Marriage Markets (and Muscularity) | Hacker News Reader

Marriage Markets (and Muscularity)

robkhenderson.substack.com

97 pointsjger15151 comments

I hate this kind of research. Scrape some data, observe some correlations, and then imprint your view of the world onto it to draw some ad-hoc conclusions.

For example:

> In this study, researchers asked two different groups of women to look at photos of different men and rate how strong the men looked. Results showed that the rated strength of a male body accounts for 70 percent of the variance in attractiveness (this is a massive effect size).

Except that if you read the paper, you find:

1. "Furthermore, for two of the three regressions, the attractiveness measure became a negative predictor once strength ratings were controlled for. In other words, there appear to be cues in the male body that accurately indicate strength (and are detected as such by raters), but nonetheless are neutral or negatively valued when assessing attractiveness."

2. You know what else is correlated with strength? Mental health, income, social status, etc. You know what the study doesn't at all control for?

3. It turns out if you only give people a photo and have them judge attractiveness, they'll only look at the physique of the person. This doesn't mean it's how people view attractiveness in real-world situations where you have all sorts of other data.

> In other words, there appear to be cues in the male body that accurately indicate strength (and are detected as such by raters), but nonetheless are neutral or negatively valued when assessing attractiveness.

hahaha yes I was wondering about that. Gym-based fitness and lifting specifically seem pretty trendy right now and a lot of the younger men I know lift and are very visibly fit. But anecdotally pretty much all of the strongest men I've known had guts to match their arms and if you saw them out of weight training context you'd probably say they looked more schlubby than than chiseled.

My understanding is that a moderate amount of muscle makes both men and women more attractive.

The average person is not terribly attracted to someone who looks like a pro bodybuilder (crazy low body fat) or powerlifter (probably a bit over fat.)

You'd have to be trying really hard (read: on roids) to be anywhere near a situation where adding muscle or cutting fat makes you less attractive.

Even guys on roids are pretty attractive in my experience. I have a few friends who get random attention from women (up to and including in prompted touching) and all of them take steroids.

This is absolutely false. But if a man wants an impressive physique naturally he’d best start about the time he hits puberty. The window of quad digit free testosterone isn’t open for long. If you hear about 30 or 40 something men putting on 20+ lbs of muscle in 6 months you can rest assured they’re supplementing androgens.

However in these days of endocrine disruption and secular testosterone decline, it’s not unreasonable to assume that anyone dedicated enough has at least considered gear.

Compare for example the physique of a champion body builder with that of a heavyweight Olympic weightlifting gold medalist.

Or either with a male gymnast.

To be fair, the Olympic weightlifting movements in their current form are pretty leg-dominant. In the past when there was a third event, the clean-and-press [1,2], athletes needed a lot more upper body strength.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nJrYPVJ88M

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4l6eH-lmMA

It’s a shame that the judges basically gave up on the press, because it truly is an impressive movement.

The study talks about 'rated' strength - how strong people thought an individual was, not how strong he actually was, I don't think this invalidates the conclusion that looking strong correlates very well with attractiveness.

You sometimes see this in professional fighting ability. At some point bigger muscles hinder mobility and take too much energy to fuel making the fighter tire more quickly.

Chubby looking Fedor Emelianenko absolutely destroyed many gym bros in the MMA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4XZqEkY9pg

Tyson Fury also doesn’t exactly have chiseled abs, but he sure has staying power.

Body builder is mostly a power lifter who periodically calorie-restricts to get a lower body fat percentage (there are differences in program design, but "in general", thats the major diff). Easier to gain muscle strength when you're not diet restricted, so power lifters always get stronger than the builders over time and people mostly pay attention to the people with the most experience.

Note that the classic power law makes its appearance once again. True, the bell curves for lifters and builders have little overlap and most of the not-as-thin lifters will be much stronger than most of the thin builders. However, most of the time they are competing with the general population not with each other. Both experienced body builders and power lifters are significantly stronger than, perhaps, 99% of the male population, which honestly is not a very high bar to exceed.

So due to power law effects when competing against 99% of men, the primary correlation with winning is strength. Yet when competing at the top of the pyramid, against other men in the top 1%, you are also correct that lower body fat percentage correlates with winning, because everyone "up there" is already pretty muscular to begin with. "The football team is the strongest and most successful group, but the individual on the football team whom is the most successful has the lowest body fat percentage inside his group".

Muscular guys much more probably post shirtless pics which is often a turn off

Me too. I also suspect "mating success" is negatively correlated with eudaimonia these days, but who'd want to go there?

> negatively correlated with eudaimonia

wow, eudaimonia is my word for the day.

Yeah I had to look it up [1]

> Eudaimonia (Greek: εὐδαιμονία [eu̯dai̯moníaː]; sometimes anglicized as eudaemonia or eudemonia, /juːdɪˈmoʊniə/) is a Greek word literally translating to the state or condition of 'good spirit', and which is commonly translated as 'happiness' or 'welfare'.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaimonia

It's an interesting word. Using it can either attract or repel your intended MOTAS. I doubt there's a middle ground :-)

Uttering the word Eudaimonia at the company of hot girls will definitely get you laid.

I'm always amazed by the over-thinking done by myself and people like me when discussing attracting mates. There's really only a few lessons I've learned in 20 years of dating, and they are: Take great care of yourself, cultivate socially-acceptable hobbies, and don't overthink it.

