Waist-Hip Ratio and female beauty

The sexual dimorphism for this metric is obviously lowest on Asians.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8366421

Evidence is presented showing that body fat distribution as measured by waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) is correlated with youthfulness, reproductive endocrinologic status, and long-term health risk in women. Three studies show that men judge women with low WHR as attractive. Study 1 documents that minor changes in WHRs of Miss America winners and Playboy playmates have occurred over the past 30-60 years. Study 2 shows that college-age men find female figures with low WHR more attractive, healthier, and of greater reproductive value than figures with a higher WHR. In Study 3, 25- to 85-year-old men were found to prefer female figures with lower WHR and assign them higher ratings of attractiveness and reproductive potential. It is suggested that WHR represents an important bodily feature associated with physical attractiveness as well as with health and reproductive potential. A hypothesis is proposed to explain how WHR influences female attractiveness and its role in mate selection.

Hello sexual selection, tied intimately to natural selection.

PDF here: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/05d6/0e201efb208e8561641d13df30fc6ba3bc1a.pdf

also connected to “desire and capability for having childrenp7 or 299.

so K-type women may have better WHR.

Normal weight women have the most positive attributes associated.

Overweight category was universally unattractive.
It’d be nice to see a male study on this. I think Western women would want more children if fewer men were obese.

Why Asians are considered youthful but not sexy (they’d usually fall in the underweight group):

The variables of attractiveness, sexiness, and good health were located close to each other, suggesting that subjects perceived them to be closely related.

Attributes of desire and capability for having children were located close to each other in the solution space but farther from attractiveness, sexiness, and good health, implying that subjects did not perceive a great similarity between these two sets of attributes.

Finally, the attribute of youthfulness was located alone and away from both sets of other attributes. Thus, subjects apparently did not perceive youthfulness to be related to any other measured attributes of good health, sexiness, attractiveness, and desire and capability for having children.

So there’s that. Nobody’s jealous.

Figure N7 was located closer to attractiveness, sexiness, and good health as well as desire and capability for having children than any other Figure.

Normal weight for frame (and race) + most nubile WHR would make sense.
More of those genes survived.

Figure N9 was located closest to desire and capability for having children, whereas Figure N8 was located between Figure N7 and Figure N9. The figure N10 was grouped along with overweight figures, which were not perceived to be closely associated with any of the attributes under investigation. Underweight female figures, U7 and U8, were associated only with youthfulness. However, underweight figures with high WHR (U9 and U10) were perceived as neither youthful nor healthy, in spite of the fact that their depicted body weight was quite similar to figures with lower WHR.

Women with an atrocious WHR (boy hips, no waist) and under or overweight for their skeleton are objectively unattractive from an evolutionary standpoint. This would apply whether it’s a Jap, a Ruskie or an American.

Stop calling sexy science ‘racist’ because it doesn’t share your fetish.

This chart drags you harder than I ever could.

Your Asian girlfriend with the boy hips is approximately as attractive to the world as the average WHR white fat chick. That’s your level, accept it.

It’s also a fact we cannot accurately perceive attractiveness of the racial outgroup as well as our own, so an awareness of ingroup flaws changes nothing.

Most modern women straight up don’t look healthy, whether they’re American, European or, yes, Asian.

Stop trying to make boy hips = sexy happen. It’s not going to happen.

Look at the damn gradient on that underweight thing. The solution to fat women isn’t anorexia. That also suggests bad genes. In fact, at least the fat percentage on slightly overweight 0.7 WHR women suggests femininity and fertility.

“Overall, it seems that subjects inferred reproductive capability from body fat”

What does a foetus feed from?

“Thus, it seems that although WHR is related to health and attractiveness, body weight is perceived to be related to reproductive capability”

Obviously.

“As a group, underweight figures were assigned the lowest reproductive capability, followed by overweight figures and then normal weight figures.”

Suck on that, soyboys.

You actually tend to downgrade. That’s why the Democrat-voting soyboys all want an Asian girlfriend and expressly don’t want kids with it.

“Overall, it appears that both fatness and thinness are perceived as unattractive, and such figures are not perceived as having especially high reproductive potential. “

Not womanly. Remember that word? This:

Not girly, not sexy, not cute, not hot. Womanly.

