The Runner's Physique

On Nov 6, 2:36 pm, Elflord wrote:
No, that's a non-sequiter.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

He and Freese had to come to mass to get hitched, so he knows.

On Nov 6, 2:44 pm, Elflord wrote:
As you point out, bodybuilding at least as practiced by the majority of gym
users is based on ones own delusions (and I might add insecurities) about
masculinity. Most of them have lost sight of how they are perceived by others.
In this sense, bodybuilding is somewhat auto-erotic.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Why don't you just come out and say it? "They have tiny dicks".

On Nov 6, 4:18 pm, Prisoner at War wrote:
Keep working on the biceps, get a tight tee-shirt. I'd also suggest a moustache.

Funny tastes you have in women.



Cheers,
--
Elflord

You should see his dog.

"Charlie Pendejo" wrote in message
ps.com...
Kaz:
What I'm ``anti'' is doing a ****load of endurance exercise, and
not having anything to show for it, visually.

Like race medals and trophies?

To the extent I could give a stinky nugget about "having anything to
show for it", I guess I perceive my audience to be female. Quoting
from _The Book Of Lists #2_, copyright 1979, pg 305-6:

11 physical attributes men imagine
women admire most about them

1. muscular chest and shoulders 21%
2. muscular arms 18
3. penis 15
4. tallness 13
5. flat stomach 9
6. slimness 7
7. hair (texture, not length) 4
7. buttocks 4
7. eye 4
10. long legs 3
11. neck 2

11 physical attributes women really
admire most about men

1. buttocks (usually described by women as "small and sexy") 39%
2. slimness 15
3. flat stomach 13
4. eyes 11
5. long legs 6
6. tallness 5
6. hair 5
8. neck 3
9. penis 2
10. muscular chest and shoulders 1
11. muscular arms 0


1. Thick Wallet.
2. Teeth.

or

1. Teeth
2. Thick Wallet.

Forgot which.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

AND,
Make sure whomever you do vote for believes in
ABSOLUTE separation of Church & State--ferchrissakes

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"Prisoner at War" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 2, 8:24 pm, "ATP*" wrote:
http://www.arthurdevany.com/2005/09/twins.html

Supposedly identical twins, one is a distance runner, the other trained
in
field events.http://www.arthurdevany.com/webstuff/images/Twins.tiff


Very interesting!

Many thanks for the post. I was forever asking about why there
haven't been any studies of twins WRT physique and physical fitness.

Doesn't really add much to the nature vs. nuture theory--regardless of the
genes-as-switches theory, which seems pretty circular anyway.

If you examine the photos, the more muscular guy is flexing 'til he busts!!
From the waist down, they are very similar.
One of the comments describes "similar facial features", but I found the
faces to be more different than the bodies. Whazzup wit dat??

In nature vs. nurture, you still can't ascribe which one predominates in a
given individual. It could be that one set of identical twins will bear
strong resemblance despite different environments, whilst another set differ
greatly as a result of environment.
Which just says that one set of identical twins can be more adaptable than
another set.
You have to look at repressor proteins on them thar genes, as well. Which
in themselves come from genes.
Goodgawd....
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

AND,
Make sure whomever you do vote for believes in
ABSOLUTE separation of Church & State--ferchrissakes

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

On Nov 6, 11:09 am, Charlie Pendejo wrote:
Kaz:

What I'm ``anti'' is doing a ****load of endurance exercise, and
not having anything to show for it, visually.

Like race medals and trophies?

Chucky, you be sure to wear those medals when you go down to the
beach.

Trophies, bophies. First of all, at most one man walks away with a
trophy (overall and per category). No matter how many participants in
the race, there is but one overall winner, and one in each category.
If you're a fraction of a second slower, no trophy for you.

There are age categories and sex categories. But there are no
categories based on height, weight and build. You can be outrun by
someone who has less running fitness than you, and doens't even have
great biomechanics, but is simply lighter. Yet like an apple and
orange being compared, you two are relatively ranked on the same scale
by the myopic rules of the sport.

In a real sport like wrestling or boxing, they wouldn't pit a 150
pound guy against a 190 pound guy. If such a match happened, the
results just wouldn't be held valid by the governing bodies.