Note: Dating is not tinder.

> cultivate socially-acceptable hobbies

Just wanted to pull this one out, because the socially acceptable hobbies have shifted a bit over time; "nerdy" hobbies are more commonplace these days. I mean my girlfriend is playing FFXIV downstairs at the moment.

That said, model trains, while of course super cool, won't get you very far.

go on to okcupid, filter on Q:"Would enjoy a night playing video games" A:Yes - Result: x women within 50 miles of SF where x is < 1%

Maybe because okcupid is not statistical representative of all women? Or maybe because women don't think it benefits them if they answer that question with yes on a dating platform?

An anecdote. I am 33, married for 10+ years now. Taking care of yourself is not something most people would say I do. Never had any problems attracting mates (although I suppose not taking care of yourself is more socially acceptable in university).

To amplify your anecdote with my own: I am 6'3", 215lbs, 12% bodyfat per DEXA scan, with a 21.5 inch bideltoid and a 465lb deadlift.

To this day, my wife is the only woman on Earth who has ever noticed my existence (and even there, she's only with me for the income provisioning).

My pet hypothesis is that sexual success with heterosexual women almost exclusively boils down to facial aesthetics: symmetry, midface ratio, interpupillary distance, collagen and elastin production, mandible forward growth and width, eyelid exposure, zygomatic protrusion, orbital bone thickness and radius, ramus length, etc.

You're very likely blessed with good facial aesthetics.

But who knows? What I do know for certain is that the coefficients of height, wealth, and muscularity are precisely ZERO in the attraction equation.

I don’t understand what you’re saying. What’s wrong with eudaimonia?

> It turns out if you only give people a photo and have them judge attractiveness, they'll only look at the physique of the person. This doesn't mean it's how people view attractiveness in real-world situations where you have all sorts of other data.

That's the case on Tinder though.

If you read the paper, you'll notice that the photos they use look nothing like dating profile pictures. Namely:

1. The faces are covered with a black box.

2. Standardized clothing.

3. The photos are straight shots (and for one dataset, side shots) taken in a blank room.

Dating profile pictures generally:

1. Prominently display your face.

2. Involve you wearing clothing indicative of how you present yourself.

3. Involve you in situations that are indicative of how you present yourself.

True, except your point 1 from the second list is considered an anti-pattern - the typical recommendation is to have full-body pictures as much as possible.

True.

I was trying to say that hiding your face in a dating profile picture is an easy way to get ignored, but I went too far with it.

How else would you study the effects of muscularity in attraction? You have to control for the other factors.

This study - as unlike real life as it is - indicates what we all know… being more muscular is generally good for men in attracting women. If it wasn’t true - why the fuck is everyone’s advice always to hit the gym and get some muscle? It’s because it’s known to have some effect.

Yes, other things matter but muscles do too!! Stop trying to act like people don’t give a fuck about physical attraction! It’s the most important thing to starting a relationship! (It is an absolute deal breaker in our modern society to find your partner ugly!)

I guess one negative example is enough to disprove the theorem constructed in the paper :-)

https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/naomi-campbell-and-flav...

money and status?

I saw in another HN comment that substack was just medium for wannabe philosophers and never before had I seen something so completely true on Hacker News.

His thesis is not convincing at all. Pseudo-intellectualism all the way!

I've been thinking of setting up a Substack and that comment fucking stung. :)

On top of that, the phrasing contains a ton of bias: "marriage markets", "improve romantic prospects" and so on.

The four points in TFA are perfect examples of confusing correlation and causation.

The article talks about "mating success", which I'm not really sure correlates with marriage necessarily. Calling Tinder a marriage market is quite a stretch as well. Summary seems to be "physical attractiveness leads to more sex", which I imagine surprises absolutely no one.

We probably have more success in finding partners in the friendships we cultivated.

I think this is right- I know men who have no trouble picking up women (they are "jacked"), but can't keep them due to other personality issues (they are too controlling).

I'd assume there is a loose correlation changing in age.

My assumption is having a long term partner with out having sexual intimacy is fairly uncommon, understanding sexual compatability for people looking for a long term partner is a probably high on the criteria to sort by.

IE hard to understand compatibility with out the deed.

That said I agree the perception is that Tinder isn't socially known as the place to find a long term partner.

Call me old fashioned, but the ability to approach people in the real world about your interests in a socially acceptable manner may have less potential surface area but is probably a higher success rate for longer term relationships.

> IE hard to understand compatibility with out the deed.

Also hard to judge how you'd be in a relation with someone beforehand, even if you already know that person well.

If you're a beginner and want to start lifting weights I highly recommend the 5x5 workout. After progression becomes more difficult and takes longer to increase weight, switch to the Texas Method.

5x5: https://stronglifts.com/5x5/ Texas Method: https://startingstrength.com/article/the_texas_method

I think you could also just lose body fat (through dieting and moving around) and appear "muscular". No need to workout so hard.

You can also lose more fat by increasing the size of your muscles which can be achieved through lifting.

https://faseb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1096/fj.2021002...

Not if you're like me who's hovering at the low end of normal BMI anyway. Gaining weight isn't easy for everyone.

Posture is positively affected by lifting too. You need to do something to balance muscular development through your body, it doesn't need to be lifting.

