Somatotypes and RWBBers
#1
i'd been meaning to make this thread for a while, but didn't get the chance on the previous iteration of the forum. perhaps it rightly belongs in the 'culture' section and may get more exposure in 'general' but i will post it here nonetheless.

somatotypes are one aspect of the human condition which i've noticed underpinning various internal conflicts in our sphere (mostly petty things during boring times which breed drama) and yet never receive any discussion. briefly, i use the term "somatotype" to mean the 3 general categories of male body types: muscular and broad-shouldered, heavy-set with high bodyfat, skinny and lean. because i find the actual "-morph" terminology to be norwood, i will not use it.

self-improvement comes naturally as part of our weltanschauung and BAP, an influential figure in these parts to say the very least, advocates for bodybuilding in particular to this end. naturally, some are better disposed to this than others, and make bodybuilding the core component around which they construct their identity as e-rightists. when the inevitable spats arise between different cliques, out comes their signature refrain: "post body." in my estimation these types are under the impression that everybody can and should look exactly like them, and the only reason they don't is either that they lack discipline or have an atrophied sense of aesthetics (both moral failings), so the solution is always the same: prescribe bodybuilding. see: the "you need to be getting bigger" meme. these types (the ones who actually post body, not the medgolds who merely pretend) have their perspective informed almost entirely by the fact that bodybuilding comes easily to them, and is very rewarding, and believe this must be universal to the human condition.

in contrast, there are those who are not born bodybuilders: the chronically obese and the chronically skinny. because obesity is so universally repulsive, the former always understand on some level that their condition is undesirable, but nonetheless post cope about "bloatmaxxing" and the like. on the other hand, being skinny as a man can still be quite aesthetically appealing (especially in the eyes of younger girls, one need only think of all the yaoi we've been seeing lately) so once in a while these types will "clap back" with a remark about the superiority (one example comes to mind is the "sigma prowler" post from a few months back) only to be reminded that being small does not win respect with other men.

i haven't made sense of what this really *means* for 'the discourse' or any other important issues, though i have used it to infer to which category many posters belong. it is a matter of simple physics that the skinny types have the highest potential for feats of relative strength, a matter of biology that the strongest people in absolute terms are those with large stores of fat in addition to their muscle, and a fact of life that muscular and broad-shouldered men are considered the most attractive and masculine. indeed, all 3 types exist to varying degrees in every human society, so this is surely something fundamental to human nature. i am curious to hear others' thoughts on the subject.

