Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There's nothing attractive about the fat McDonald's legs you posted. I think it's sad when some cultures celebrate being fat and call it "curves". The slim legs everyone on here keeps talking about are very normal and achievable for anyone that isn't fat. They're nothing special. The semi-muscular legs I like (in the link below) are a great accomplishment and incredibly sexy, in my opinion.
Oh I agree. I was just saying that that's the 'average' that you see on the streets, if a woman were to just lead a regular lifestyle without worrying about diet or exercise. Slim toned legs like celebrities have take considerable effort for the average woman to achieve, if she wasn't blessed with great genes.
The woman in this photo doesn't look good to me at all; I'd much much rather have the slim legs posted above.
Also, personally I like clothes and fashion and looking good in all types of outfits is important to me; I can't imagine how a woman with such muscular legs and butt would look in anything elegant, feminine, edgy, basically anything that's not stretchy spandex.
Again, I bet if you post this pic and a VS model in the Relationships forum and ask men which they prefer you'll get a different response than on here.
I'm actually not convinced it's extremely 'healthy' for a woman to be doing heavy weightlifting. Some resistance training, sure. But the very muscular, very low body fat body type is really just a trend - it's not at all what women were meant to look like biologically. Men, sure. Look at classic art - male ideals were always portrayed as slim and muscular ('David'), but women were always soft and voluptuous, like Venus de Milo. Women are meant by nature to have some fat on them, especially on the hips, for fertility and childbearing and need a certain fat percentage to stay fertile which is why hardcore female athletes often stop having periods, as well as due to excessive physical exertion. In no time in history were women expected to work out like men...
I think many women were meant to be very muscular with normal body fat for women. In many societies, especially in Africa and in parts of Europe (especially Slavic and Nordic countries), women did exert themselves physically and were very strong.
I'm actually not convinced it's extremely 'healthy' for a woman to be doing heavy weightlifting.
Some resistance training, sure. But the very muscular, very low body fat body type is really just a trend - it's not at all what women were meant to look like biologically. Men, sure. Look at classic art - male ideals were always portrayed as slim and muscular ('David'), but women were always soft and voluptuous, like Venus de Milo. Women are meant by nature to have some fat on them, especially on the hips, for fertility and childbearing and need a certain fat percentage to stay fertile which is why hardcore female athletes often stop having periods, as well as due to excessive physical exertion. In no time in history were women expected to work out like men...
I'm with you, EvilCookie. I basically fall somewhere in between, in wanting to develop some muscle and yet retaining some softness. I do resistance training for my health, as a diabetic, having muscle tone uses more glucose. However, I really do not like the overly muscular look of female athletes/bodybuilders or even some fitness models. Actually, I really like Gillian Michaels body, she looks very toned, but not overly muscular.
At age 64, I am never going to look like ANY of the pix posted here (fat/slim/muscular, etc) but so far I am doing a pretty good job of keeping the balance of not being too fat or thin, and also having some muscle tone. Nothing on me is going to ever be as tight and toned as Gillian or anyone else, but I do the best I can. For me, that means carrying 15 extra pounds from when I was younger in order to keep the "hourglass" shape which is what I have. I am tall, long legs, big bust, and my legs have what I am told a good shape - developed calves (but not overly so,) slim ankles and thighs that are neither thick nor thin. Sadly, I have no derriere, but then I never did, and no amount of squats is going to give it to me.
Again, we all just have to do the best we can, and there are always those who will admire our particular body type. I know my husband loves mine!
I'm with you, EvilCookie. I basically fall somewhere in between, in wanting to develop some muscle and yet retaining some softness. I do resistance training for my health, as a diabetic, having muscle tone uses more glucose. However, I really do not like the overly muscular look of female athletes/bodybuilders or even some fitness models. Actually, I really like Gillian Michaels body, she looks very toned, but not overly muscular.
At age 64, I am never going to look like ANY of the pix posted here (fat/slim/muscular, etc) but so far I am doing a pretty good job of keeping the balance of not being too fat or thin, and also having some muscle tone. Nothing on me is going to ever be as tight and toned as Gillian or anyone else, but I do the best I can. For me, that means carrying 15 extra pounds from when I was younger in order to keep the "hourglass" shape which is what I have. I am tall, long legs, big bust, and my legs have what I am told a good shape - developed calves (but not overly so,) slim ankles and thighs that are neither thick nor thin. Sadly, I have no derriere, but then I never did, and no amount of squats is going to give it to me.
Again, we all just have to do the best we can, and there are always those who will admire our particular body type. I know my husband loves mine!
I think your out look is healthy.. I'm in the same boat 50, I know I will never look 20's - again nor am I trying.. I just want stay fit and healthy at this stage and I'm ok with just being toned ...I have a man who happy and loves me for me, no matter what shape, he seen em all with me, preg etc...
I've been incorporating more strength training exercises in my routine to get more toned, but I don't want my legs to get that muscular. They have a good amount of muscle on them already, but I want them to be lean.
I'm not tall, so my legs may never look like a model's, but I prefer the slender, toned look.
Any tips? Which set of legs do you think are more attractive?
The second link simply looks like legs of a woman that isn't fat and doesn't exercise. I see zero definition in her legs. I like legs with some definition.
The legs in the 2nd would be a good goal for an overweight woman, which 2/3 of Americans are.
I keep mine lean with some muscle~~ I been running since HS, because I really enjoy and love it, plus I can take it anywhere I go... I also do squats~ ... I'm 51, 5'3 116 mother to 4 .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