If you don't do physical exercise losing body fat will mostly make you look skinny, not muscular.

you won't loose your disgusting gunt otherwise. It's a fact. I see a lot of "work out" men that are unbelievable obese. Something 75 years ago would be circus material. They might have strength, but optically it is just not esthetically.

Goal: hypocaloric life.

If you are a beginner everything works. But if you want to look "like you go to a gym" and not like a powerlifter, you will need to switch to more hypertrophy based programs.

It's really fucking hard to look like a powerlifter. At that point, you need to focus as much, or more on nutrition as routine.

As someone who has been working out since I was 12, diet is AS important than lifting weights. No amount of lifting will get you anywhere without proper diet. If anything, it can lead to being injured or sick. Doesn't matter whether you want to look like a powerlifter or not.

IMO, just start with Starting Strength and skip 5x5

I've done both SS and Texas Method and got my Squat up to 485 lbs. Do SS (but make sure your technique is good enough, possibly by consulting a coach), don't do TM. Grinding 5x5 at near-maximal effort will be excessively fatiguing and potentially harmful. For balanced, evidence based programming and nutrition information I recommend https://www.youtube.com/c/BarbellMedicine .they have ton of free useful info on their website and youtube channel.

Agreed on Barbell Medicine over SS or TM. They are basically the only evidence-based company in the game.

What do you think of this method? https://www.julian.com/guide/muscle/

After 20 years of working out, I learned too late that weak point training is where it's at.

In my case, my gut quit cooperating at 40 and I developed too many food sensitivities to maybe ever recover from. Since progress is more affected by nutrition than technique, I couldn't eat what I needed to recover. But, I press forward, learning as I go and still making progress in other areas like endurance, resilience and flexibility that may eventually carry over to heavy lifts.

If I could do it all over again, I'd listen to the old timers. Like with that sticking point you hit on bench, there are exercises for that. The angle of your elbows and knees can make the difference between wearing down and getting stronger. There are ways of bracing your core that prevent back injury, and so on. Then it's just consistency, and maybe the most important one for overcoming plateaus: periodicity (not variety).

My life really changed when I started working out regularly about a year ago. Especially on the women side. I honestly think it has more to do with my changed posture and more energy than actual the muscles but it is impossible to dissect.

All i can say. Hit the gym. Don't worry about what anyone would think (nobody cares this isn't highschool). And try to push yourself every week a bit further. Good luck!:)

> All i can say. Hit the gym. Don't worry about what anyone would think (nobody cares this isn't highschool).

Half of the benefit I get from going to the gym is getting used to being around strangers. I used to have lockdown-induced social anxiety, and going to the gym fixed that. Realising that not everyone is out to get you, that most people are just nice people doing their thing and ready to help if you need helps a lot.

This is me too. My social skills atrophied so much during lock down that going to gyms became as much of a mental workout as a physical one.

it's always interesting to me the discrepancies in beauty standards and attractiveness in different cultures for both genders.

Obviously this polling is done from a Americana/Europa point of view but outside it, there's less emphasis on macho maleness, which seems to be what muscularity is alluding to, in fact it hurts you. Women are diverse and so are there preferences but its probably harder to see it in macho, male driven image in the American continent.

It appears that especially in the American/European continent, muscularity, the ability to exert physical violence, justified or not, is what is preferred, which tells you a bit about those societies, violence and fear appears to be a component of their culture, especially true in Americas compared to Western Europe for instance.

However, it's obvious that the new generation has a very different standards for male beauty. The popularity of BTS is a good example. It just shows you how much of an impact media has. Japanese women for the most part prefer the thin skinny androgyny according to polls, in fact androgyny in males is highly preferred over the macho masculinity or less threatening looking males, which says a bit about those societies which are far far safer and non-violent compared to North America. At the same time there is casual physical contact that is generally accepted but you don't walk in the streets at night in large cities and fear for your life.

If beauty standards differ somewhat from culture to culture, doesn't that break the "we're just evolved animals" evo-psych idea that physical strength is the most important thing?

I have never seen anything in evolutionary psychology to suggest that strength was the most important thing.

That doesn't answer the question: do cultural norms of beauty conflict with the evo-psych view of the primacy of men's physical strength in attractiveness?

As noted by another commenter, we're "social" animals. So consider "strength" in the context of the social dynamics of the mating group.

That is, in some groups, literal physical strength is going to have benefits, and be sought after because of how it can be physically applied. In other groups, the aesthetic of being physically strong brings along social standing, which is attractive for its own reasons. Etc.

The point being, cultural norms of beauty, whatever they are, correlate to the other desirable traits and outcomes (money, power, safety, stability, etc) that humans want, in that context.

Okay, I guess I need to reframe this in multiple ways: Evo-psych (actually called "evolutionary psychology") does NOT view men's physical strength as primary in attractiveness. Lifting big things is not number one hotness. Other things matter more to mate selection than muscles.

People who call evolutionary psychology "evo-psych," well, that's a dog whistle of its own.

We're evolved social* animals.

Strength may matter, but a team of average hunters is far more successful than a strong but lone one.

Most "evolutionary psychology" that you find online is broscience if not worse.

Absolutely, I'm just instilling some doubt in readers. :)

nope. this is completely wrong

media everywhere in the world has thin skinny androgyny artists and big atlethic artists. america has plenty of feminine males. have you seen the beauty industry or social media at all? its all skinny dudes

this isnt about violence. most people are fat and never see any violence. women just prefer big strong alethic men everywhere in world when you look at who is having sex and not just some polls

> Obviously this polling is done from a Americana/Europa point of view but outside it, there's less emphasis on macho maleness, which seems to be what muscularity is alluding to, in fact it hurts you.

