Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I like that 25% chick in the pink knickers. I'd go straight into her glueteal area any day.

 trexmeyer wrote:


I'll even bite on that bait. If your statement was correct why do women have visible abs at a higher body fat percentage than men?

In case you didn't know.... Bewbs are made of fat cells

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:


I'll even bite on that bait. If your statement was correct why do women have visible abs at a higher body fat percentage than men?

In case you didn't know.... Bewbs are made of fat cells

Oh, really I always wondered why breasts magically vanished as women lost weight...

 trexmeyer wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:


I'll even bite on that bait. If your statement was correct why do women have visible abs at a higher body fat percentage than men?

In case you didn't know.... Bewbs are made of fat cells

Oh, really I always wondered why breasts magically vanished as women lost weight...

Lol, you are the one who asked why women still show abs at higher body fat percentage

For the sake of argument, 3lb breasts would be very large on a 100lb woman. That would only account for 3% bodyfat or less. Woman have upwards of 8% more essential fat then men. Breasts alone do not explain the difference.

And congrats on ignoring the rest of the post in an attempt to make an irrelevant point!

 trexmeyer wrote:

I'll even bite on that bait. If your statement was correct why do women have visible abs at a higher body fat percentage than men?

Because women have those things we call "boobs" which are primarily composed of adipose tissue.

 trexmeyer wrote:

I'm consistently amazed at your lack of knowledge on really basic things. I'm not going to even argue this point with you. Again, you are woefully incorrect and should probably do some research before you start spouting off at the mouth under the assumption that you are all-knowing and all-seeing.

I've been in a gym pretty much every day since I was 14. I've already done the research, because I research everything. I've been aware of the arguments you're citing for a very long time, but in the last 14 years I've come to the conclusion that a lot of the information out there is junk and that a lot of people who think they know what they're doing or talking about are wrong.

 Barksdale wrote:
I like that 25% chick in the pink knickers. I'd go straight into her glueteal area any day.

I like the 30% one myself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 trexmeyer wrote:

Women carry more fat than men. They are better at storing fat than men. Moreover, when women store fat, they do so in different places than men. They’ll preferentially store fat in in the hips, butt, and legs, whereas when men gain weight, it usually goes to the upper body (hence why you see massive beer bellies atop stick legs). Furthermore, when both men and women store upper body fat, men are more likely to develop visceral fat – the abdominal fat associated with metabolic syndrome – while women are more likely to develop subcutaneous fat.

Read more: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/gender-differences-in-fat-metabolism/#ixzz38nraR5i9

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/gender-differences-in-fat-metabolism/#axzz38nrJZHZg

I'll even bite on that bait. If your statement was correct why do women have visible abs at a higher body fat percentage than men?

More sources:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-does-fat-deposit-on-t/
http://jillfit.com/2013/02/25/lean-legs/

BUT, something happens for many women once they start getting leaner and their stomachs flatter–THE HIPS, BUTT AND THIGHS HOLD ONTO STUBBORN FAT even as the rest of the body gets leaner. In fact, this is THE #1 trouble area for my figure competitor and bikini clients. Everything else seems to tighten up right away but when all is said and done, the saddle bags, inner thighs and cellulite butt remain. Ever happen to you?

I'm consistently amazed at your lack of knowledge on really basic things. I'm not going to even argue this point with you. Again, you are woefully incorrect and should probably do some research before you start spouting off at the mouth under the assumption that you are all-knowing and all-seeing.

I'm not sure that really makes sense as I thought different women had different body shapes therefore wouldn't there be differences in fat distribution?

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Barksdale wrote:
I like that 25% chick in the pink knickers. I'd go straight into her glueteal area any day.

I like the 30% one myself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 trexmeyer wrote:

Women carry more fat than men. They are better at storing fat than men. Moreover, when women store fat, they do so in different places than men. They’ll preferentially store fat in in the hips, butt, and legs, whereas when men gain weight, it usually goes to the upper body (hence why you see massive beer bellies atop stick legs). Furthermore, when both men and women store upper body fat, men are more likely to develop visceral fat – the abdominal fat associated with metabolic syndrome – while women are more likely to develop subcutaneous fat.

Read more: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/gender-differences-in-fat-metabolism/#ixzz38nraR5i9

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/gender-differences-in-fat-metabolism/#axzz38nrJZHZg

I'll even bite on that bait. If your statement was correct why do women have visible abs at a higher body fat percentage than men?

More sources:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-does-fat-deposit-on-t/
http://jillfit.com/2013/02/25/lean-legs/

BUT, something happens for many women once they start getting leaner and their stomachs flatter–THE HIPS, BUTT AND THIGHS HOLD ONTO STUBBORN FAT even as the rest of the body gets leaner. In fact, this is THE #1 trouble area for my figure competitor and bikini clients. Everything else seems to tighten up right away but when all is said and done, the saddle bags, inner thighs and cellulite butt remain. Ever happen to you?

I'm consistently amazed at your lack of knowledge on really basic things. I'm not going to even argue this point with you. Again, you are woefully incorrect and should probably do some research before you start spouting off at the mouth under the assumption that you are all-knowing and all-seeing.

I'm not sure that really makes sense as I thought different women had different body shapes therefore wouldn't there be differences in fat distribution?

Very true and see you a few twig leg women walking around everyday. I said generally speaking. It obviously doesn't imply to every woman, as they are not all exactly the same.

I'm more inclined to listen to physique and fitness competitors or coaches that are experts in trimming down to minimal levels of body fat than anyone else on this issue. When leg conditioning is the primary issue for nearly every women competing it's obvious that there is a pattern.

Dana Linn Bailey is a great example of this. She never carries fat on her torso, has no breasts, has terrible leg definition, and appears to still have cankles.



Hell, you can just google "female physique model" and the majority of them will have perfectly visible abdominal muscles and smooth legs with minimal definition.

 trexmeyer wrote:

Dana Linn Bailey is a great example of this. She never carries fat on her torso, has no breasts, has terrible leg definition, and appears to still have cankles.

I'm not seeing anything remotely approaching a "cankle" in that image, and her leg definition is far from terrible. Its weird to be sure, but not terrible.

 trexmeyer wrote:

Hell, you can just google "female physique model" and the majority of them will have perfectly visible abdominal muscles and smooth legs with minimal definition.

That's because they train to produce that result.

 trexmeyer wrote:
For the sake of argument, 3lb breasts would be very large on a 100lb woman. That would only account for 3% bodyfat or less. Woman have upwards of 8% more essential fat then men. Breasts alone do not explain the difference.

That doesn't matter, as none of the other articles you cited control for 100 lb women or 3 lb breasts, and certainly not comparatively. You're building a strawman.

 trexmeyer wrote:


Hell, you can just google "female physique model" and the majority of them will have perfectly visible abdominal muscles and smooth legs with minimal definition.

Having gone through a month long course with an instructor who moonlights as a fitness/physique competitor I'll tell you what she told us:

Things are a bit different for female competitors... Generally, you'll see much more of a "bikini leg" on more women as opposed to monstrously defined tree-trunks like you do with the guys (Ronnie Coleman, Jay Cutler, etc), as for some reason, even with the physique competitors (aka bodybuilders) the judges like to see SOME form of "feminine quality" As it is, there are more divisions of female body building comps than there are for men, which produce vastly different appearances.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:


Hell, you can just google "female physique model" and the majority of them will have perfectly visible abdominal muscles and smooth legs with minimal definition.

Having gone through a month long course with an instructor who moonlights as a fitness/physique competitor I'll tell you what she told us:

Things are a bit different for female competitors... Generally, you'll see much more of a "bikini leg" on more women as opposed to monstrously defined tree-trunks like you do with the guys (Ronnie Coleman, Jay Cutler, etc), as for some reason, even with the physique competitors (aka bodybuilders) the judges like to see SOME form of "feminine quality" As it is, there are more divisions of female body building comps than there are for men, which produce vastly different appearances.

There's only one "bodybuilding" division for women that I'm aware of. The others being bikini, fitness, physique, and I think one more, but can't put a name to it.

 trexmeyer wrote:

There's only one "bodybuilding" division for women that I'm aware of. The others being bikini, fitness, physique, and I think one more, but can't put a name to it.

The Comps that she goes to, there's 3 and you listed them all... the "physique" is the bodybuilding comp, in what we usually define it as. It was crazy, she was telling us how, in her division (fitness) they basically have some set "fitness routine" where the judges all see the same thing, along with the posing that comes with a bodybuilding comp. In the fitness comp, the competitors have to strike a balance between muscle size, shape/aesthetics, as well as body fat, etc. to where the "ideal" is to have some tone and definition, but not look like a bodybuilder, yet also have not "too much" fat, and look like a bikini competitor AS WELL AS not too little and look like a runway model

GIve me Camille Leblanc-Bazinet over that Dana lady 8 days a week. Yuck.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:

There's only one "bodybuilding" division for women that I'm aware of. The others being bikini, fitness, physique, and I think one more, but can't put a name to it.

The Comps that she goes to, there's 3 and you listed them all... the "physique" is the bodybuilding comp, in what we usually define it as. It was crazy, she was telling us how, in her division (fitness) they basically have some set "fitness routine" where the judges all see the same thing, along with the posing that comes with a bodybuilding comp. In the fitness comp, the competitors have to strike a balance between muscle size, shape/aesthetics, as well as body fat, etc. to where the "ideal" is to have some tone and definition, but not look like a bodybuilder, yet also have not "too much" fat, and look like a bikini competitor AS WELL AS not too little and look like a runway model

Oh, the judging is beyond fethed. It all comes down to personnel preference.

cincydooley wrote:GIve me Camille Leblanc-Bazinet over that Dana lady 8 days a week. Yuck.

I have no idea who Camille is, but I'd probably agree. DLB left womankind behind a few years ago and she has managed to develop an incredibly unattractive build despite devoting her life to the gym and her physical appearance. Her abs are impressive though.

2014 international womens crossfit champ.

It's hilarious how so many top Crossfit gals have better physiques than female physique competitors.