Why Do Women Have Better Calves?

[quote]alternate wrote:
I can’t believe you like those calves. Fat, or even muscular calves with ‘low insertions’ are not nice on women.

Attractive women are pretty much the opposite of what men should look like (duh).

Men should be overall tall, have broad shoulders, long spine, short legs, low muscle insertions, thick muscle bellies and thick bones everywhere so all limbs look extremely stumpy and stocky.

Women should be overall short, have short spines and long legs, and high muscle insertions so their limbs look elegant.[/quote]

The Critic on Aesthetic International Standards has spoken.

  1. Developed, high insertion


2) Developed, low insertion


3) Minimal development

I prefer a developed, high insertion calf.

[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[/quote]

The new T-Nation does not approve of naughty bits.

Dental floss.

[quote]Test Icicle wrote:
In general, high calf insertions look better on women than low calf insertions which tend to give a cankles effect, especially if the woman is wearing low boots.[/quote]

That only depends on the thickness of the shin and ankle.

Low calves with thin ankles is glorious!

Test Icicle, while I would agree with your #2 and #3, your #1 looks nothing more than a flexed, high inserted calf that is kinda pressed against the back of the thigh rather than “developed”. It does look nice in that shot, I just think it’s a different, possibly deceiving shot compared to the other two, which are standing.

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]Test Icicle wrote:
In general, high calf insertions look better on women than low calf insertions which tend to give a cankles effect, especially if the woman is wearing low boots.[/quote]

That only depends on the thickness of the shin and ankle.

Low calves with thin ankles is glorious!

[/quote]

I agree, and at your height, I’m sure you know what your talking about.

ID, Calf Inspector.

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]Test Icicle wrote:
In general, high calf insertions look better on women than low calf insertions which tend to give a cankles effect, especially if the woman is wearing low boots.[/quote]

That only depends on the thickness of the shin and ankle.

Low calves with thin ankles is glorious!

[/quote]

I agree, and at your height, I’m sure you know what your talking about.

ID, Calf Inspector.[/quote]

His a dwarf, not a crab.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]Test Icicle wrote:
In general, high calf insertions look better on women than low calf insertions which tend to give a cankles effect, especially if the woman is wearing low boots.[/quote]

That only depends on the thickness of the shin and ankle.

Low calves with thin ankles is glorious!

[/quote]

I agree, and at your height, I’m sure you know what your talking about.

ID, Calf Inspector.[/quote]

His a dwarf, not a crab.

[/quote]

I’ll revise.

ID, Crotch Inspector.

[quote]cueball wrote:
Test Icicle, while I would agree with your #2 and #3, your #1 looks nothing more than a flexed, high inserted calf that is kinda pressed against the back of the thigh rather than “developed”. It does look nice in that shot, I just think it’s a different, possibly deceiving shot compared to the other two, which are standing.[/quote]

Sheesh.

1a) Developed, high insertion

And fwiw, I agree with ID. A large calf : ankle ratio is preferable to a smaller one.

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]Test Icicle wrote:
In general, high calf insertions look better on women than low calf insertions which tend to give a cankles effect, especially if the woman is wearing low boots.[/quote]

That only depends on the thickness of the shin and ankle.

Low calves with thin ankles is glorious!

[/quote]

Amen brother

[quote]aeyogi wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[/quote]

The new T-Nation does not approve of naughty bits. [/quote]
There is no naughty bits, only implied

[quote]Test Icicle wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:
Test Icicle, while I would agree with your #2 and #3, your #1 looks nothing more than a flexed, high inserted calf that is kinda pressed against the back of the thigh rather than “developed”. It does look nice in that shot, I just think it’s a different, possibly deceiving shot compared to the other two, which are standing.[/quote]

Sheesh.

1a) Developed, high insertion

And fwiw, I agree with ID. A large calf : ankle ratio is preferable to a smaller one.

[/quote]

LOL. Not trying to nitpic.

I guess we have different ideas of high insertion. Christina pic is what I call high. 1a seems what I call normal. A developed and definitely a very nice calf muscle, though, indeed.

Edit: Honestly I think this would be my preference out of the three examples posted.

Another example of verrry nice calf:ankle ratio and insertion albeit not overly developed

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
Dental floss.[/quote]

hahahahah

[quote]Test Icicle wrote:

  1. Developed, high insertion

  2. Developed, low insertion

  3. Minimal development

[/quote]

Frankly, I don’t have an issue with any of them.

Off topic a bit - I’m wondering if some people have very high Lat insertion?

I think that might be why I can’t seem to develop lats. I think they insert up high near my shoulder blades. Am I the only one, or is this just an excuse for not getting some lats?

About calves - It’s all about proportion. Calves that are bigger than glutes, not good. :slight_smile: