EagererBeaver wrote: » Full on embracing and kissing and squeezing biceps/other body parts is definitely then being arseholes and not being able to keep that sort of stuff to an appropriate venue rather than me being upright, yes?
Alf Veedersane wrote: » EagererBeaver wrote: » Full on embracing and kissing and squeezing biceps/other body parts is definitely then being arseholes and not being able to keep that sort of stuff to an appropriate venue rather than me being upright, yes? You were??
ButtersSuki wrote: » Needless to say he was as skinny as a rake.
JJayoo wrote: » That's what Photoshop is for
caviardreams wrote: » Not even necessary, that would take some skillz at least. Retouch me and the like make it even easier, er, so I have been told like...https://retouchme.com/service/gain-muscles/
Alf Veedersane wrote: » Jesus. You'd want to be a ginormous fúcktard.
caviardreams wrote: » A lot of people use those apps for "reducing" bodyfat moreso tbh. The worrying thing is, that in the majority of cases the people ho do it are in great condition anyway, and by using apps to enhance their physiques even further they are setting very unrealistic expectations for a lot of people. Some of the enhancing that females do in terms of thigh gap, waist etc. is unreal, and like I say, they have stunning natural figures anyway.
caviardreams wrote: » Well obviously by natural I meant not enhanced by software and their real/actual physique. If they want to use extreme diets and training to look good that's one thing (it would not be for me but each to their own and it's not for me to judge) but enhancing dramatically with these apps is another thing, and we are not just talking about a bit of brightening or tan filters etc to accentuate shadows and make then look better, but actually chopping away parts of their bodies! :eek::eek:
GreeBo wrote: » Bodies should have bumps and curves, some of those curves are muscles and some are fat. Stick insects are neither natural not aesthetically pleasing, unless you are another stick insect.
givyjoe wrote: » Bitter much?
laoch na mona wrote: » whats wrong with being lean if its what that person wants
GreeBo wrote: » There is lean and then there is the lean where your knee is the biggest part of your leg, thats not a healthy, normal shape for a human. I have no issue with people being lean, but being gaunt and malnourished is no better than being obese.
Dtp1979 wrote: » Are long distance runners malnourished?
givyjoe wrote: » To be malnourished you have to a serious deficiency in all sorts of essentials. Being lean, which is really the type of folks you're referring to, is most definitely NOT 'as bad' as being obese. Most folks are lean because of a health diet and exercise, 2 things obese people are completely lacking in.
GreeBo wrote: » Sorry, when exactly did I say I was talking about people who are lean? I specifically said, gaunt, malnourished and knees bigger than the rest of their legs. Not sure why y'all are intent on putting words in my mouth, but it's getting pretty ridiculous now.
givyjoe wrote: » You were calling folks stick insects on the last page! So which are they, lean or malnourished?!
ButtersSuki wrote: » Guy bench pressing, and on each rep bringing (in a swinging motion) his legs up to the bar on the push part of the BP. I'm not even remotely doing it justice with that description; you had to see it to appreciate it fully.
JJayoo wrote: » ButtersSuki wrote: » Guy bench pressing, and on each rep bringing (in a swinging motion) his legs up to the bar on the push part of the BP. I'm not even remotely doing it justice with that description; you had to see it to appreciate it fully. So kinda like a kipping pullup.
JJayoo wrote: » So kinda like a kipping pullup.