I would say it is the same in Western Europe. At least in my circle, being artificially muscular is negatively correlated as being dumb. It seems that educated women invariably dislike American-style big muscles.

That being said, Americans invariably export their lifestyles to us through movies and series, so I wouldn't be surprise if this big muscle trend eventually make its way to us.

This reminds me of a funny exchange in the Silicon Valley show:

Dinesh: Well, when we were kids, I was the one getting good grades, I was the one who was planning for my future, I would bring gifts for my teachers cause they worked so hard, you know, cool stuff. He was getting in trouble, he got caught smoking opium in the toolshed, he crashed my uncle's motorbike.

Gilfoyle: And you think you're the cool one?

Dinesh: Yeah, it's different in Pakistan.

Gilfoyle: I've never been but I know it isn't.

Even reading the lines and re-playing it with their exact voices in my head, it still makes me laugh out loud to this day. Good writing stands the test of time. I wish I had the "knack" to get to this level of quality. Such an amazing skill.

I find myself going back to old simpsons clips and just laughing as if I just saw them.

For example, tell me if you get a laugh from this 1995(almost 27 years) clip

[1]:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdz4bc2LGMM

There are certainly more benefits to muscles than being able to impart more physical violence. In fact, if women were more attracted to someone mostly because of the protection they could offer, a guy who walks around with a rifle slung over his back and a knife in his belt would be a rather attractive look.

1. Physical strength is more practically useful than a rifle.

2. "Man in military uniform" is an archetypical attractive male.

> It appears that especially in the American/European continent, muscularity, the ability to exert physical violence, justified or not, is what is preferred, which tells you a bit about those societies, violence and fear appears to be a component of their culture, especially true in Americas compared to Western Europe for instance.

Because outside western culture the world is just peace and lollipops.

Let me give an alternative explanation: females in western societies can indulge in casual sex

> females in western societies can indulge in casual sex

So you think only western women indulge in casual sex? that is quite a myopic and old fashioned view. How old are you? When was the last time you took a trip?

Women seem to universally be attracted to men who are capable of "protecting" them. I put that in quotes because it's kind of fuzzy as there's lots of different types of protection. Economic security is a type of protection. Physical protection is a type of protection. The androgynous men in Asia you're referring to are signaling economic protection, they don't have to work hard to support themselves. Somewhat related is that having a tan used to be a signal of low class, because you had to work outside, now having a nice tan is a luxury of the wealthy. Being overweight used to be attractive (signal of wealth) now having the time and money to go to the gym is a signal of wealth.

The point is I think the underlying desires have stayed the same, but the context in which those desires manifest changes. And so over time, because the world has changed, different attributes signal different things.

>>>Japanese women for the most part prefer the thin skinny androgyny according to polls

What women say in polls != who women do in the bedroom. Any athletic or military guy who has spent more than 5 minutes in Asia knows this.

Just some observations but I have seen this multiple times in my group of friends. They were good looking but on the skinny side, single, did not really work out and a bit frustrated on the dating market. Most of my friends seriously work out so I think there's a bit of an incentive in my group of friends to try going to the gym and work out (I think this is important, a few years ago I didn't really know anyone working out and it didn't really cross my mind to do it). They took it seriously, after half a year really made progress and either are no longer single or have more dates than they used to.

I never really worked out but due to my friends I also started to take my body more seriously. Progress is not that hard, it just takes patience. It's also really increased my quality of life, it's a good way to release stress and a good balance to sitting in front of the computer. Also it's great to just stay in shape, you can do physically demanding things just for fun. In the past I wanted to not be superficial because I thought it was stupid to care too much about looks but working out is really more than gaining more muscles, you really take care of yourself and your body.

The main incentive for me to work out was getting my body into a better shape to improve my confidence and enlarge my dating pool. However, after I experienced the plethora of its other benefits, I can safely say it's no more about the former goal, but more for the other benefits that come with it such as stress release, more happiness, more energy, drive and focus, much much better sleep, more libido, etc.

More libido without any of the social benefits would be a huge downside IMO. All I want when I’m single is to be chemically castrated.

I can relate to this: there's been numerous times where I've resisted keeping a regular exercise regimen because it sends my libido through the roof and I didn't want to deal with the headache of going out/socializing to restock my harem.

Of course more women are attracted to smart successful men and of course they are attracted to physically attractive men but it is a bit easier to see your muscles than your master's degree when you are walk in a room. First impressions are important.

> it is a bit easier to see your muscles than your master's degree when you are walk in a room.

This would make for an interesting experiment.

I bet you can deduce a person's education level accurately by appearance, unless the person makes a deliberate attempt to hide it, but even then, things like good dental hygiene are a give away. People largely try to fit in with their peer group, and people are pretty good at identifying groups.

I think this is especially true with age.

Strangers Rank Their Intelligence | IQ vs First Impressions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAlI0pbMQiM

So here’s a conundrum. The longevity literature consistently reports that caloric restriction and in particular minimising protein intake, including eg the BCAAs found in protein powders, leads to a longer lifespan. Other things like mTOR that are associated with muscle growth also lead to shorter lifespan.