as a final remark, many of these RWBB accounts advocate mishima's sun and steel--whence BAP's entire message about bodybuilding originates--but the essay itself is actually about how mishima was born frail, unathletic, and predisposed to artistic pursuits, and how for one such as himself bodybuilding becomes a transcendental act of self-overcoming, precisely because he was not naturally suited to it. this is lost on most who talk about it, BAP excepted.
#2
Quote:On the other side is the life of the immortal gods who live in pure mountain air, and the sign of this life, where energy is marshaled to the production of higher order, is the aesthetic physique, the body in its glorious and divine beauty. What of the mind then? Well as rare as beautiful bodies are, the mind in the same condition is even more rare. Let us strive, in our decrepit, cancerous and fetid world, for what is concrete and what we can try to attain. Those who forget the body to pursue a “perfect mind” or “perfect soul” have no idea where to even start. Only physical beauty is the foundation for a true higher culture of the mind and spirit as well. Only sun and steel will show you the path [BAM]
BAP praises the aesthetic physique in and of itself but ultimately he sees it as the ‘foundation for a true higher culture’. The purpose of a physical regimen is to make the body and mind healthy and to prepare one for war. Despite endorsing ‘bodybuilding’, on his twitter BAP mostly displays well-muscled athletic looking men rather than literal bodybuilders. The reason he doesn’t say to simply create this higher culture now is that he believes it is practically impossible in the world’s current political situation, and most are not suited for it anyway.
Quote:So when I mention leisure, don’t imagine I mean by it what you mean by it. It’s not just leisure, you don’t need just leisure for higher life, but specifically leisure for preparation for war. To escape the subjection of our time, you can’t really look to science or art any longer: you have forgotten their purpose. They’ve been defanged and almost all participation in these today amounts to a kind of cargo-cultism. Who can even think of a true scientist or artist among us? I think there is maybe a century since one existed. Just see how Cellini crafted his Perseus, in what frame of mind he was, and how foreign this is from our “artist” diddlers [BAM]
Obviously in war, and especially modern war, being big and strong is not hugely important, but I believe it still carries some importance. Being strong is still better than not, and sports and exercise strengthen nerve connections which improves coordination generally, and the have mental benefits of teaching self discipline, adrenaline management, etc. In addition, there may be epigenetic effects. The aristocratic radicalism that BAP espouses is focused largely on the physical body as both a means and a goal. To tie this back to somatotypes, aristocracies and their peasantry often have differing somatotypes, with predictable attributes associated with each type. Here is an example:
Quote:The monarchy, established by the pastoralist Tuzi conquerors who came down from Ethiopia in the 16th century, was entirely the political instrument of the Tuzi as an ethnic ruling elite...The Tuzi, who are Nilotic pastoralists similar in physical features to the Galla and other peoples of Ethiopia, are a racially and socially self-conscious ruling group, deliberately use the state machinery they monopolize (except at the lowest village level), to dominate and exploit the Hutu peasantry. They developed a genuine racist ideology, taking pride in their slender, tall stature (some 15 cm taller than the Hutu, and 30 cm taller than the Twa on average) and their distinctive facial features (such as their aquiline nose) and looking down on both the Hutu and the Twa as coarse, ugly, and inferior...The Tuzi regard themselves and are regarded by others as intelligent, astute in political intrigue, born to command, refined, courageous, and cruel. The Hutu are viewed by their Tuzi masters much as peasants are all over the world. They are seen as hardworking, not very clever, extrovert, irascible, unmannerly, obedient and physically strong...These attributes are regarded as inherent in the nature of each group, though somewhat modified by learning; i.e., Rwanda developed a genuine brand of indigenous racism [Van den Berghe, The Ethnic Phenomenon]
These sorts of distinctions can be seen all over the world, though not always so obvious and clear cut. It is not necessarily always something fundamental to human nature, but often indicates a mixing of peoples. That said some peoples are obviously more diverse in body types than others.
Another relevant quote from BAM:
Quote:Some time after they took over a state and established themselves as its rulers, they then “submitted” themselves to the rigors and discipline of a strict training program. But only in the sense that an athlete enters training in a team, specifically for making himself strong and ready for a task, and never losing sight of that specific task. When we see the Greek cities at their heights in the classical era for which we know this culture, ruled either by aristocracies or in some cases democracies, we see cities where such men have taken over and built a state for themselves, and for the purposes of training for battle and supremacy in battle. That same haughtiness and lust for physical power that you see in the song, that never left them. In the case of democracy the only difference is that the sailors are added also to the ruling assembly of armed men. And you can understand then the meaning of this ancient “public-spiritedness,” which isn’t that at all, but free men accepting the rigors of training together so they can preserve their freedom by force against equally haughty and hostile outsiders and against racial subordinates at home
Mishima's self overcoming is the transformation of an artistic type solely focused on high culture into someone who combines both these young-healthy and late types of an aristocrat and ultimately goes out in an act combining martial politics and art. Ultimately Mishima's act was kind of pointless and self indulgent, even if beautiful. It could be said that bodybuilding is a degenerate or decadent form of exercise.
#3
The point you made about Mishima is something I've thought for a long time. Mishima and his literature were prescribed as a remedy to "incels" and those lacking physical ability, as those who make up the bulk of our sphere are not athletic people. Personally, as a child I was overweight, and I would have never undertaken any form of physical training if not for discovering Mishima and BAP later on as a teenager. For that reason, I would find it a little insulting when normalfag BAP-adjacent accounts would post about him. It may be petty, but I would think to myself "no, you don't get it. He's for people like ME. Not you".