You can’t discuss women in a reproductive, evolutionary context without it.

Thus, consistent with the present findings, men did not find thin or underweight figures attractive.

If you only care for other male opinions.

There is some evidence that suggests that being extremely underweight or overweight can have adverse effects on female reproductive functions.

Ya don’t say?

A critical body mass has been shown to be significantly related to the onset of menstrual cycle and its maintenance (Frisch & McCarthur, 1974), although recent evidence (DeRidder et al., 1990) suggests that it is the body fat distribution, rather than body fat mass or body weight, that is related to early pubertal development.

Distribution varies by race.

Africans are the most pronounced in women then Europeans shapely but delicate then Asians last – no shape, very yang flesh (broad but flat or full in the middle like cortisol fat) and almost nothing to distribute.

Am I imagining all of this?

Underweight females (15% below ideal body weight) have been reported to have a higher incidence of oligomenorrhea (menses 35 days or more apart) and amenorrhea and to have a higher prevalence of ovu-latory infertility than normal weight females (Green, Weiss, & Daling, 1986).

Underweight women also give birth to infants who are small and growth delayed, and such infants often have permanently impaired intellectual and physical development (Supy, Steer, McCusker, Steele, & Jacobs, 1988).

Menstrual dysfunction and ovulatory infertility also occur more often in females who are 20% above ideal body weight (Green et al., 1986). Morbid obesity in females with high WHR has been shown to increase the degree of androgenicity (increased percentage of free testosterone) and associated menstrual and ovulatory problems (Kirschner & Samojilik, 1991). Thus, the reproductive success of a woman may be low in spite of a high level of fat deposits if the regional distribution of fat is not appropriate, that is, gynoid.

=Womanly.

Finally, the finding that underweight figures were assigned high rankings for youthfulness but not for attractiveness (or other attributes related to reproductive potential) is difficult to reconcile with some evolutionarily based mate selection hypotheses.

Normal men aren’t pedos.

Youthfulness and health have been proprosed as absolute criteria for female attractiveness (Symons, 1987).

Stick with health.

Health has good or bad, you have no negative way to assess youth e.g. immature.

Features of physical appearance associated with youth supposedly provide the strongest and most reliable cues for female reproductive potential. The present finding illustrates that the relationship of youthfulness and attractiveness is quite complex.

Not really.

A woman who is judged to be attractive is also found to be youthful; however, youthfulness alone does not make a woman attractive. Apparently, youthfulness is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition, for determination of female physical attractiveness.

crazed pointing-

also, don’t try to chalk this up to taste:

“Furthermore, if the ideal of female attractiveness is arbitrary and ever changing, no evidence of transgenerational stability in the meaning of WHR should be found, as older men are more likely to be exposed to different ideals of attractiveness than are younger men.”

but

“Older men did not associate health with underweight figures, including those with lower WHR.”

TLDR: Pedos are wrong. Underweight, waistless wonders are not attractive.

Study 2, rubbing salt in that fact.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0009042

Optimal Waist-to-Hip Ratios in Women Activate Neural Reward Centers in Men

Secondary sexual characteristics convey information about reproductive potential. In the same way that facial symmetry and masculinity, and shoulder-to-hip ratio convey information about reproductive/genetic quality in males, waist-to-hip-ratio (WHR) is a phenotypic cue to fertility, fecundity, neurodevelopmental resources in offspring, and overall health, and is indicative of “good genes” in women. Here, using fMRI, we found that males show activation in brain reward centers in response to naked female bodies when surgically altered to express an optimal (∼0.7) WHR with redistributed body fat, but relatively unaffected body mass index (BMI). Relative to presurgical bodies, brain activation to postsurgical bodies was observed in bilateral orbital frontal cortex. While changes in BMI only revealed activation in visual brain substrates, changes in WHR revealed activation in the anterior cingulate cortex, an area associated with reward processing and decision-making. When regressing ratings of attractiveness on brain activation, we observed activation in forebrain substrates, notably the nucleus accumbens, a forebrain nucleus highly involved in reward processes.