But note that, outside of the sporting arena with its fair rules, on
the surface of our violent planet, a 150 guy does get pitted against a
190 pound guy. That's probably why runners got together and designed
the rules of sport without weight categories. It's so the 150 pound
guys could beat the 190 pound guys at /something/.

I compete strictly with myself, that's it. The stopwatch and me. I
just got myself a nice one with a 500 lap memory. (Anti-endurance
troll that I am, and all).

To the extent I could give a stinky nugget about "having anything to
show for it", I guess I perceive my audience to be female.

Ah, but just any female? Or a specific, interesting subset?

Quoting from _The Book Of Lists #2_, copyright 1979, pg 305-6:

1979? Are you serious? You don't think that the perceptions if girls
in 2007 are shaped differently in any way from 1979?

Why the hell do you even have crap dating back to 1979?

Ever heard of 1-800-GOT-JUNK?

11 physical attributes men imagine
women admire most about them

Actually what men imagine women admire about men, however inaccurate
that may be, is a hell of a lot more accurate than what women /say/
they admire, in particular when answering a potentially biased survey.

We men have very direct interest in getting that information right,
and over time we can infer it from women's behavior better than we
give ourselves credit for.

On the other hand, women serve no interest of theirs by giving away
accurate, honest information about what attracts them.

11 physical attributes women really
admire most about men

This should be: what some group of women, possibly picked from an
uninteresting set (i.e. not the set of hot women), possibly picked not
randomly, said in a survey of possibly very leading questions.

1. buttocks (usually described by women as "small and sexy") 39%
2. slimness 15
3. flat stomach 13

If you read this properly, you will realize that these points all
refer to a low body fat level. Women universally like chiseled, rugged
men.

It's unlikely that ``slimness'' here refers to small circumferences
thickly wrapped in lard.

In spite of running lots of miles every week, most runners do not
achieve a low level of body fat (and some stay outright overweight).
Sure, if they start out overweight, they can shed a lot of those
pounds. At some point, the fat loss stalls well short of an athletic
appearance, and after that they just lose muscle mass if they continue
being stupid in their diet and training.

Referring to point 1, when women say they want a small butt, what they
really mean is they want a triangular, V-shaped torso: a small waist-
to-chest ratio. A narrow, torso makes your butt look big, even if it
isn't.

5. long legs 6
6. tallness 5

Tallness? The inept compilers of this book were groping for the word
"height" here.

Long legs contribute to height, so 5 and 6 are so closely related that
they ought to be rolled into one point.

Height is definitely important to beautiful women (i.e. ones who have
choice which leads them to standards), so the list is /blatantly/ out
of whack here. Many women have a cut-off height below which they just
won't date a guy. And that height is: their own height, plus the
height of their highest heels, plus some positive epsilon that is
rarely less than a full inch.

And if you think I'm writing that out of some height insecurity,
consider that I'm 6'1", and have been over 6 feet since like age 16,
so lack of height has never come up as any kind of issue in my life.

But, you know, I have actually come across some unusually tall women
who wouldn't even date a 6'1" guy. Yes, even a freak of nature who is
like 6'2" still wants a guy who is taller than she is when wearing
high heels.

Sorry, shorties. Your insecurities are 100% rooted in stark reality.
As a completely unbiased representative of tall guys everywhere, I can
confirm it for you once and for all.

10. muscular chest and shoulders 1
11. muscular arms 0

The answers to these types of questions will depend on what the
subject perceives is being asked. If she thinks "muscular" means like
something seen on the cover of a body-building magazine, of course,
she thinks "ewww, yuck".

Most women prefer a /light/ build. Together with low body fat, this
translates to a muscular chest and arms---just nowhere near ewww-yuck
huge!

However, most runners do not have a /light/ build. They have /no/
build. No-build is also "eww, yuck" to the ladies. Doubly so if
combined with a low body fat level. Then it just looks creepily
anorexic.

"Kaz Kylheku" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 6, 11:09 am, Charlie Pendejo wrote:
Kaz:

What I'm ``anti'' is doing a ****load of endurance exercise, and
not having anything to show for it, visually.