With that being said, I don't put too much stock into "somatotypes", at least not as explicit biological rules. There is a social dimension to athletics and specifically childhood athletic participation that's being overlooked in this analysis. The bodies of those who fail socially as children will inevitably fall into disrepair, because a retreat into books or the internet usually precludes one from cultivating a healthy physique, besides in the case of the "monk-mode NEETdom" idea of 2016-2017, something which I don't think would occur to most children on their own. In other words, children who are "mesomorphic" (excuse the Misc-core terminology) are usually just people who are proficient at socializing. This disparity in physical ability/aesthetics further reinforces itself, as a sickly-looking skinny child or a fat one will be less respected by his peers, shown less affection by females, and will continue to retreat into hobbies that negatively impact his physical development. I think this is what can explain the vast majority of athletic and aesthetic differences in "bodytypes" today. I'm aware of things like clavicle width, insertions, and all other FACE, HEIGHT, and FRAMEish aspects of the human body, and I think those can be significant. But I still think the reason why some people are just "good" at bodybuilding has more to do with psychological states than anything, where someone who's already been made ugly will find it harder to commit. In the case of bodybuilding too, it isn't something like football that requires coordination and socialization... really anybody can do it. Maybe I'm attributing rain to wet pavement here, I don't know.
#4
(03-14-2022, 12:49 AM)Trep Wrote: BAP praises the aesthetic physique in and of itself but ultimately he sees it as the ‘foundation for a true higher culture’. The purpose of a physical regimen is to make the body and mind healthy and to prepare one for war. Despite endorsing ‘bodybuilding’, on his twitter BAP mostly displays well-muscled athletic looking men rather than literal bodybuilders. The reason he doesn’t say to simply create this higher culture now is that he believes it is practically impossible in the world’s current political situation, and most are not suited for it anyway.
. . .
Mishima's self overcoming is the transformation of an artistic type solely focused on high culture into someone who combines both these young-healthy and late types of an aristocrat and ultimately goes out in an act combining martial politics and art. Ultimately Mishima's act was kind of pointless and self indulgent, even if beautiful. It could be said that bodybuilding is a degenerate or decadent form of exercise.
i must push back on this. i do not think that there is an inherent problem with bodybuilding itself and i do think it is generally positive. even the usage of steroids i believe is healthy if done correctly (which, ironically, would be considered unsafe practice by most bodybuilders) and even if it were entirely removed from any practical benefit there is absolutely nothing wrong with striving to become more beautiful. however, putting on muscle is inseparable from becoming stronger in all but the most elite athletes, and the average RWBBer would undoubtedly be more successful on even a modern battlefield than any other sub-group of the online right save perhaps those with proper military training. 

BAP has specifically recommended bodybuilding over other types of exercise. if his dox is to be believed he was once a skinny (or perhaps skinnyfat) theatre kid-looking type, and it can be inferred that he has since used bodybuilding (and not any other sport) to become more muscular and masculine. every handsome thursday model he posts is no athlete, don't be fooled. they are all bodybuilders, they simply don't look like mr. olympias. obviously the blown out gut look that has become the hallmark of "bodybuilders going too far" is ugly but this is not relevant to the discussion.

