Nothing to do with training, I am simply referring to research that seems to point to a link between a missing, crucial, layer of fat and brittle bone disease in women. Many in the studies have even been very physically fit. Can't find the material now, as I am on via my phone, but google about. There are other negative effects with too little fat as well, as well as having too much if it (heart attacks/brain aneurism, diabetes etc)
Most magazines are fantasy sellers and reality is not the goal. If you wanted magazines to look like the average American woman she would be probably fat and poorly dressed and poorly made up.
This whole thing is just like the Dove campaign a few years ago to try to show "real women". Well real women probably don't buy those magazines anyways, mostly just teenage girls do.
The same with portrait photography, people don't want pictures of themselves, they want pictures of themselves looking like they are beautiful.
You can argue that beauty is an un made-up "natural" woman, and I'd probably agree but I don't see many women wanting to look that way.
How many romance novel do you think would sell if they were about reality?
You can also argue that retouched models in magazines hurt self esteem and body image in women. I'm sure it does. But the beauty and fashion and cosmetic industry is a multi billion dollar business and it's goal is to make women feel "not good enough" without their products. Think that's going to change?
What about this 'HD' make-up you can get? And what does it even mean? It's like that glasses advert where the northern woman says "it's laark a-can see in aitch dee" - in which case I think she needs to go back to the opticians. :laugh:
Originally Posted by Brian Legge
Granted, a lot of skin-retouch these days is horrible, you just need to look at the photo of the day on modelmayhem.com to understand that.
They even have ready-made "pores" to be placed on skin, after it has been smoothed out, looks terrible, seems to be very popular.
I limit myself to removing blemishes and evening out skin tone (as very few has those nice gradients in the skin without a proper MUA-job anyway).
Ends up very natural, even at 350% zoom, you really can't tell that it has been doctored much.
- And the models seems to be pleased so....
Trust me I work on set on movies a lot, after the introduction of HD recording video and movie they were very very specific about makeup because it's much more obvious with the HD video if there are flaws etc. So the idea is this makeup is designed to hide lines even better than "normal" makeup... It's all advertising of course but that explains it at least.
Originally Posted by batwister
Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
Ah, got you. And I can understand the 'make-up as technology' thing in one sense - looking at the Library of Congress colour pictures from the 50s - the stuff women put on their faces back then looked like the surface of the moon.
Originally Posted by StoneNYC
I am a little bit of a weightlifter and the average mans body fat is around 15%. The average for women is around 20%. Most people begin to see visible abdomenal muscles when they are around 10% (men) and 15% for women. But that has a lot to do with ones muscle genetics in the first place. I know I don't have those chunky ab muscles so I need to get below 10% in order to see that.
Originally Posted by Helinophoto
Some are "thin" but have such little muscle mass that they are able to carry around ~20% body fat without appearing fat with clothes on. Again, it all has to do with lean muscle mass.
5% body fat is absolutely miserable from what I hear and is not sustainable for more than a couple weeks. Even for men, 5% body fat is insanely lean.
Speaking as an ex-city person, now a country boy I've gotten to know and make friends with a good many of these fine folks out here. A lot of turkey and chicken farmers, as well as other live stock. I think a lot of you city people on here would be shocked to know what the feed companies are making chicken feed out of, for instance. And it follows right up the food chain. Now wonder I can't find a thin girl to marry. They're ALL overweight. And I don't say that disparagingly.
You can't expect to grind up the scraps from the slaughterhouse, mix it with corn and steroids, feed it right back to the next chicken house, and not have that follow up the chain.
With JKD (Mad cow) infecting herds, isn't it verboten?
Originally Posted by Tom1956
Can't feed bovine to bovine.