Basically it seems like you have a choice - live a long life, or get muscular.

longevity science is still voodoo science.

There are two subtleties about this that often are not talked about.

1) The caloric restriction -> longevity research shows that it's generally true, but it much more pronounced in small creatures that spend a significant amount of "lifetime energy expenditure" during reproduction (like mice). So while caloric restriction makes a mouse live 30% longer (making up numbers here), the same proportion of caloric restriction may give <1% extra life in a human.

2) There often a quantity vs quality of life trade off too. Let's say reducing mTOR and BCAA takes a few years off of your life but you have much more muscle and with that great posture and movement that doesn't break down your body and you feel great (and if we believe the linked article more sex too). Is that a trade off you're willing to take?

Same argument can be made with HRT for older men (I'm nearing that age). It seems that lots of the scary news related to HRT and anabolics in general is more about looking at the negative effects without accounting for the quality of life improvements that come from just being stronger.

Well, there are more factors to consider on the long life vs good life idea.

There is no doubt that excessive protein intake is bad.

However, when attempting to reduce your protein intake, great care is required to not reduce it too much, like for everything else that is bad in excess, but which is still necessary for life.

A too low daily protein intake leads to various problems, e.g. a too low albumin level in the blood, which are guaranteed to reduce your lifespan.

Most of the studies seem to "muscularity correlates to likelihood to lie about how many sexual partners had in past year".

"getting jacked" correlates with about a hundred other positive behaviors, leading to obvious confusion about which is the magic sauce that actually causes female attraction. The article incorrectly assumes its mere bulk mass, but fat dudes do not attract women, so ...

Higher protein/lower carb diet of lifters naturally leads to lower body fat, face and neck look better, which also correlates with reproductive success.

As if I needed yet another reason not to start smoking, I don't want to pass out coughing at the gym so I don't smoke, with a side effect of my teeth are therefore not yellow. Non-yellow teeth also correlate with reproductive success.

Even stuff like I don't binge drink or use drugs and get reasonable good sleep therefore my eyes are rarely bloodshot in the morning, again, eyes that don't look like a gore pic correlate with reproductive success.

A lower carb diet plus some sweating in the sauna eliminates all skin problems for me, and again lack of zits correlates well with reproductive success.

A final interesting correlation is there's an absolute fixation by non-lifters on "beating people up" whereas in reality I've lived in a concealed carry state for decades so people are much more civil and polite to each other and I'm not in a demographic or social class where beatings are part of life. I would instead propose it seems rather obvious that a guy who takes excellent care of himself will take excellent care of his partner and children, which seems to market pretty well to women, every woman wants to see her kids grow up healthy strong and attractive, so a guy that "cheats" his natural genetics by putting in a couple hours in the gym every week is going to massively attract women.

That said, the specific cause doesn't really matter, if you generally join the overall "lifter lifestyle", it will work out well. Eat better, exercise, treat your body well, and that will attract people.

> Higher protein/lower carb diet of lifters naturally leads to lower body fat, face and neck look better, which also correlates with reproductive success.

As an aside, the US infantry soldiers’ rations included about 22 ounces of beef per day during WW1. The eat ten pounds of bread and almost no red meat per day food pyramid is so awful I wonder if it’s malicious.

22oz of beef per day seems crazy high for peacetime cattle ranch owners, let alone deployed infantry. (I’d love it, but that’s 5.5 quarter pounders per day, which seems really high for wartime rations. If the US pulled that off, that had to be a massive [relative] advantage in troop energy and morale.)

Here you go[1]. That source gives 20oz for the 19th century rations and a lower number for WW1 "reserve rations." I can't find a source for my 22oz WW1 claim, but as you can see from what I did find, it's well within the realm of plausibility. And yes, the doughboys were doughty lads to be sure.

[1] https://history.army.mil/museums/TRADOC/frontier-army-museum...

Our species has survived for millennia because women selected mates that were providers and protectors and men selected mates that were healthy enough to birth and feed her children.

Awkwardly, technology and modern society has made it so that our biological desires are no longer useful for selecting a mate. This explains why someone like Ronaldo is very desirable in our world. He meets the biological desire of athletic and tall and also meets the logical desire to be with someone who makes a lot of money.

>absolute fixation by non-lifters on "beating people up" whereas in reality I've lived in a concealed carry state for decades so people are much more civil

Your experience is that "non-lifters" are the aggressive ones fixated on beating people up? I don't think that would match most people's experience.

And I highly doubt concealed carry leads to more polite interactions.

Most people are not lifters, and there seems to be no correlation, so yes that is a fairly common experience.

Also the level of aggression in the weight room is extremely low compared to the basketball court. You "win" in the weight room by lifting something heavier then fist bump your friends, lifting is not a zero sum game, in theory everyone can win every week if they're making gains. The only way to win on a basketball court or similar, is to dominate a the weaker into taking a loss, its a zero sum game.

Very rare in media to hear about a fight breaking out in the free weights room; fights happen every day at basketball courts, hockey arenas, soccer stadiums ... team sports are super violent.

I think a state in which people are culturally more polite to each other then it becomes okay to allow concealed carry.

Once again, correlation does not imply causation. You made a million assumptions in your statements.

Life is way more complex and there are a million confounding factors.

The kind of people who find the time both to exercise, sleep, eat well and have an intense dating life tend to be young - which helps - and wealthy enough that they don't have to spend a lot of time working.

