Misogyny/MRA is a sign of weakness
Eating correctly=at least a fat burn, as most Hollywood actresses still have their career if they lose a pound or two of muscle.
Unless they gain an ounce of fat.
You don't have the slightest idea how "fit" they are by looking at them.
Thankfully, not all male actors are required to be Hugh Jackman.
Still waiting.
Who's doing 30 minutes of cardio three times a week?
I'll revoke my statement—this chick did it in just two months:
http://asianfanatics.net/forum/topic/77 ... iller-abs/
From skinny fat to more muscular than most Hollywood babes in 8 weeks...
One chick is not "anyone," or even "most people."
_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."
-XFG (no longer a moderator)
Even if this was true, an ounce of fat could be lost in a matter of minuter. Most actresses carry slightly more fat between movies than they do when filming them.
I can judge both fat levels and muscle levels fairly well. Stamina is a whole different thing, but since most Hollywood actresses aren't expected to be particularly enduring either, I'll assume that most of them can't run for that long either.
Correct. Unless they're in movies made specifically to appeal to teenage girls, they need to look like him in shirtless scenes, though. Pretty much any shirtless Spartacus actor is as big as Hugh Jackman; even good Solonius in his mid 50's could probably bench 225 lbs at 10% bodyfat.
I've given you how four actresses work out; none of the most popular actresses today are significantly more muscular than these four women, save for Hillary Swank and Sarah Jessica Parker, who do lift heavy. I can't find the schedule for thousands of actresses, but it's enough to fulfill my part of the burden of proof. Show me an actress who does heavy baselifts or heavy crossfits.
Rihanna, among others. This is what's required (apart from a highly feminine body) to look like her.
One chick is not "anyone," or even "most people."
Not convinced yet? I'll gladly rub it in how right I am:
These are 12 week before/after shots:



These are 8 week before/after shots:

[img][800:663]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DsLyu21BH8I/T24HRc1fVVI/AAAAAAAAA9A/r9qszLd0V5c/s1600/beforeafter+back+only.JPG[/img]
[img][800:960]http://api.ning.com/files/P80mhi2d8t4cKTfZi4eGE5AVEYHeLsmlfZHRZph0PbuDmBj7svSXw0oLy*G*yBFRdkneAfzik4DyQ8pLJDXt4HTNAUqiYMGy/18182_3937307000108_1910190833_n.jpg[/img]
Can you find many Hollywood actresses that are more muscular?
For comparison, here's how muscular most Hollywood actresses and singers are:



Nothing in terms of physical fitness is required apart from staying between 18 and 22% bodyfat...
*snort* And if male body standards were as strict as female ones, Hugh Jackman would have to starve himself until he was having heart palpitations due to malnutrition.
No, not really. A man's ideal body fat range is 15-22%; a woman's is 22-30%. At roughly 20%, Katy Perry or most other female present day celebrities aren't that skinny. A woman with 20% bodyfat, is no more absurd than a man with a 12% bodyfat level. In any case, it takes a lot more for a man to reach 8% bodyfat than it does for a woman to reach 20% bodyfat, especially given that a man also has to retain a lot of muscle mass.
Absolutely every man with six pack abs has a fat percentage below the ideal levels. Abs usually become visible at anywhere between 6 and 10% bf (with 8 being the mean), but in rare cases, if the bf is very evenly distributed, he may have visible abs even at 11%. Likewise, in some extreme cases, if he has stubborn fat, the lower abs may still not be visible at 4-5% bodyfat.
An average American woman has 32% bodyfat; if she loses 10 lbs of fat + the water retention, she's no more fat than most female singers or actresses.
Exactly.
It is harder for men (than women) to get the ideal "hollywood body" that LKL/puddingmouse are referring to. I don't know why so many claim it's the opposite, it is not, check the typical gym programs for each gender and compare: it's harder for the guys, and that's why they are far more prone to fall into nasty things like steroids and GH injections.
That's why men are routinely hospitalized in the process of trying to achieve their ideal body, more often than women are. They die more often, too. Oh, wait....
(hint: the opposite is true).
Okay, you are making a lot of assumptions about the MRM. While I don't identify as an MRA, I do find your analysis to be a gross misinterpretation of their core beliefs. The MRM are NOT against women's rights and they are not even entirely against feminism. The whole point of the movement is to address male issues, i.e male suicide rates, homelessness, violence against men (as men make up the majority of victims in this case), child custody laws, the erasure of male rape victims, male disposability (in many countries, men are required to do service in military, but not females), etc etc.
Now, I know that feminists claim that they are indirectly helping men by helping women, but clearly there are issues that aren't being addressed at all. Maybe instead of running yourself ragged trying to deal with everyone's problems, there should be a venue for men to speak on issues that affect them and feminists can focus on women's problems. I mean, why does there have to be a versus mentality about it? Why do both groups have to feel so violated by one anothers' very f*****g existence?
You both want the same thing - gender equality, and I don't really see that happening if you're going to just say that MRA's are neckbeard, MLP loving losers that can't get laid. Grow up.
*snort* And if male body standards were as strict as female ones, Hugh Jackman would have to starve himself until he was having heart palpitations due to malnutrition.
No, not really. A man's ideal body fat range is 15-22%; a woman's is 22-30%. At roughly 20%, Katy Perry or most other female present day celebrities aren't that skinny. A woman with 20% bodyfat, is no more absurd than a man with a 12% bodyfat level. In any case, it takes a lot more for a man to reach 8% bodyfat than it does for a woman to reach 20% bodyfat, especially given that a man also has to retain a lot of muscle mass.
Absolutely every man with six pack abs has a fat percentage below the ideal levels. Abs usually become visible at anywhere between 6 and 10% bf (with 8 being the mean), but in rare cases, if the bf is very evenly distributed, he may have visible abs even at 11%. Likewise, in some extreme cases, if he has stubborn fat, the lower abs may still not be visible at 4-5% bodyfat.
An average American woman has 32% bodyfat; if she loses 10 lbs of fat + the water retention, she's no more fat than most female singers or actresses.
Exactly.
It is harder for men (than women) to get the ideal "hollywood body" that LKL/puddingmouse are referring to. I don't know why so many claim it's the opposite, it is not, check the typical gym programs for each gender and compare: it's harder for the guys, and that's why they are far more prone to fall into nasty things like steroids and GH injections.
That's why men are routinely hospitalized in the process of trying to achieve their ideal body, more often than women are. They die more often, too. Oh, wait....
(hint: the opposite is true).
3% of all Norwegian 18 and 19 year old boys have used steroids. Anyone who can bench, squat or deadlift a big number suffers from either shoulder problems, knee problems or lower bqck problems as well.
When you're an anorectic, you're way slimmer than the ideal body. As far as death goes, pro wrestlers, bodybuilders and powerlifters die all the time. Just recently the legend Nasser el-Sonbaty died from late-term damage ten years after he stopped using drugs. Common dianabol won't kill you just like that, but both actors and bodybuilders have way worse stuff in their cookie jars.
This is anorexia:

This is not anorexia:

To look like the former, eat like a Holocaust victim. To get a physique like the latter, do nothing, just don't eat more than you need and hit the treadmill a few times a week if your bodyfat levels are not in the lower half of the 20's.
Anybody else having difficulty accessing WP? I'm getting in about once every 10 minutes. Anyway, an addition to the last link I posted:
http://voices.yahoo.com/10-things-anore ... 10422.html
Wrt. your post, Kurgan: Yes, the first three photos do show anorexia. However, 'just don't eat more than you need, and hit the treadmill once in a while,' is not all that you need to get a body like a movie star, nor is even that much very easy. For starters, 'not eating more than you need' puts pretty much any pre-prepared food off the menu, unless you want to feed half, or more, of your serving to the dog. And then the dog gets fat.
Here are some pictures of women who are at the peak of their games - Olympic athletes, literally as fit as they can get - and hardly a one of them would make it into a fashion magazine. http://www.stumptuous.com/why-dont-you- ... ness-model
Fitness models only look like fitness models one week of the year, but they're still fairly muscular all the year. "More than you need" if more than you basal metabolic rate, plus your daily activity. If you eat a Big Mac, you have to compensate for it by eating less during the other meals. This goes for men as well. If you're 130 lbs, your basal metabolic rate is 1300 calories, which means hat you can spend all your day litterally flat on your back watching television, eat two chicken fillets, eat two slices of bread with butter and cheese, eat two sallads, eat five apples and drink as much coffee as you want during the day without gaining an ounce of weight. You'll burn an aditional 500 calories by doing you daily routine and can burn 300 more after an hour of low intensity cardio.
All the women pictured in your article are more muscular than almost all Hollywood actresses, though. Like I said: female actresses carry no more muscle than regular women, they just have a little less fat.
Normal- or thin-looking guy actors, who are nonetheless still attractive:
also? google 'bishonen.'
Also, don't put up pictures of actors in full 'on the set' condition against actress in 'off the set' condition. Both genders have to 'spruce up' when they're working.
Also, in all of the recent 'Avenger/Thor' movies, Loki is soooo much hotter than Thor (J/k; I know that actor is pretty built too - just making the point that bigger is not necessarily better).
Female actor's don't have to gain muscle while they're working; they just need to go from 25 to 20% bodyfat. Men have to gain both muscle and tone down to just above half of the medical idealfat levels if they're in a shirtless scene.
Keep in mind that I'm not only talking about the pressure women put on men, but also the pressure men put on men. Bane wasn't shirtless because women think he's hot, but because the movie team wanted men to say "holy sh!t that guy is big!". The rule of thumb is [in 2013] that men are pressured by men to be beefcakes and by women to be ripped, don't be bald, don't age, etc. Lastly, most women consider Johnny Depp to be hottest when he's cut and fit in a movie role, not when he's between movies.
^ 'Hottest' is not of that much importance when you consider that he's still very attractive when not working out. What you basically said was that you take a very attractive man, get him to work out a bit, and he becomes even more attractive. Who woulda thunk it?
_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.

gosh, I didn't know that. Thank you for the mansplaining.
I don't think that's accurate, but it wasn't my point anyway; my point was that most of the *incredibly* fit women in the article would not be considered attractive enough to be in movies or to model.