Quote:To tie this back to somatotypes, aristocracies and their peasantry often have differing somatotypes, with predictable attributes associated with each type. Here is an example:
Quote:The monarchy, established by the pastoralist Tuzi conquerors who came down from Ethiopia in the 16th century, was entirely the political instrument of the Tuzi as an ethnic ruling elite...The Tuzi, who are Nilotic pastoralists similar in physical features to the Galla and other peoples of Ethiopia, are a racially and socially self-conscious ruling group, deliberately use the state machinery they monopolize (except at the lowest village level), to dominate and exploit the Hutu peasantry. They developed a genuine racist ideology, taking pride in their slender, tall stature (some 15 cm taller than the Hutu, and 30 cm taller than the Twa on average) and their distinctive facial features (such as their aquiline nose) and looking down on both the Hutu and the Twa as coarse, ugly, and inferior...The Tuzi regard themselves and are regarded by others as intelligent, astute in political intrigue, born to command, refined, courageous, and cruel. The Hutu are viewed by their Tuzi masters much as peasants are all over the world. They are seen as hardworking, not very clever, extrovert, irascible, unmannerly, obedient and physically strong...These attributes are regarded as inherent in the nature of each group, though somewhat modified by learning; i.e., Rwanda developed a genuine brand of indigenous racism [Van den Berghe, The Ethnic Phenomenon]
These sorts of distinctions can be seen all over the world, though not always so obvious and clear cut. It is not necessarily always something fundamental to human nature, but often indicates a mixing of peoples. That said some peoples are obviously more diverse in body types than others.
surely not every single tutsi shares exactly the same height and build? even among the dinarids there are manlets, and among the pygmies there are some who are relatively tall. different groups having different averages is not surprising in the case of height, so why should it be for body type? the warlike chechens are known for their broad-shouldered frames and at least half of americans (niggers and 'latrinos' especially, but whites being no exception) are obese, but even among these groups are all 3 types found to some extent. i think it's fair to say that if we were all 8 feet tall on average, there would still be 7 foot 'manlets' who'd share the same universal stereotypes. i believe body type is no less universal to the human condition in this respect because there will always be those with thicker bones, or narrower clavicles, or fewer fat cells, &c.

(03-14-2022, 04:23 PM)Earth Rabbit Wrote: With that being said, I don't put too much stock into "somatotypes", at least not as explicit biological rules. There is a social dimension to athletics and specifically childhood athletic participation that's being overlooked in this analysis. . . . In other words, children who are "mesomorphic" (excuse the Misc-core terminology) are usually just people who are proficient at socializing. . . . I think this is what can explain the vast majority of athletic and aesthetic differences in "bodytypes" today. . . . But I still think the reason why some people are just "good" at bodybuilding has more to do with psychological states than anything, where someone who's already been made ugly will find it harder to commit. In the case of bodybuilding too, it isn't something like football that requires coordination and socialization... really anybody can do it. Maybe I'm attributing rain to wet pavement here, I don't know.
i think the reason that this goes overlooked is that it's quite easy to attribute body composition/frame to environmental factors and much harder to ignore the genetic reality of things like height, face, iq. nobody would ever argue that any of these things are entirely genetic (except for "polemical reasons") but the environmental components of these largely get ignored in the discourse. likewise, i don't mean to imply that body composition entirely genetic, but in the popular conception that's how it tends to be viewed. certainly, just as there is an environmental component to height, the frame is affected in the same way--it would be strange if it weren't--but both of these things are largely decided by factors out of our control pre-puberty and cemented by early adulthood. success in bodybuilding, as any bodybuilder with an iq above 100 will tell you, is dictated almost entirely by one's genetics. for a born gymbro, it is actually quite easy and requires relatively little discipline, in contrast, a lot of /fit/-browsing types find their hobby in bodybuilding even in spite of merely average genetics because it is well suited to an autistic video game mindset. it is as you said, anybody can do it.

if there can be said to be a "point" to this thread it's linking psychology to body composition so i hope i don't come off as ignoring that aspect, and perhaps there is some chicken-and-egg element to it all, but that quickly returns to the eternal nature vs nurture debate, and i'm more interested in the particulars here.
#5
@parsifal elaborate on steroids
#6
@parsifal Yes I guess we can distinguish between bodybuilding as lifting to build muscle and literal sport bodybuilding. I don’t think bodybuilding in the first case is bad, and one should want to build muscle and become more beautiful, just that ideally form should follow function. Of course function also follows the form to some extent. This dichotomy is something I somewhat struggle with because one could say that the regime itself is ultimately justified by producing aesthetic excellence. Why we find something beautiful in the first place is also related to its function.
BAP has recommended bodybuilding alongside more physical martial arts (boxing, wrestling, etc. i.e. not “spiritual” ones) and has posted wrestlers and gymnasts alongside the fitness models. He also mentioned previously doing boxing himself. The (main) purpose of all this is preparation for something greater, even if this greater thing is also justified aesthetically.
As for Mishima being unsuited to bodybuilding, it may be true for him personality wise but was he physiologically unsuited?
On a collective level the capacity for art and prowess in war are very related.