Or they are disinterested in other activities and interests that would take time away from exercising.

What I really enjoy about this post is that in a logical manner it exposes the weakness with this type of research.

The correlations aren't useless but they aren't strictly useful either. Instead what is useful is developing a pseudo DAG of cause and effect for behavior.

You also elude to how optimizing for one variable can lose sight of all the other down stream decisions that correlate to the result.

I can speak to my own anecdote as well since working out more my partner and I have enjoyed more intimacy. Is it strictly the increase in muscle mass, probably not I'm not exactly swol or ripped at all, but more likely one of the meriad of other down stream benifits due to the change in behavior associated with the activity.

I question the idea that "more muscularity" = "more beating people up", be either on frequency or even aptitude.

Gym fitness is not a good preparation for fighting.

People who beat other people up are not the most muscular. They are the ones with the most anger issues and the most lack of empathy.

And no matter how big and strong I am, i'd run for my fucking life if some violence-loving psycho wants to fight me.

My anecdotal experience is that the response-curve to muscularity for heterosexual women is non-linear (now there's a sentence I'd only write on HN...), and there's only a correlative effect for normal range BMIs.

I've been thin, athletic and quite muscular (BMI > 30, 12% bodyfat from powerlifting), and muscular physiques with BMI > 30 are considered less attractive than athletic physiques (Defined as BMI 20-25, 10-15% bodyfat).

Also, deviating away from heteronormative perspectives, I would speculate that the response curve for homosexual men may be linear for higher ranges.

i.e. Gay men like significant muscle, but straight women prefer athletic builds, on average. A cursory glance at some adult sites for these markets might support this admittedly anecdotal assertion.

> My anecdotal experience is that the response-curve to muscularity for heterosexual women is non-linear (now there's a sentence I'd only write on HN...), and there's only a correlative effect for normal range BMIs.

No need to rely on your anecdotal experience, there is actual data if you read the linked studies:

> Contrary to popular theories of men's physical attractiveness, there was no evidence of a nonlinear effect; the strongest men were the most attractive in all samples.

That's interesting, you're right, the article does report a linear-only relationship!

They may not have sampled muscular BMIs much above 30 though:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5745404/

Gym sample: > n = 61, mean BMI: 24.0, s.d.: 2.75

~5% would be above 2 s.d => 3 people with BMI above 29.5

My 'theory' would be for muscular builds with BMIs above 30, the linear relationship breaks down for heterosexual women. You might need a larger sample to test that, perhaps with a bodybuilding sample rather than college students.

> Handgrip strength is correlated with self-assessed happiness, health, social confidence, overall physical attractiveness, and overall number of sexual partners.

This confirms that rock climbing leads to a better life. /s

Ha had the same thought

i bought this pull up bar from https://www.walmart.com/ip/Prosourcefit-Multi-Grip-Chin-Up-P... a month or two ago. Best purchase ever!!! At the beginning I couldn't do any pull-ups except for a few on the grip perpendicular to your body. Since I have lots of WFH time I just randomly kept (trying) doing pull ups while I would walk by where I had it setup on a door, e.g. waiting for tea water to boil or something else in the kitchen/microwave or when randomly pacing about thinking about some code/algo/code review. Now I can easily do 5-10 pull ups using any of the grips and am also getting my kids into it, my older son esp. has difficulty going across monkey bars on the playground so this has helped him. I also recommend putting some additional foam under the padding that comes with the bar that sits/pushes against the front of the door frame, esp. if your door moulding has decorative grooves as these can cut into that padding.

In any case, I'm happily married with kids and have never used dating apps, but if you believe in this research and want to increase your hand grip, improve your posture, and improve your overall upper body/core strength this is a dirt cheap way to do it that also requires low activation energy (e.g. no going to the gym).

Muscularity is the strongest predictor of mating success for men.

More than money or its earning power? I'm skeptical.

San Fran millionaire coder bro versus Bronx construction bro.

I can only imagine the Construction worker knows how to use his body well. At the end of the day we are all animals.

The West Coast has a glut of coder bros. In NYC men with a college education are the buyer's market.

I remember a very strange reading from a "geek girl" years ago, where she went on and on about deriding the men who were, by all measures, her own peers, and she went on and on about how now that she's realized her own worth she's pulling jacked scientist-adventurers and such and the other guys were losers all along.

I remembered this after thinking about how my lowly bachelor's degree and a pretty face have earned me a warmer reception by the Academic community outside the campus than inside where I'm currently living (despite being at the moment a terrible catch). It clicked.

I wouldn't, however, write a spiel trash talking women with the same level of education and a similar physique to mine just because I can, say, bat above my own league right now.

The studies weren't asking about marriage success, but about mating success. Female preferences can be pretty different between those two.

You're the first person in this comments section who seems to know how the world works.

Fair distinction. Still skeptical that money isn't a stronger predictor (even ruling out explicit prostitution) but sure, testosterone effects matter to sex appeal.

Who a woman chooses to marry and who she has sex with are two entirely different things.

If I understand the article "mating success" means number of sex partners per unit time for them. There is the obvious spurious correlation that guys who work out to get big may be doing so because they are trying to play the field and attract more women. Smaller guys who are married or monogamous would have fewer sex partners, and may have other priorities than getting jacked. It's like saying women with dyed hair and lots of makeup have more sex partners, if that was true it would not be clear that means they are actually more attractive, just promiscuous

According to the article, this is solely measuring numbers of sexual partners. I might be more inclined to believe this, whereas money / earning power might predict better success at long-term pair bonding.