These findings suggest that an hourglass figure (i.e., an optimal WHR) activates brain centers that drive appetitive sociality/attention toward females that represent the highest-quality reproductive partners. This is the first description of a neural correlate implicating WHR as a putative honest biological signal of female reproductive viability and its effects on men’s neurological processing.

Quality.

Study 3

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X08002298

Men report stronger attraction to femininity in women’s faces when their testosterone levels are high

Many studies have shown that women’s judgments of men’s attractiveness are affected by changes in levels of sex hormones. However, no studies have tested for associations between changes in levels of sex hormones and men’s judgments of women’s attractiveness. To investigate this issue, we compared men’s attractiveness judgments of feminized and masculinized women’s and men’s faces in test sessions where salivary testosterone was high and test sessions where salivary testosterone was relatively low.

This is why we need studies on men too.

Men reported stronger attraction to femininity in women’s faces in test sessions where salivary testosterone was high than in test sessions where salivary testosterone was low. This effect was found to be specific to judgments of opposite-sex faces. The strength of men’s reported attraction to femininity in men’s faces did not differ between high and low testosterone test sessions, suggesting that the effect of testosterone that we observed for judgments of women’s faces was not due to a general response bias. Collectively, these findings suggest that changes in testosterone levels contribute to the strength of men’s reported attraction to femininity in women’s faces and complement previous findings showing that testosterone modulates men’s interest in sexual stimuli.

Study 4

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886906004995

Beauty is in the eye of the plastic surgeon: Waist–hip ratio (WHR) and women’s attractiveness

Attractiveness conveys reliable information about a woman’s age, health, and fertility. Body fat distribution, as measured by waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), is a reliable cue to a woman’s age, health, and fertility, and affects judgment of women’s attractiveness. WHR is positively correlated with overall body weight or body mass index (BMI). Some researchers have argued that BMI, rather than WHR, affects judgments of female attractiveness. To evaluate the role of WHR, independent of BMI, we secured photographs of pre- and post-operative women who have undergone micro-fat grafting surgery. In this surgery, surgeons harvest fat tissue from the waist region and implant it on the buttocks. Post-operatively, all women have a lower WHR but some gain weight whereas others lose body weight. Results indicate that participants judge post-operative photographs as more attractive than pre-operative photographs, independent of post-operative changes in body weight or BMI. These results indicate that WHR is a key feature of women’s attractiveness.

Duh.

Let’s look historically. Study 5

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/72/6/1436/4729453

Trends in waist-to-hip ratio and its determinants in adults in Finland from 1987 to 1997

Background: Although abdominal obesity has been shown to be an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease and a variety of other diseases, secular changes in fat distribution in populations have rarely been documented.

Objective: Our objective was to assess trends in waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) in the Finnish population during a 10-y period. In addition, we investigated the associations of WHR with body mass index (BMI), age, education, and lifestyle factors.

Design: Three independent cross-sectional surveys were carried out at 5-y intervals between 1987 and 1997. Altogether, 15096 randomly selected men and women aged 25–64 y participated in these surveys.

Results: The WHR increased in both men and women during the 10-y period (P< 0.0001). In men, the strongest upward trend took place in the first 5-y period and then seemed to plateau; in women, the WHR continued to increase into the 1990s. In both sexes, the most prominent increase was observed in subjects aged ≥45 y. The WHR increased in all education-level groups, the lowest WHR being among those with the highest education. Age (18% in men, 12% in women) and BMI (33% in men, 25% in women) accounted for most of the variation in WHR, whereas only 3% was explained by education and lifestyle factors.

Conclusions: Abdominal obesity is a growing problem in Finland, especially in persons aged ≥45 y. These adverse changes in body shape continued to take place, particularly in women, in the 1990s.

Something in the food?