(03-14-2022, 08:16 PM)parsifal Wrote: surely not every single tutsi shares exactly the same height and build? even among the dinarids there are manlets, and among the pygmies there are some who are relatively tall. different groups having different averages is not surprising in the case of height, so why should it be for body type? the warlike chechens are known for their broad-shouldered frames and at least half of americans (niggers and 'latrinos' especially, but whites being no exception) are obese, but even among these groups are all 3 types found to some extent. i think it's fair to say that if we were all 8 feet tall on average, there would still be 7 foot 'manlets' who'd share the same universal stereotypes. i believe body type is no less universal to the human condition in this respect because there will always be those with thicker bones, or narrower clavicles, or fewer fat cells, &c.
It’s not totally uniform within ethnic groups but I would challenge you to find me a tall skinny eskimo or a naturally chubby and stocky nilote. Even within a large group like whites, my guess is that body type correlates largely with various admixture of more ‘simple’ ‘primary’ groups.

The paragraph also links psychology to body composition in a way that could be seen as stereotypical, but when a stereotype is repeated enough, it generally turns out largely true. Groups that select for certain physical traits will select for certain mental traits. In Europe there are/were comparable distinctions between the aristocracy and peasantry.

The correlation of muscle insertions and responsiveness to stress with personality is something probably more suited to an experiment than a discussion. But eg. testosterone has an effect both on muscle and personality, and so do other whoremoans. If one is low T (or some similar imbalance) one won’t have much athletic, bodybuilding, or social success. But winning and social success also boost testosterone, so there is again a chicken & egg/vicious cycle scenario that’s hard to untangle. I do believe it must begin in the genes, but the genes themselves may not be directly related to body type (or even test production).
#7
It's real, but you can overcome "bad" genetics. There was a study measuring epigenetic factors from the sperm of obese men making their children have different appetite markers (leptin) than men with a healthy bmi. Outside of physical prowess I've witnessed smart parents have children who went through public schooling and came out 100 iq midwits - return to the mean. Short parents having tall children, Uncanny people occasionally having the right genetic recombination and having model children. Arnold Schwarzenegger comes to mind- all his legitimate children are fucked up. One is an obese mommas boy and the other is some hollyweird catamite. His bastard child conceived from a tryst with his maid is the only one who actually resembles him physically and facially.

In my opinion not all of this is as set in stone but your behavior and choice leading to certain genes expression might already be baked into you genetically so you get this which came first the chicken or the egg type argument/feedback loop. Beauty is no accident and "good genes" are healthmarkers and dividends from generation after generation of hard work & self determination.

I'd just lift& focus on health. Steroids are not worth it (I've used them). All great thinkers were athletic for a reason, Plato basically means "Jacked" in ancient Greek and Nietzsche was more athletic than people believe.
#8
@BillyONare
if you listen to ray peat carefully, everything he says about progesterone also applies to DHT. his focus on female hormones ties into his leftist ideology and his reluctance to suggest DHT in significant amounts. haidut talks much more about DHT and synthetic AAS. conventional bodybuilding wisdom takes its cues from more plates more dates & others who stress the "cardio- and neuroprotective effects of estrogen" and its "necessity for anabolism" but these are mere dilettantes parroting misunderstood nu-academic papers to be disregarded. most side effects of AAS do not occur if increasing androgen levels while minimizing estrogen, and the only "anabolic benefit" of estrogen is increased water retention causing the appearance of larger muscles, which is precisely why so many who take AAS seem to immediately "balloon" and then shrink back to their previous size upon cessation. the topic of 'whoremoanz' deserves its own thread so i won't elaborate any further here.