> More than money or its earning power? I'm skeptical.

It’s considerably easier to lie about money than it is physique if one’s aim is just getting laid.

"Stated vs. revealed preferences," is the area the describes most of this.

I didn't realize the preference for muscularity was not a common assumption, but then again I also remember being a guy in my 20s and even 30s and behaving as though being fit wasn't important and indexed on status signals instead.

I accumulated a lot of status symbols but once you have them, it becomes hard to appreciate someone who is impressed by them, which becomes less plumage and more some kind of a psychotic trap, where I've seen some (young'ish) guys essentially act like, "You really like me? Hah! You fool! This is just plumage! You can't like me for who I really am, because I am unlikable - you idiot." As people, we are made in a truly infinite variety of insane, and being fit isn't a cure for these issues, but not getting fit because you think external status symbols (money, education, career, attention, taste) are attractive can be a bitter road.

If you wanted to go from zero to changing your life significantly in 6 months without a lot of thinking about it, a 5x5 workout using an app, an intermittent fasting diet, and a 1hr walk in a park on off days - in just water weight and newb gains alone will give you a new perspective. The best workout is the one you do. Your excuses are your story. Challenge them or they'll become the best you ever do.

That is a pretty sweeping conclusion to draw from women watching some videos. In my experience personality (i.e. game), money, and height have at least as big and effect. And you can be lacking on any of these dimensions - personality is the least forgiving - and still do very well. Moreover I think the relationship with attractiveness is nonlinear in that certain combinations of these traits are greater than the sum of their parts.

Scientific squabbles aside, "getting jacked" is one of the most important things a man can do to increase his attractiveness to females.

But if you decide to go down that path, don't make it unnecessarily difficult. Your number 1 priority should be sustainability. This is the mistake I see my friends make over and over. They will start highly motivated, do too much, then quit after a month or two. My top sustainability rule is "I must feel better after my workout than before my workout." This ensures I don't kill my motivation for the future days. You want to create an upward spiral of small successes.

Also, you don't need to join a gym or other special program. While they can be helpful in some circumstances, they can also create a lot of friction in your life. You want the bar to be as low as possible for working out. I started with resistance bands at home and found that amazingly sustainable. While others were struggling to get dressed and travel to the gym, I was happily lifting heavy bands 5 minutes after getting out of bed, then continuing with my day in under 30 minutes.

Start with first principles: 1) push/pull movements with sufficient resistance, and 2) eat sufficient protein, but don't eat excessive calories, and 3) get sufficient sleep (bad sleep will make progress nearly impossible) [bonus: walking is the best 'cardio' to use when trying to gain muscle]

If you want to dive deeper into the science of optimizing your gains, I'd recommend Dr Mike Israetel, who has the least fluff and most scientific (and entertaining) content I've found: https://www.youtube.com/c/RenaissancePeriodization/playlists

I started lifting about 6 years ago after being newly single, and my own anecdata was that as I lost fat and put on significant muscle, the dating experience changed dramatically for me. Dating just seemed 5X to 10X easier. Not to mention the many other obvious life improvements that come with being fit (confidence, health, energy, performance, etc).

I've seen many friends in the last few years start and fail, but by keeping the friction low and the process enjoyable, I've made it a habit that I've kept unbroken the last 6 years.

Focus on keeping the bar low and the enjoyment high - there are no bonus points for suffering.

What makes the lifting enjoyable for folks? I personally find commuting to the gym, lifting for an hour or two, and heading home to be kinda draining. I feel “better” after doing it but mainly only because I felt like I was making progress and there was less guilt for doing something. The actual time in the gym sucks and just feels like a hamster in a wheel. I’ve never found a way to not make it this way.

After all - I’m at the gym, solo grinding for XP, and surrounded by guys with 8-packs who are 5 years ahead of me. Even if I get to where they are, no guarantee that it’ll have been “worth it”. Being in the gym literally feels like I’m in the tv show “severance”. (Admittedly I haven’t seen the show - I just know the premise) It’s completely lost time and at no point enjoyable. It’s what I imagine people with two hour commutes feel like but now add in physical pain and discomfort.

All the studies this article references fall into the social science replicability problem zone. Such studies shouldn't be viewed as reliable, and in this case, are merely being used to give a very thin patina of 'scientificity' to the author's opinion.

Totally true. Women who like sex seem to like guys who are jacked. If you have a nice personality to match and brains you are golden. One year I think I slept with over 150 women. I honestly lost count. We all had fun and the gym ain't bad either..

Honest question. I have made some changes lately and get the feeling that I probably could have multiple casual partners. I would like to see what it's like, but always abandon the effort due to concern for potential partners' feelings. Even if there's no explicit commitment beforehand, there could be unstated hopes for escalation to a monogamous relationship, or even just mismatched expectations about sleeping together on a regular basis or PDA's.

I have heard womens' accounts of sleeping with "highly connected nodes" like you, and their tone is generally casual to the point of being almost dismissive, as if they could clearly see in advance that there would be no escalation. However, the one time in my life when I did have a one-night stand, even though we had an explicit conversation about expectations beforehand, my partner harbored hopes for an escalation and the whole thing ended in a really devastating way.