More history, prehistoric. Study 6

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0123284

Preferred Women’s Waist-to-Hip Ratio Variation over the Last 2,500 Years

The ratio between the body circumference at the waist and the hips (or WHR) is a secondary sexual trait that is unique to humans and is well known to influence men’s mate preferences. Because a woman’s WHR also provides information about her age, health and fertility, men’s preference concerning this physical feature may possibly be a cognitive adaptation selected in the human lineage. However, it is unclear whether the preferred WHR in western countries reflects a universal ideal, as geographic variation in non-western areas has been found, and discordances about its temporal consistency remain in the literature. We analyzed the WHR of women considered as ideally beautiful who were depicted in western artworks from 500 BCE to the present. These vestiges of the past feminine ideal were then compared to more recent symbols of beauty: Playboy models and winners of several Miss pageants from 1920 to 2014. We found that the ideal WHR has changed over time in western societies: it was constant during almost a millennium in antiquity (from 500 BCE to 400 CE) and has decreased from the 15th century to the present. Then, based on Playboy models and Miss pageants winners, this decrease appears to slow down or even reverse during the second half of the 20th century. The universality of an ideal WHR is thus challenged, and historical changes in western societies could have caused these variations in men’s preferences. The potential adaptive explanations for these results are discussed.

Should’ve controlled for race.

Why not look at male WHR? Plus sperm health? Found:

https://www.drelist.com/blog/bmi-waist-circumference-semen-quality/

  • The volume of ejaculate decreases in a linear fashion with increasing BMI (suggesting an inverse relationship).
  • The sperm quality and viability declines with increasing waist circumference.
  • Investigators also discovered that quality of semen decreases (such as sperm viability, motility, semen volume) with increasing body size; however, no relationship was observed between sperm DNA fragmentation index and physical activity or obesity.

Latter requires time.

Various research and clinical studies suggests that subfertility in men is multifactorial i.e. several factors can impact the quality of reproductive health.

  • Abnormal sperm production: Study conducted by Jensen and associates (2) suggested that abnormal BMI is very strongly linked to impaired sperm production. One of the many reasons is, abnormal metabolism of testosterone (which plays a key role in the production of healthy and viable sperms).
  • Abdominal obesity and risk of metabolic disorders: According to a new study reported in the Human Reproduction (3), investigators provided statistical evidence that abnormal BMI and abdominal obesity is very strongly linked to a number of health issues (such as cardiovascular dysfunction, atherosclerosis, type 2 diabetes, hypertension and others). Needless to say that these health issues have a deleterious effect on the sexual health regardless of the body-mass index (or BMI).
  • Obesity, physical activity and testosterone: Testosterone levels tends to decline in males who have a sedentary lifestyle. Various research and clinical studies indicates that aerobic activity or exercise can improve testosterone metabolism in males significantly.

1. Eisenberg, M. L., Kim, S., Chen, Z., Sundaram, R., Schisterman, E. F., & Louis, G. M. B. (2014). The relationship between male BMI and waist circumference on semen quality: data from the LIFE study. Human Reproduction, 29(2), 193-200.

2. Jensen, T. K., Andersson, A. M., Jørgensen, N., Andersen, A. G., Carlsen, E., & Skakkebæk, N. E. (2004). Body mass index in relation to semen quality and reproductive hormones among 1,558 Danish men. Fertility and sterility, 82(4), 863-870.

3. Hammiche, F., Laven, J. S., Twigt, J. M., Boellaard, W. P., Steegers, E. A., & Steegers-Theunissen, R. P. (2012). Body mass index and central adiposity are associated with sperm quality in men of subfertile couples. Human reproduction, 27(8), 2365-2372.

Yet they don’t tell men this information.

Back to women

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24789138

Cross-cultural variation in men’s preference for sexual dimorphism in women’s faces.

Both attractiveness judgements and mate preferences vary considerably cross-culturally.

Racially.

We investigated whether men’s preference for femininity in women’s faces varies between 28 countries with diverse health conditions by analysing responses of 1972 heterosexual participants. Although men in all countries preferred feminized over masculinized female faces, we found substantial differences between countries in the magnitude of men’s preferences. Using an average femininity preference for each country, we found men’s facial femininity preferences correlated positively with the health of the nation, which explained 50.4% of the variation among countries. The weakest preferences for femininity were found in Nepal and strongest in Japan. As high femininity in women is associated with lower success in competition for resources and lower dominance, it is possible that in harsher environments, men prefer cues to resource holding potential over high fecundity.