Like race medals and trophies?

Chucky, you be sure to wear those medals when you go down to the
beach.

Trophies, bophies. First of all, at most one man walks away with a
trophy (overall and per category). No matter how many participants in
the race, there is but one overall winner, and one in each category.
If you're a fraction of a second slower, no trophy for you.

There are age categories and sex categories. But there are no
categories based on height, weight and build. You can be outrun by
someone who has less running fitness than you, and doens't even have
great biomechanics, but is simply lighter. Yet like an apple and
orange being compared, you two are relatively ranked on the same scale
by the myopic rules of the sport.

In a real sport like wrestling or boxing, they wouldn't pit a 150
pound guy against a 190 pound guy. If such a match happened, the
results just wouldn't be held valid by the governing bodies.

But note that, outside of the sporting arena with its fair rules, on
the surface of our violent planet, a 150 guy does get pitted against a
190 pound guy. That's probably why runners got together and designed
the rules of sport without weight categories. It's so the 150 pound
guys could beat the 190 pound guys at /something/.

I compete strictly with myself, that's it. The stopwatch and me. I
just got myself a nice one with a 500 lap memory. (Anti-endurance
troll that I am, and all).

To the extent I could give a stinky nugget about "having anything to
show for it", I guess I perceive my audience to be female.

Ah, but just any female? Or a specific, interesting subset?

Quoting from _The Book Of Lists #2_, copyright 1979, pg 305-6:

1979? Are you serious? You don't think that the perceptions if girls
in 2007 are shaped differently in any way from 1979?

Why the hell do you even have crap dating back to 1979?

Ever heard of 1-800-GOT-JUNK?

11 physical attributes men imagine
women admire most about them

Actually what men imagine women admire about men, however inaccurate
that may be, is a hell of a lot more accurate than what women /say/
they admire, in particular when answering a potentially biased survey.

We men have very direct interest in getting that information right,
and over time we can infer it from women's behavior better than we
give ourselves credit for.

On the other hand, women serve no interest of theirs by giving away
accurate, honest information about what attracts them.

11 physical attributes women really
admire most about men

This should be: what some group of women, possibly picked from an
uninteresting set (i.e. not the set of hot women), possibly picked not
randomly, said in a survey of possibly very leading questions.

1. buttocks (usually described by women as "small and sexy") 39%
2. slimness 15
3. flat stomach 13

If you read this properly, you will realize that these points all
refer to a low body fat level. Women universally like chiseled, rugged
men.

It's unlikely that ``slimness'' here refers to small circumferences
thickly wrapped in lard.

In spite of running lots of miles every week, most runners do not
achieve a low level of body fat (and some stay outright overweight).
Sure, if they start out overweight, they can shed a lot of those
pounds. At some point, the fat loss stalls well short of an athletic
appearance, and after that they just lose muscle mass if they continue
being stupid in their diet and training.

Referring to point 1, when women say they want a small butt, what they
really mean is they want a triangular, V-shaped torso: a small waist-
to-chest ratio. A narrow, torso makes your butt look big, even if it
isn't.

5. long legs 6
6. tallness 5

Tallness? The inept compilers of this book were groping for the word
"height" here.

Long legs contribute to height, so 5 and 6 are so closely related that
they ought to be rolled into one point.

Height is definitely important to beautiful women (i.e. ones who have
choice which leads them to standards), so the list is /blatantly/ out
of whack here. Many women have a cut-off height below which they just
won't date a guy. And that height is: their own height, plus the
height of their highest heels, plus some positive epsilon that is
rarely less than a full inch.

And if you think I'm writing that out of some height insecurity,
consider that I'm 6'1", and have been over 6 feet since like age 16,
so lack of height has never come up as any kind of issue in my life.

But, you know, I have actually come across some unusually tall women
who wouldn't even date a 6'1" guy. Yes, even a freak of nature who is
like 6'2" still wants a guy who is taller than she is when wearing
high heels.

Sorry, shorties. Your insecurities are 100% rooted in stark reality.
As a completely unbiased representative of tall guys everywhere, I can
confirm it for you once and for all.

10. muscular chest and shoulders 1
11. muscular arms 0

The answers to these types of questions will depend on what the
subject perceives is being asked. If she thinks "muscular" means like
something seen on the cover of a body-building magazine, of course,
she thinks "ewww, yuck".

Most women prefer a /light/ build. Together with low body fat, this
translates to a muscular chest and arms---just nowhere near ewww-yuck
huge!

However, most runners do not have a /light/ build. They have /no/
build. No-build is also "eww, yuck" to the ladies. Doubly so if
combined with a low body fat level. Then it just looks creepily
anorexic.

Thus the importance of a thick wallet, and teeth.

When I realized races were won by .01 or even .001 seconds, I stopped paying
attention. "Competition" then ceased being competition, and rather a
vehicle for setting up/knocking down straw men, and ergo contrived and
unimportant.

When I realized that many athaletes (indeed, 3 syllables) make up to 2,000
times my salary for 1/100 of my hours, then I got ****ed, I stopped watching
altogether.

I have oft chided my co-workers, WTF do you root for a team/athalete when
you cain't even afford to take yer family to one of their home games?
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

AND,
Make sure whomever you do vote for believes in
ABSOLUTE separation of Church & State--ferchrissakes

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

Kaz:
You don't think that the perceptions if girls in 2007 are
shaped differently in any way from 1979?

My experience suggests 21st century urban East Coast girls, to the
extent they're concerned about male physique (and as a group they're
less singlemindedly focused on ours than we on theirs), tend to share
their Discolithic Era evolutionary predecessors' preference in dudes'
shapes and sizes. While it's clear that a beefcake build is de
rigueur in some large and highly visible sectors of gay male society
in this town, I honestly don't know any women who will only date
bulked-up guys.

Your mileage may vary.


Why the hell do you even have crap dating back to 1979?

Ever heard of 1-800-GOT-JUNK?

I'm sure you're right.

And I ought to trade in those Duke Ellington records for Britney's
latest. To say nothing of these old paintings - aren't posters the
thing nowadays, or have I fallen asleep at the wheel once again and
there's something newer, probably related to ipods or garmins?


Actually what men imagine women admire about men, however inaccurate
that may be, is a hell of a lot more accurate than what women /say/
they admire, in particular when answering a potentially biased survey.

cough


In spite of running lots of miles every week, most runners do not
achieve a low level of body fat

Not my experience of runners whom I know to actually run *lots* of
miles every week.

I could suggest that most guys who lift lots of weights don't really
get all that strong or big or lean. And if by "lots of weights" I
mean "**** around at the gym for 20 minutes twice a week, if they feel
like it" then I'm probably right.


A narrow, torso makes your butt look big, even if it isn't.

Kaz, does this torso make my ass look fat?


Many women have a cut-off height below which they just
won't date a guy. And that height is: their own height, plus the
height of their highest heels, plus some positive epsilon that is
rarely less than a full inch.

And if you think I'm writing that out of some height insecurity

No, not at all - I absolutely agree. It's abundantly clear that this
is more rule than exception. I draw on not only my own experience
(well, truth be told, even some taller women often find it difficult
to resist my charms), but those of my ex and other women in my life -
apparently, for example, guys under a certain stature who put up
profiles on dating sites feel the need to lie about their heights,
just to get any responses, more frequently than women fudge their
ages.

Fortunately for me, I tend to be plenty fond of women who are my
height, minus high heels, minus an epsilon of a some inches. At 5'9"
I don't find that limits my pool. Then again here in NYC, a dude
could be solely into mixed-gender midget conjoined twins from Eastern
Europe and not get bored or lonely - especially if he has a thick
wallet and/or teeth.


P.S. Next time you write at such length, please have mercy upon some
of us and toss in a few Adderals. We aren't all endurance _readers_,
ya know.

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:59:54 -0700, Michelle Steiner
wrote:


I'll be glad to take them off your hands, but first I'll have to buy a
copy of her latest; I won't even take the shrink wrap off my new weiner.

We know Stainer, we know...

Anybody got the perverts new phone number? The creep changed it after
an irate father whose son he molested, got it and started threatening
him.
Please post, so we can talk to our pal...at 3am.