6
6ft4
TFBEM is the Meta
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2019
- Posts
- 8,195
- Reputation
- 19,229
I was in the gym the other night and a 5'7 Arab guy was training with his shirt off
Here is my evaluation of his physique
His clavicles were normal size for his height but his head still looked too big for his body, he had no delt mass
He was lean enough to have abs and chest separation.
If he took a pic from the front, and compared it to a shirtless pic of me at my peak from the front, people would likely say his physique was more aesthetic because it's more tapered due to him having tiny hips. Despite the difference in mass being 95kg v 55kg
I was astonished by how underdeveloped his back was. Literally no mass at all
Now back to the question of how manlets are able to reach full development and have such tiny hips
It's known that as men scale up in height, their hips often scale up proportionally but their clavicles don't scale up to the same degree, meaning that their clav:hip ratio is less favourable than average height male generally. So does this mean that as men scale down in height to manlet size, their hips scale down as well but their clavicles done scale down to the same degree meaning their hips look tinier compared to clavicles?
I question if this is a developmental issue, where taller men don't have enough nutrients or don't channel nutrients efficiently enough to grow their clavicles to favourable proportions (except Chads) or is it simply a case that it's entirely based on the skeletal proportions of your parents and men who happened to be tall with subpar clavicles were able to reproduce because height halo over rided subpar clavicle failo, whereas with manlets, the ones with subpar clavicles failed to reproduce but the ones with better claivicles and smaller hips reproduced more because women found them more pleasing to look at?
Here is my evaluation of his physique
His clavicles were normal size for his height but his head still looked too big for his body, he had no delt mass
He was lean enough to have abs and chest separation.
If he took a pic from the front, and compared it to a shirtless pic of me at my peak from the front, people would likely say his physique was more aesthetic because it's more tapered due to him having tiny hips. Despite the difference in mass being 95kg v 55kg
I was astonished by how underdeveloped his back was. Literally no mass at all
This is why there has never been a better time to be a manlet since dating is pretty much exclusively done online now, manlets can run body game on tinder while being 55kg. All that matters is how you look from the front. All you have to do is go from untrained to adding 8kg of muscle to your upper body and you're set, you can get your foot in the door with girls enough so that you can talk to them until they build familiarity with you and will look past the fact you're a manlet.
Irl you may get disqualified sooner since they can see your height as a direct comparison in 3D. Something that just doesn't come across in pics so long as you're not stupid enough to post pics being size mogged
Irl you may get disqualified sooner since they can see your height as a direct comparison in 3D. Something that just doesn't come across in pics so long as you're not stupid enough to post pics being size mogged
Now back to the question of how manlets are able to reach full development and have such tiny hips
It's known that as men scale up in height, their hips often scale up proportionally but their clavicles don't scale up to the same degree, meaning that their clav:hip ratio is less favourable than average height male generally. So does this mean that as men scale down in height to manlet size, their hips scale down as well but their clavicles done scale down to the same degree meaning their hips look tinier compared to clavicles?
I question if this is a developmental issue, where taller men don't have enough nutrients or don't channel nutrients efficiently enough to grow their clavicles to favourable proportions (except Chads) or is it simply a case that it's entirely based on the skeletal proportions of your parents and men who happened to be tall with subpar clavicles were able to reproduce because height halo over rided subpar clavicle failo, whereas with manlets, the ones with subpar clavicles failed to reproduce but the ones with better claivicles and smaller hips reproduced more because women found them more pleasing to look at?