Do you do anything intentional to prevent hurt feelings, eg have a frank conversation or look for or send certain emotional signals? I probably am "on the spectrum," so more pedantry than normal would be helpful.

>>> I would like to see what it's like, but always abandon the effort due to concern for potential partners' feelings.

Not OP, but as someone who has maintained harems....you sound too empathetic to manage it without heartache. It's helpful if you are comfortable gaslighting them, honestly. If a side-chick is heartbroken because things didn't turn into a "serious relationship" that's HER fault for failing to do her due diligence in assessing you as a mate. That's HER fault for constructing a fairy-tale future in her head. Delivering non-committal answers to questions without turning them off can be a difficult-to-learn skill, but eventually you'll get it. Or better yet, don't answer questions at all, once you recognize which questions might disrupt the holding pattern you're keeping them in.

Amanda: "Let's hang out on Tuesday."

Chad: "I'm not available Tuesday." (don't say "...because I'm fucking Becky Tuesday.")

Amanda: "Why aren't you available?"

Chad: ".....let's get sushi Wednesday, at that place you mentioned."

If Amanda is smart, she'll probably deduce that you are seeing other women. If she sticks around, good. If not, her character wasn't suited for the role she's required to play in your life. Nothing of value is lost. If she sticks around but is NOT smart enough to realize she's not The Only One....well, then she's stupid. Life is hard when you're stupid. Let her down gently when the time comes, but don't feel bad about it.

It's actually funny: the only info given to the women/men were pics. What else are you going to evaluate on with pics ? Wit ? Smell ? Kindness ?

When based only on pics, physique is the most important characteristic. Film at 11.

Makes sense to me. We're just a bunch of monkeys shaped by evolution. Women would choose men that made for stronger and probably better surviving offspring. And the man can act as protector - if they don't turn dangerous.

It's extremely funny to me that someone did a research to determine whether athleticism or education makes you more sexually desirable. Not dissing the effort: Always good to hav e our priors confirmed by science!

Is it possible that it's the other way around? That confidence or something else leads to both masters degrees, muscles, and other success instead of masters degrees and muscles leading to other success?

A masters degree might be associated with more $$.

I think women have an instinctive attraction to muscles, just as men have an instinctive attraction to larger busts and hips.

> or something

The somethings you're looking for are huge levels of self discipline and low time preference.

You can glance at a guy and tell he has that if he has muscles; you can't glance at a guy and tell if he has a masters or phd. But since self discipline and low time preference BOTH can lead to muscular and academic success, as a generic search criteria just look for the muscles.

Over decades in the gym I've noticed almost all the big guys are autodidacts, much like sysadmins / programmers / hackers. This includes all the positive, and negative, stereotypes of autodidacts.

Based on my experience there does not seem to be a strong (positive) correlation between masters degrees and muscles. Might depend on the Master of course.

I really doubt it. I’ve seen all kinds of men get jacked. Those with good self-discipline and those without.

Also - people read into things too much. Why can’t people just be superficial? Why do we have to think there’s some really really deep reason for why we find someone physically attractive? People aren’t as complicated all the time.

Romantic relationships =/= marriage.

They are related, but it is not a perfect equivalent.

It’s a good start though. If you’re willing to sleep with them then you’re more likely to marry them compared to you’re not willing to sleep with them crowd.

If you’re not physically attracted to a person - there’s a near zero chance you will sleep or marry them. So, it naturally follows that being more physically attractive is good for your chances.

I can also imagine that muscularity leads to increased testosterone and therefore to more pleasing smell.

But once you are married, the muscles are gone. So it was not that important after all?

tl;dr

have sex

A tremendous amount of coping going on in here from presumably frail men. Somehow I doubt the same overwhelming skepticism would be observed about a trait they related more to than muscularity.

I wonder if

> overall number of sexual partners

is important for today's younger generations. It doesnt appear that they studiet it

He seems to be equating "mating success" with "high number of sexual partners". I don't think this is reasonable.

Evolutionarily speaking number of offspring would indeed be a better metric, but with pervasive contraception there’s not much signal there.

> He seems to be equating "mating success" with "high number of sexual partners". I don't think this is reasonable.

It's not a perfect equivalence, but it's more than reasonable, c'mon man.

I mean this is just evolutionary biology. If you're a defenseless woman in the African Savanna, do you go for the skinny, short man who's nice, or the tall, muscular man who will protect you and your children? Hard to rewire millions of years of conditioning.

However, this isn't completely true, given the diversity we find in men and women both; if being jacked was the only factor, then everyone would be jacked and society would be aimed at it.

Instead, we find a balance. As I've heard it explained, and to oversimplify, jacked men get laid, but "softer" men get married and live happily ever after. The number of jacked men who sleep around seems to significantly drop after age 30 as well (I have no concrete numbers to prove this btw).

Quite the opposite!

Humans traded away a lot of strength for other things like precision of movements, cognitive abilities, decreased energy usage and the a huge endurance at walking.

If we evolved to be gorillas we would be gorillas. Instead we are much weaker, but very social animals with peak cognitive abilities.

Many women who like sex seem to like guys who are jacked. If you have brains and a personality to match you can do very well if you also like sex and women. I think one year I must have slept with maybe more than 150 women. Honestly I lost count. It was probably much more...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com