@Trep
mishima was sickly and unathletic as a child to my knowledge. photos of him after taking up bodybuilding show that his physique is not even up to the standard of an average RWBB who would probably make fun of him if he "posted body" today. in my estimation the genetics he had to work with were probably somewhat below average. even the bottom 1% are capable of putting on muscle through bodybuilding, it's just that for many the results will be something like mishima's, i.e. unimpressive by today's standards.

i don't think you're really reading what i'm saying. every group has it's own averages for every trait, and corresponding variances. what is skinny for an eskimo may be fat for a tutsi, but both groups still contain skinny, fat, and muscular people in relative terms. what i meant by appealing to universality is that there are trade-offs in all of these situations, so it's not the case that one particular type is ideal and all who deviate from it are inferior.

for the record, i consider stereotypes fair game as admissible evidence, which is why i brought them up myself. a taller stature does connote a degree of nobility, and a lean build an air of grace and refinement. on the other hand, the image one has of a viking leader is broad-shouldered and muscular, like hafthor bjornsson. as much as i agree with the BAPian vision of warrior-nobility perhaps this points to a metaphysical disunity between the warrior and the aristocrat?

@FruitVendor
the inheritance for your kids is not quite the same as what your "natural" baseline. as you say many things can be done to influence epigenetics and other forms of 'inheritance of acquired characteristics' but more relevant here are nominally environmental factors which are nonetheless out of our control. i mentioned this in my previous post but i will elaborate more: everyone knows your nutrition as a child can stunt or promote your growth, but at some point in the late teens or early 20s, your epiphyseal plates become ossified and your long bones are no longer capable of longitudinal growth, hence people do not grow taller as adults. the same is true of the clavicles, the length of which largely determines your "frame" i.e. the breadth of your shoulders and thus how much room there is for your pectorals and lats to grow--though interestingly these are the last of the epiphyseal plates to ossify fully and can happen as late as 30. another factor determining body composition is fat cell quantity: it is my understanding that when one becomes very fat, fat cells undergo hyperplasia and multiply. even if the fat is lost at a later date, the quantity of fat cells persists, making it easier to return to that condition. as a parent you can optimize all of these factors for your children, so it is not a "genetic" issue but for one's own intents and purposes, they are largely set in stone.

obviously one can succeed in spite of "bad" genetics or fail in spite of "good" genetics but once again i don't see how this is an interesting piece of information within the context of this conversation.
#9
@parsifal Please make a hormones thread.
#10
(03-15-2022, 01:45 AM)parsifal Wrote: i don't think you're really reading what i'm saying. every group has it's own averages for every trait, and corresponding variances. what is skinny for an eskimo may be fat for a tutsi, but both groups still contain skinny, fat, and muscular people in relative terms. what i meant by appealing to universality is that there are trade-offs in all of these situations, so it's not the case that one particular type is ideal and all who deviate from it are inferior.
I see what you mean. I guess I just think that the absolute matters more than the relative in this case. Even a 'skinny' Eskimo is not very suited for heat or distance running. I also think there could be an ideal at least for some peoples in certain environments. There may even be an overall ideal but I don’t want to commit to that.

(03-15-2022, 01:45 AM)parsifal Wrote: for the record, i consider stereotypes fair game as admissible evidence, which is why i brought them up myself. a taller stature does connote a degree of nobility, and a lean build an air of grace and refinement. on the other hand, the image one has of a viking leader is broad-shouldered and muscular, like hafthor bjornsson. as much as i agree with the BAPian vision of warrior-nobility perhaps this points to a metaphysical disunity between the warrior and the aristocrat?
I don’t think it points to a disunity of type so much as one of time. The aristocrat begins solely as a warrior/pirate. The Aryans who became the aristocracy of Europe were both taller and more robust than the peoples they conquered. This was due to diet and lifestyle as well as genetics. As time progresses the aristocrat becomes an administrator, a judge, etc. He leaves behind to some extent his pastoralist lifestyle, maintaining it in pastimes like horse breeding, some sport. Less time to dedicate to war, slightly lapsed physically and even genetically there is more leeway. He is civilized and refined.