Asia is weird for dimorphism studies.

Hence the focus on health.

While the economy is bad, it isn’t surprising men prefer manly looking women.

It’s temporary. There’ll be a flood of divorces as the economy improves. Men will suddenly see how mannish the wife has been and be repulsed. Menopause also makes women look more mannish, including higher WHR. So much for a youth argument there.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5177465/pdf/nihms827194.pdf

Factors Underlying the Temporal Increase in Maternal Mortality in the United States

They don’t say more non-white mothers or more mixed race babies, so it’s wrong. They guess.

Feminine brain, youthful brain

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/womens-metabolic-brain-age-around-three-years-younger-mens-180971425/

Predictable.

“New research suggests that women’s brains stay energized well into old age, making their brains appear about three years younger than men’s of the same chronological age.”

Given

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/11/07/estrogen-boosts-brainpower-actually/

Linked in first:

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/01/29/1815917116

Men didn’t evolve to live long, so it isn’t so much remarkable that women live longer with healthier brains but men,  to be competitive with other men in youth and war, age terribly simply because so few would survive there’s no evolutionary pressure.

Some tough choices ahead for the cooties crowd.

Stick to imaginary phantasms of 20th century masculine superiority solely intended to run up credit debt or actually be healthier.

Here comes the academese:

“Researchers remain uncertain why such metabolic differences exist”

EVOLUTION.

“It’s not that women’s brains seem to age slower than men’s,”

Literally is.
Watch the twist.

“Rather, it seems that women’s brains start off at a younger age when they reach adulthood, and they keep that throughout the remainder of their adulthood, basically buying them a few extra years.”

Not how it works. At all.

It’s like saying you start a race at the finish line, words have meanings.

If they’ve reached adulthood, they’ve reached adulthood. You can’t change the meaning to be quantum. Women mature faster (partially from earlier puberty and slower, longer sum development time because of that) and go on to metabolically age better because testosterone is known to burn out the system.

Gradual puberty + lower T = good for long-term brain health.

aka Not women’s fault. Help your fellow men. Maybe that explains why celibates like Tesla (who, let’s face it, probably didn’t masturbate), who kept their T-levels low as a result, lived longer and stayed lucid. Maybe that’s why monks live longer too, staying sharp. Male chastity has observable benefits.

The autobiographies of genius seem to evidence longer average puberty, too. The sensitive kid who’s a later bloomer?

The Victorians called masturbation self-abuse because the compulsion/addiction would tend to be co-morbid with other mental problems, including depression. How many porn addicts are depressed?

And what do they do to self-soothe because (someone) tells them it’s unanimously ‘good for you’?

Even nuns tend to live longer which does point to lower testosterone being a pre-requisite for a long life, neatly explaining why male levels gradually lower. It isn’t like evolution is picking on men. Aggressive animals have shorter lifespans across species. This is the price of being the protector/provider sex.

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/men-too-much-testosterone-linked-to-shorter-lifespan-112213

“Overall, men with circulating testosterone levels between 9.8 to 15.8 nmol/L range tended to live the longest.”

Men are entitled to know what their healthy levels should be, study them!

Men age faster cognitively, he’s like a magician trying to switch your attention onto women when there’s a medical problem with men.
Assuming they want to live long and prosper.

Like, sorry, if that’s a sexist assumption.

“Previous studies have found that aging women often exhibit stronger reasoning, memory and problem-solving skills than males of the same age. But it’s unclear whether this trend is related specifically to metabolism or to a different aspect of brain function.”

Hormonal interaction.

“This might mean women are a little bit more resilient to certain aspects of brain aging in general, but it could also introduce certain vulnerabilities,”

Lying liar. Not even one example? How can you try to spin a youthful brain as a bad thing?

Women aren’t so much MORE resilient (although oestrogen helps) but men are MORE fragile.

HELP THEM.

“Having a younger brain for longer could make the brain more vulnerable to certain things as well.”

Still no mention of men? This isn’t a woman’s issue, there’s nothing new here as stated, women already perform better as a known overall finding*, he totally ignores what men need because it involves admitting they aren’t the best at something….

