the idea that face is everything or that muscles don't matter. Everyone should be gymmaxxing as soon as possible because no amount of plastic surgeries for your face will ever be able to cause as much of a difference in your looks as gymmaxxing will be able to do. Making your eyes or nose different by a few milimeters is not going to be as noticeable as adding 30 lbs of muscle to your frame.
I think that the reason why so many looksmax users are against gymmaxxing and give excuses to not try it is because they are too lazy, they cope by coming up with reasons to explain to people why they don't want to gymmax, instead they'd rather waste their time on things that don't actually bring them closer to their goals. There are very few people in the world who are patient and serious enough to gymmax, that says a lot about how lazy most people are.
Here you can see how women react to gymmaxxed actors:
In some of the videos here, some of the men are not even huge, good looking or popular, but their body alone gives them a lot of attention from women:
Frame doesn't matter. There are lots of actors who are natural and have a nice physique because they have a smaller frame.
Wide shoulders make you wider but smaller, narrow shoulders make you narrow but bigger.
Here is proof of what I am talking about:
Here is Henry Cavill in Man of Steel at 30 years old (natural), he has wide shoulders so a wide/big frame:
Because his shoulders are wide, his lats are wide but not very thick, and his chest doesn't look huge because the muscle is spread out on a larger area, this is the downside of having a wider frame.
Here is Stephen Amell at 31 years old (natural), he has narrow shoulders so a narrow/small frame:
Because his shoulders are narrow, his chest is narrow so it looks very big even though he doesn't have a lot of muscle mass in reality. His look is what I can expect to get after around 1 year and a half of training, in 3 years I can be even bigger than that, but since I have narrow shoulders, the muscle will be stored in a more narrow place so it will be more visible.
The most interesting thing about this comparison is that Stephen Amell was actually far less muscular in that photo than Henry Cavill was in Man of Steel but they look very similar. This means that if Amell had as much muscle mass as Cavill, he would look much bigger, simply because his frame is so stocky that the muscle mass is spread out on a very small area. And we must not forget the fact that Henry Cavill was at a much higher body fat than Amell so he should look bigger but he doesn't.
And this proves that the framepill is actually wrong, there is no best frame, there are only differences, or pros and cons, because the wider you are, the thinner your muscles will be. This means that being wider doesn't give you a bigger muscular potential, it just means that you're wider. And it is a lie that women prefer wider frames because if that was the case, then they wouldn't find the physique of Chris Hemsworth attractive because he has narrow shoulders, in fact, most hollywood actors and most people in general have narrow shoulders, people like Cavill are the exception, not the norm. Chris Hemsworth is considered to be one of the most attractive men in Hollywood even though he has a small frame. Some here will say that it's because of his face but there is much more to it than that, muscles are a much stronger halo than most of you can understand.
I have a friend who is as muscular as Cavill was in Man of Steel and he has wide shoulders too and he has the same problem, his chest looks tiny because his lats are very wide and his lats are thin because of their width.
And, those who have wide shoulders don't even have normal hips, their shoulders are only wide because their hips are extremely narrow. So if you have normal hips, you won't have shoulders that are very wide because it's simply not possible.
So, in the end, women only care about the size of the muscles and how proportional they look to each other, not the frame itself. The upper body is more important to women but the lower body matters too.
We can think that women only like muscular actors because of their face but if they were skinny, they wouldn't be reacting that way. If you're really ugly and you gymmax, you're not going to become a supermodel of course but you'll still be considered much more attractive than you are right now no matter how your face looks so you'll have more success with women.
Since actors are not picked in the same way as models, many of them don't look like Chads, but when they were muscular for a role, their female co-stars really liked their look even though they didn't have the most attractive face. This debunks the idea that face is everything or that muscles don't matter. Everyone should be gymmaxxing as soon as possible because no amount of plastic surgeries for your face will ever be able to cause as much of a difference in your looks as gymmaxxing will be able to do. Making your eyes or nose different by a few milimeters is not going to be as noticeable as adding 30 lbs of muscle to your frame.
I think that the reason why so many looksmax users are against gymmaxxing and give excuses to not try it is because they are too lazy, they cope by coming up with reasons to explain to people why they don't want to gymmax, instead they'd rather waste their time on things that don't actually bring them closer to their goals. There are very few people in the world who are patient and serious enough to gymmax, that says a lot about how lazy most people are.
Here you can see how women react to gymmaxxed actors:
In some of the videos here, some of the men are not even huge, good looking or popular, but their body alone gives them a lot of attention from women:
