Framepill Debunked

[Deleted member 5891]

great insertion

Examples?

 

[WTFCGod]

Says who? Your mom?

No.


Her>

 

[elfmaxx]

View attachment 897592

That guy would get ko'd so easily by anyone who has even a little bit of training. JFL at him swinging wildly with his chin right up in the air, he is only reinforcing bad patterns into his muscle memory.

I honestly think he is a troll, but there's alotta delusional people on this site so who knows.

 

[randomuser2407]

I can't believe I took the time to make a high quality post that should be in "best of the best" section to a community of idiots who'll never understand the most basic things that even the misc section of bodybuilding.com would understand. The black pill as a whole is much more retarded than I could have ever imagined.

 

[Deleted member 6512]

I can't believe I took the time to make a high quality post that should be in "best of the best" section to a community of idiots who'll never understand the most basic things that even the misc section of bodybuilding.com would understand. The black pill as a whole is much more retarded than I could have ever imagined.

keep cry for your low iq

 

[Effortless]

Examples?

Jeff Seid is a good example of great insertions

This...is muscle but bad insertions...

or something like this even though most of them have decent insertions over all just bad chest

Basically the muscle looks bigger/fuller and more symmetrical

 

[ZanyBR]

I liked the post. It is unbelievable how this forum is against body improvement. It's insane.
I can only believe that this is packed with pre-teens or guys who don't leave the home.

 

[piscicide]

This shit again. Didn't you learn last time?

https://looksmax.org/threads/coping...erent-frames-do-i-frame-mog-him-or-no.225293/

 

[ifyouwannabemylover]

no

 

[Timelessbrah]

women don't even care ab out frame, any muscle/leanness is more than enough.

 

[clavicel]

You're confusing frame with insertions/muscle bellies. Both are genetics but the latter is 100% genetics as far as anyone can tell and the former, as with height, depends partially on your environment as well. Having broader shoulders and a larger shoulder-to-hip/waist ratio is pretty much universally better. Your frame doesn't determine how long/thin your muscles are, your insertions do. Someone with good insertions and round muscle bellies will look like they have 15 more pounds of muscle than another guy with shitty insertions ceteris paribus. This is one of the main things that is meant when the term "genetics" is used in the context of bodybuilding. Frame and insertions are not the same thing and to my knowledge not correlated. I wish I could post a good side-by-side comparison of two people with similar frames and amounts of muscle mass but completely different insertions and muscle bellies but unfortunately I can't find anything of the sort.

 

[tyronelite]

Great thread OP

 

[Deleted member 9511]

This pic is all It takes to debunk your thread
View attachment 897528

is it possible that he just overworked the wrong muscle groups and he would look less odd with more developed delts and less developed obliques?

i don't know squat about bodybuilding so maybe somebody who is wise on the subject could enlighten?

 

[Deleted member 3573]

Shit thread. Woman don't care about bodybuilding proportions and how much your chest pops. Woman care about your frame and clavicle size

 

[klamus]

Absolutely retarded rambling

 

[ifyouwannabemylover]

Same guy:

View attachment 897531




DEBUNKED

cope copity cope

guy compares those two guys by analyzing waste to hip ratio and concludes that 'both are attractive to women' when everyone can instantly see that the guy on the left has shit tier bone structure in comparison and even though he's gymcelled 100 times as much as the guy on the right + roids, he's still nowhere near close

just write an essay and soyboys on reddit will upvote you no matter what theory

 

[efidescontinuado]

worst thread i have ever read in this site

 

[Deleted member 685]

Just lol at this delusional deformed faced truecel

 

[Lolcel]

Just like face , its all about harmony again
Hemsworth's frame is pretty good despite his not so wide shoulders , which i guess is because of his good muscle insertions and bellies , combined with his height
Its like those cases of high PSL faces where having one flaw isnt enough to destroy the harmony , which would otherwise be a death sentence , because the rest of the features have a too strong halo

 

[EdwardCullen]

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:

View attachment 897508
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:

View attachment 897509
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.

View attachment 897510

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:

Just fucking LOL what a cope lmao, frame doesnt matter? Lmao kys how tf can u be on this website

 

[Uglybrazilian]

To deny that frame is a thing and that there is better and worse frames is being delusional

You are right when you say that a wider frame will make your muscles look smaller, but it doesnt matter since women still prefer the wide framed look. Pretty much all girls would prefer henry cavil's body than the second nigga's body because it looks better. The other guy has a small frame and to compensate for it he needs to put more muscle than his bone structure is supposed to carry, which obviously doesnt look ideal at all(there is a reason why women dont like bodybuilders).

But that being said, it doesnt matter if your frame is narrow or wide, you'll still look better with lifting and thus you should do it anyway. Anyone who says someone shouldnt gymmax because of he's frame is literally insane. You should always improve.

 

[Insecure03]

You seem to forget that the Rock is on very large amounts of steroids, he is not natural so his physique is unattainable, even if you were to use steroids, there is no guarantee that you would look like him naturally.

On top of that, this is photoshopped, nobody would have proportions like that. This just proves my point even more about how retarded the users of this forum really are. You make false theories and shit photoshop jobs and use those to determine your future and how you should live your life, you use demoralization to try to destroy people's hopes and dreams to make them remain as pathetic and useless as you are yourself, and with most guys you succeed, especially if they are naive teenagers or autistic enough to believe you.

 

[Deleted member 3635]

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:

View attachment 897508
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:

View attachment 897509
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.

View attachment 897510

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:

this sounds like utter cope frame matters its like when a girl has wide hips, having wide shoulders signals dominance + abiltity to throw spears better

 

[0Ace0]

This is incorrect, a wider frame does correlate with increased mass potential, research has already shown that

 

[Wallenberg]

Very good topic. Great analysis and appreciate the effort it took to write that post. You are right about gymmaxing: there is no excuse to not gymmax. Sure, a male model with a skinny body has a higher sexual market value than gymmaxed normie, but guess what, gymmaxed normie has a higher SMV than a skinny fat normie. Also, it might be that gymmaxed male model > skinny male model.

I think that frame matters, but you are very right about gymmaxing. Gymmaxing is cheap and easy. Gymmaxing has also other benefits than just better looks. Leanmaxxing and gymmaxxing are the first things that people should do. In some cases, they are all you need.

 

[Ritalincell]

One of the worst terracope threads ever