You seem quite knowledgeable about hormones. I would also be interested in a dedicated hormone thread.
#11
i don't consider myself fit to make a thread about hormones; i'd only be regurgitating ray peat and haidut articles.
#12
@parsifal just make one. Compile the ideas you think are good. No one else here is an endocrinology expert.
#13
@parsifal On the subject of Peat and progesterone, can you explain why taking progesterone does not suppress the HPG axis? Women take progestins as contraceptive, both oral and implant, and in high dose as emergency contraception. Progestins are used to castrate male sex offenders, by the same negative feedback principal. Why is it BASED when Peat sells it? I assumed his prog-E is just a homeopathic tincture for trannies.

I ran the idea of 'male progesterone supplementation' by my supervisor (endocrinologist) and her first thought was that people feel 'calm' because their T has been suppressed lol.

Anything I have heard from the Peat camp is dangerous blarney (aspirin and thyroid spring to mind). There should be a separate Peat thread actually
#14
(03-16-2022, 03:27 AM)kenfresn0 Wrote: @parsifal On the subject of Peat and progesterone, can you explain why taking progesterone does not suppress the HPG axis? Women take progestins as contraceptive, both oral and implant, and in high dose as emergency contraception. Progestins are used to castrate male sex offenders, by the same negative feedback principal. Why is it BASED when Peat sells it? I assumed his prog-E is just a homeopathic tincture for trannies.

I ran the idea of 'male progesterone supplementation' by my supervisor (endocrinologist) and her first thought was that people feel 'calm' because their T has been suppressed lol.

Anything I have heard from the Peat camp is dangerous blarney (aspirin and thyroid spring to mind). There should be a separate Peat thread actually
according to peat, progesterone does not suppress hpg and so-called 'progestins' are not actually substitutes for progesterone, acting more like estrogens. this is why progesterone itself is never actually prescribed. estrogenic hpg suppression thus accounts for the use of progestins as contraceptive and chemical castration. nevertheless progest-e is meant for women and, judging by the people who use it, there probably is some sort of feminizing effect from chronically elevating it without the androgen level to match. if there actually were a suppressive effect, one would notice immediately from the testicles shrinking. to my knowledge, nobody reports this. a cursory search on haidut.me will bring up more details if you're interested.

keep in mind that discussing 'peaty' or any alt-biological ideas with regular 'experts' is akin to asking your history professor what he thinks about david irving.
#15
Great site. This caught my eye:

http://haidut.me/?p=1665

“Seed oils more estrogenic than xenoestrogens”

This vindicates my first post in this thread. If this is true then we need all hands on deck signal boosting it. Someone should send it to BAP, Solbrah, and the Praxis guys.
#16
Don't mistake lean skinny types for weakness - from personal experience as a balkanoid, these are usually very "dense," wiry types. Adaptations to long-distance cattle ranching, and such, hence why it's so common in pastoral peoples.
#17
You can obviously still be attractive to women as a skinny guy, but people point to celebrities and overstate the case. Women are attracted to high status men. It's like pointing out that Trump marries models and assuming this means women like fat guys. Also, you can't trust a woman to know what she actually likes. Compare the kind of guy a woman says she likes (in terms of personality) to the kind of guy she actually ends up with. I've also never met a jacked guy who has trouble having sex (I'm sure some exist), but I know plenty of skinny guys, even ones with normal personalities and with the rest of their lives in order, who do.
#18
(03-13-2022, 11:18 PM)parsifal Wrote: in contrast, there are those who are not born bodybuilders: the chronically obese and the chronically skinny. because obesity is so universally repulsive, the former always understand on some level that their condition is undesirable, but nonetheless post cope about "bloatmaxxing" and the like. on the other hand, being skinny as a man can still be quite aesthetically appealing (especially in the eyes of younger girls, one need only think of all the yaoi we've been seeing lately) so once in a while these types will "clap back" with a remark about the superiority (one example comes to mind is the "sigma prowler" post from a few months back) only to be reminded that being small does not win respect with other men.

