When it comes to looking good - I have always sided on Nature instead of Nurture.
By which I mean - good genes trump diet and exercise.
I think you can be hot just with good genes.
If you have crappy genes - no matter how much diet and exercise you do - the best you can hope for is average. Which for a guy is not a terrible starting point if he has other things going for him.
So - there is no excuse why somebody cannot be a '7' in looks. But to go above that requires good genes - along (in most cases) with exercise and working out.
That is how I look at it - but it is complicated since some girls have the type of face which really works well with make-up and can easily bump themselves up a couple of points with it.
And to get back to exercise. There is a girl where I work who is not fat - and who has being going to the gym every day for the past six months.
And I guess she has improved her looks. But for me - instead of being a '6' she is now scraping a '7'.
A similar thing happens when I see girls running in the street. With alot of them - you can tell they are fighting a losing battle. And no matter how fit they get - they will only be marginally more attractive. Since they were not good looking to begin with.
Also with gyms (and diets to a lessser extent). Those that get 'good results' tend to be the people whose genetic makeup responds well (and quickly) to such lifestyle changes. I remember Arnold Schwarzenegger saying he noticed improvements to his physique within weeks of taking up weight-lifting.
As such - there is a 'survivorship bias' at work. In which the majority of people who regularly attend gyms are the ones whose bodies are predisposed to benefiting more dramtcially from exercise. When compared to those with shittier genes who get discouraged after a few months.
Now with that said. I have a specific reason for starting this thread.
I want an answer to the following.
You have a cow in a field. Spends all day wondering around eating grass.
![[Image: 136111-004-C620AA83.jpg]](http://media-3.web.britannica.com/eb-media/11/136111-004-C620AA83.jpg)
And in the field next to it. You have a bull which spends all day wondering around eating grass.
![[Image: bull.jpg]](http://bullmarketthinking.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/bull.jpg)
And a bull is about as strong as an animal can get. So - is that not a clear way of visualising how much more important genetics are versus lifestyle?
It is an image that always comes to mind when I compare Nature and Nurture.
I mean a girl at nineteen can have the exact same lifestyle she has when she is 40. But whe is going to be ten times hotter at 19. And whilst that is down to age and not genetics - it does show how other factors can be far more important than just diet and exercise.
By which I mean - good genes trump diet and exercise.
I think you can be hot just with good genes.
If you have crappy genes - no matter how much diet and exercise you do - the best you can hope for is average. Which for a guy is not a terrible starting point if he has other things going for him.
So - there is no excuse why somebody cannot be a '7' in looks. But to go above that requires good genes - along (in most cases) with exercise and working out.
That is how I look at it - but it is complicated since some girls have the type of face which really works well with make-up and can easily bump themselves up a couple of points with it.
And to get back to exercise. There is a girl where I work who is not fat - and who has being going to the gym every day for the past six months.
And I guess she has improved her looks. But for me - instead of being a '6' she is now scraping a '7'.
A similar thing happens when I see girls running in the street. With alot of them - you can tell they are fighting a losing battle. And no matter how fit they get - they will only be marginally more attractive. Since they were not good looking to begin with.
Also with gyms (and diets to a lessser extent). Those that get 'good results' tend to be the people whose genetic makeup responds well (and quickly) to such lifestyle changes. I remember Arnold Schwarzenegger saying he noticed improvements to his physique within weeks of taking up weight-lifting.
As such - there is a 'survivorship bias' at work. In which the majority of people who regularly attend gyms are the ones whose bodies are predisposed to benefiting more dramtcially from exercise. When compared to those with shittier genes who get discouraged after a few months.
Now with that said. I have a specific reason for starting this thread.
I want an answer to the following.
You have a cow in a field. Spends all day wondering around eating grass.
And in the field next to it. You have a bull which spends all day wondering around eating grass.
And a bull is about as strong as an animal can get. So - is that not a clear way of visualising how much more important genetics are versus lifestyle?
It is an image that always comes to mind when I compare Nature and Nurture.
I mean a girl at nineteen can have the exact same lifestyle she has when she is 40. But whe is going to be ten times hotter at 19. And whilst that is down to age and not genetics - it does show how other factors can be far more important than just diet and exercise.