These arrogant men are sex traitors. Their ego won’t let them admit men need help. So have fun with higher neurodegeneration risk because one guy won’t admit he’s not #1 at everything.

Men are not the control group, it’s the mean between both groups.

Basic category error and erroneous maths.

Hubris is a deadly sin. Treating male ill-health like it’s normal will literally kill men.

OT but relevant:

If we took men as the control, the shorter male lifespan is not only normal but hinted at being desirable, you don’t want to change the norm, with women being unusually longer-lived (greater distance from norm). Actually, the average is between the groups, again. The difference from the norm is smaller, easier to broach and bring those below it up to speed.

*Because unlike IQ studies, they can’t conveniently ‘exclude’ the left-side of the male bell curve to skew their findings dishonestly. This happens after they sample from middle-class academia pupils largely from suburban populations, a huge bias/filter itself.

Sure, throw other men under the bus and blame women for biology. Sexism both ways!

Reminder:

BDNF in the blood

https://academic.oup.com/ijnp/article/14/3/347/905865

comparable levels to the brain

so if you took it from the blood

and transferred it to a new blood supply

it would re-calibrate the new brain to a better equilibrium

there’s your nootropic

and superior stroke recovery, along with other medical healing marvels

why would Hillary need that sort of thing?

Biochemical sin eaters

https://www.biblesprout.com/articles/bible/blood-important-god/

The blood represents life, and so sacred is life before God that the blood of animals was used in all offerings for sin as man’s vicarious substitute (atonement) under the Mosaic (Old Testament) law.

And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood there is no remission. Hebrews 9:22

Only as atonement is linked with death, the shedding of blood, and not life set free, would it appear to become efficacious in the covering of human sin.

It’s a sacrifice, yes, living ones exist in Satanism.

Clears karma.

A Satanist told me.

They differ on exactly how.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/oct/17/young-blood-reverse-effects-ageing

How about you pay those student loan debts in literal blood, children?

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/may/04/young-blood-reverse-ageing-mice-studies

And it won’t remain voluntary (or paid) as long as the socialists have their say, that’s a cover.

“For the greater good” they can take your very youth juice. Finite, it is finite supply and that fact is covered up. It would also impact the health of the “donor’s” germline, aka offspring. You have been warned. It’s worse than genetic tampering. Why don’t their own kids “donate”?

“Between consenting adults” covers their ass on many immoral things.

They already steal (and sell) placental stem cells and cord blood (they deprive of the newborn baby by clamping immediately). They already eat children, they could grow this stuff in a lab and refuse.

God doesn’t want human sacrifices, Satan does.

These people are SICK.

What, did you think those college blood drives actually go to sick kids or something?

Nope!

People age at variable speeds (biological age)

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/07/01/1506264112

Antiaging interventions are needed to reduce the burden of disease and protect population productivity.

Translation: they want to work you like a dog until you die.

Young people are the most attractive targets for therapies to extend healthspan

How is that NOT eugenics? You can bet it would be enforced.
Covered here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-33409604

…The analysis showed that at the age of 38, the people’s biological ages ranged from the late-20s to those who were nearly 60.

Pretty huge variance.

“They look rough, they look lacking in vitality,” said Prof Terrie Moffitt from Duke University in the US.

The study said some people had almost stopped ageing during the period of the study, while others were gaining nearly three years of biological age for every twelve months that passed….

Wouldn’t it make more empirical sense to study the verifiable Dorian Grays of the group?
Could this be genetic load?
Epigenetics with environment?

Taken with other studies, such as caloric restriction, might the body have an optimum stressor rate, beyond which it begins to break down? What could affect this? Processed food, particulate matter (air pollution), toxins processed or physical exertions?

“Any area of life where we currently use chronological age is faulty, if we knew more about biological age we could be more fair and egalitarian.”

I don’t see how. Unless you shoot people for being too young.

She argued the retirement age may be unfair for those “working at their peak” who then had to retire.

Oh, the government wants another excuse not to pay your pension. Fantastic.
It’s also ironic I was writing today about how men have a Wall too. Deny this. We’ve all seen people from school who were late bloomers, as well as people who peaked at age 15.