i haven't made sense of what this really *means* for 'the discourse' or any other important issues, though i have used it to infer to which category many posters belong. it is a matter of simple physics that the skinny types have the highest potential for feats of relative strength, a matter of biology that the strongest people in absolute terms are those with large stores of fat in addition to their muscle, and a fact of life that muscular and broad-shouldered men are considered the most attractive and masculine. indeed, all 3 types exist to varying degrees in every human society, so this is surely something fundamental to human nature. i am curious to hear others' thoughts on the subject.

Commenting on the above specifically, one thing I've noticed and found interesting are the class differences in how different types are perceived (in the US, idk about elsewhere). Obviously being the massively jacked, in-no-way-skinny and in-no-way-fat person is the ideal, but preferences for "second best", for which direction the needle is better off falling from that middle ideal, varies greatly.

If you're from more of a middle-class/urban background (like me), being fat is categorically the worst thing you can be. Where people are white-collar, interest in the body is entirely aesthetic, or else concerned with a general sense of health and fitness (in a gym sort of way, not a jobsite sort of way). The younger "cool kids" in this scene are pot-smoking skateboarders... you get the picture. Whether the obese walmart shopper might have more muscle mass hiding underneath is completely irrelevant to his subhuman status.

On the other side, in working-class America, aesthetics and "health and fitness" are very far down the list from your capacity to actually move heavy objects on the jobsite (how they make their living), and so the concern is entirely with being "big" (by any means), and those who are "small" are looked down upon, the result being that you can have the most chiseled swimmer bod imaginable and still be looked at smugly by the morbidly obese, in the right context. I would assume (as a non-native) that childhood structures are also a lot more physical: yeah you look pretty, but can you beat me in a fight?

My hypothesis is that these two will actually diverge into entirely different races (with entirely different shapes), given the time. In the meantime, lots of potential for culture shock and vague but powerful mutual contempt.
#19
Yeah, a lot of attention is given to having a "v taper" - but one should never give too much credence to people who poke fun at that sort of shit - if you're built like Adam Driver the amount of women that might reject you for that is a number approaching 0
#20
In general I think that anyone who lifts seriously looks good so long as they aren't overly fat and/or fucked up. Don't sweat the particulars of how you look too hard, people hardly notice.

One of my greatest disdain in this sphere is for people who have a lack of resentment and who are here more or less by accident. I think that the frat types who imitate BAP are like this, and they fundamentally do not understand the general tendency of life, namely as a means of overcoming insecurity. One will note also that "insecurity" is a favored needle of women against men they find wanting. To be alive is to be insecure in many things, and 99% of accusations of insecurity are less meaningful in terms of describing some psychological problem than they are meant to deconstruct or neg someone. Countless trillions of skinnyfat faggots bleating endlessly all for the purpose of removing physical power, beauty, and discipline from a properly integrated Male Being so as to make themselves appear less inadequate; THAT is insecurity. Not the desire to overcome one's natural weakness.

"Natural weakness" has little to do with body type imo. Or maybe it doesn't. Idk. Either way, one has no excuse not to try. Mike Mentzer said it best. No "person" is a Person until they have integrated their minds and bodies in a unity and the only creatures tiny and capricious enough to keep a score against you for not being 6'6 out of the womb are either worthless faggot men or women, neither of whose opinion I or anyone else should care about. If you can put 400 lbs across your back without difficulty, then you're a high expression of man, indeed.


[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.

Human Verification
Please tick the checkbox that you see below. This process is used to prevent automated spam bots.



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)