I know there are Discovery Channel programs saying the ideal ratio of attractiveness is like .74 or something like that, and that many people here train primarily to look attractive. Does anyone use this as a guide for their routine beyond a vague goal of some kind of V torso?
Also, does anybody have any good links on this topic??
The golden ration, or Phi (pronounced phee) is an irrational number equaling
1.618033988749894848.
Almost nothing on the planet doesn’t have something to do with it.
[quote]milktruck wrote:
I know there are Discovery Channel programs saying the ideal ratio of attractiveness is like .74 or something like that, and that many people here train primarily to look attractive. Does anyone use this as a guide for their routine beyond a vague goal of some kind of V torso?
Also, does anybody have any good links on this topic?[/quote]
Well…since we find that ratio most attractive, we don’t have to measure anything, we can just look in the mirror.
Ratio of what? There have to be two quantities involved for a ratio. As in, the ratio of apples to oranges on a table. Or the ratio of Octane to whateverane in some gasoline.
Make some sense!
Also, mentioning the golden ratio is an automatic vote for cool post.
-Fireplug
Yea, I remember that shit in Grade 12 math class the golden ratios, I believe that there are ratios that model scouts look for can’t remember them though. Also I know the parthenon applies this ratio with rectangles and shit, between the pillars the actual size of the facings and stuff is all about 1:1.61…however the greeks knew about illusion/perception.
They knew that the parthenon was on a hill and looking up at it the rop looks narrower, so it actually goes out a bit at the top to couter that illusion, cool stuff, read a book about it.
Some of the best pieces of music use this ratio, whether intentionally (Bela Bartok’s Music for Strings, Percussion, and Celeste, in which he inverts the melody and accompaniment at the exact 8th note corresponding to the golden section), or unintentionally (many of Bach’s best pieces, for example hit their climax very near the golden section). Bartok also used numbers from the Fibonacci series to construct the form for many of his pieces.
Just a little composer’s nerdism for the day.
[quote]milktruck wrote:
I know there are Discovery Channel programs saying the ideal ratio of attractiveness is like .74 or something like that, and that many people here train primarily to look attractive. Does anyone use this as a guide for their routine beyond a vague goal of some kind of V torso?
Also, does anybody have any good links on this topic??[/quote]
I think you’re talking about waist-to-hip ratio in women. .7 is what most men like.
Here’s a quote and the link for more
“Worldwide men of diverse backgrounds, ethnicity and ages have ranked women with a small waist to hip ratio of around 0.7(the waist is 70% the size of the hips), irrespective of variance in weight as the most attractive and healthy (2). This corresponds to scientific assessments that verify a woman with a small waist to hip ratio (WHR) as the most healthy and fertile. WHR is found to be positively correlated with high testosterone and negatively linked to estrogen (3), thereby high degrees of estrogen lead to low WHR.”
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f01/web1/ekanayake.html
we have been doing some very rough surveys with our students
out of 2 groups of approx 30 21 yr old girls
we got a rough list of their ideal man parameters
sounds easy eh!
So from what they said, you need to spend as much time on your banter/personality as anything else.
if you don’t believe me, think of physical rejects like woody allen, funny is good
So if i have a 31 inch waist, in order to be a sexy beast i need a chest of 41.89 inches. Bingo. That ratio is my new training premise.
what you gonna do get your pecs removed lol
hang on i thought the ratio was 0.7
so with a 31 waist you’d need a 44.4 ish chest
that sounds about right to me
most guys i know, their chest measurement is almost the same as their waist
the reciprocal of 1.6 is .625, so its somewhatclose to the waist to hip thing. not sure were i was going with this, but i guess it all adds up to more chins. anyways thnks for the interesting links.
[quote]BorisTheSpider wrote:
milktruck wrote:
I know there are Discovery Channel programs saying the ideal ratio of attractiveness is like .74 or something like that, and that many people here train primarily to look attractive.
Well…since we find that ratio most attractive, we don’t have to measure anything, we can just look in the mirror.
[/quote]
Excellent post - a breath of fresh air.
My ratio of attractiveness is 1:1, with this being the size of my upper arm compared to the size of my head.
I have heard this arguement several times, and I still think it is retarded. Work on what YOU think needs to be worked on, not what some number says you should be.
I couldn’t find the webpages relating to the show on the Discovery Channel about it, but this site is informative:
that phi deal is all contrived bullshit and anyone who believes it is a gullable bum-raper