S
If we normalize and set the total value of a giga-chad to 100, and the weights that make up that 100 score can be identified, then we can go a long way to determining our genetic potential
I think my weights are going to be far, far, far different than a lot of yours, and even my factors.
First off I don't even want to include height or muscles. Instead I want to include lean body mass. Lean body mass increases with height, it increases with muscles, it increases with frame. It matches with my belief that what turns women on isn't height and muscles, what turns them on is the thought that they're with the biggest Gorilla that can beat up the other gorillas. A 6'5'' guy with no weight training can still have 160 pounds of lean body mass, 10% body fat, and 176 total pounds and look like a lanklet, but he's still have greater lead body mass than a 5'8'' gymcel. An inch in height is roughly equivalent to 5 lbs of lean body mass. In other words, if you're 5'8'' you have to put on 45 pounds of muscle to compete with an untrained 6'5'' guy
Lean Body Mass is therefore my first and most important factor.
Next is body fat%. Low body fat % is a huge physical fitness indicator to women. Fat is unattractive and getting it off of one's face is huge and it additionally helps with all proportions. A common retain from gymbros is that they get more attention from women on a cut than on a bulk, but the main reason for this I think is because it's much faster to improve your body fat % (3 months of dieting and you can reduce your body fat % total 10%, i.e. from 20-10%).
Next is Facial Features. At the end of the day I've known guys with low body fat without a lot of muscle, but are still at least average height that do fine with women. I've never known a 5'6'' lanklet with a pretty face that slays. What I see more often with these guys is that women like to include them in their instagram pictures, but I get no sense that they're fucking them. It's definitely a help, but I just don't think it matters as much as the other two. I don't see guys with 25% body fat and no muscle getting a ton of pussy because their jawline is perfect under all their fat.
Next is wealth. This one is hard to scale because I think it applies to women unevenly. In my experience intelligent women sniff out wealth and start bending over for it. Any time in college or with roommates I saw a girl and a guy together and didn't think it quite made sense, it was always, 100% of the time because his parents had money. These girls still liked the other factors, but they had an additional metric that affected them more.
I'll include race as an extremely minor factor. Women don't hate you because you're Indian, they hate you because you have 115 lbs of lean body mass and every other man on the planet could beat the shit out of you. I do think there is a minor preference for white above all, however, as whites are the most successful race after east asians and seen as a status symbol. Black/Asian/Latina/Indian women definitely get wet over the thought of ascending social strata by getting with a white man. This is another one that is unevenly applied because some will fetishize the masculinity and danger of black men, or what I'd call the 'elvishness' of asian men.
Last note is that there's not a linear response between any of these variables and the Points you get. The curve is sigmoidal. Examples: if you are 40% body fat vs 30% body fat it makes a small difference, but the improvement is pretty linear between say 25% and 12% before leveling off heavily again. For money, 15k per year to 50k per year, it's an improvement for sure, but only a couple of blips. Your biggest improvement will be from 50k to 130k and then it'll start being diminishing returns
Lean Body Mass: 40%
Body Fat %: 20%
Facial Features: 17.5%
Wealth: 17.5%
Race: 5%
Now to calculate the perfect man by selecting the values for where increases in the variable are becoming asymptotic. I think that would be around 6'6'' 250 pounds at 8% body fat. That's 230 lbs of lean body mass. He's white and makes 250k per year and/or has very wealthy parents. Model face.
And the man that scores 0 being at the other asymptote let's say about 5'6'', 180 pounds at 33% body fat, that's 120.6 (let's just say 120) lean body mass and doesn't have a good face, lower third non-existent and makes 30k per year.
For face and race I can assign myself values. Race is white so I give 5 full points. Face is medicore but not horrific (maybe, I might be fooling myself), I'd give myself 30th percentile on the safe side, which is 5.25 points. Wealth we have to consider by percentile as the increase is exponential particularly at the ends. I am a 71st percentile earner, but the scale I have is from 45th-97th (between the asymptotes) which actually sticks me dead center, we'll say 8.8 points. I'm 30% body fat so that's 12% of the total 20%, or 2.4 points. I am 153 pounds of lean body mass, so that's 33 pounds along a 110 pound range, or 30%, or out of 40 points 12.
In other words I am 5.3+8.8+2.4+12+5 = 33.5/100
Now the question is what is my potential
Well it's very likely I'll be getting another job at 100k even in the next few months, so that's 83rd percentile, 12.8 points in wealth. I could feasibly get down to 8% body fat, so 20 full points. I'm a bit of a framecel so even at 6'1'' could probably only hit around 200 pounds at 8% so that's 184 LBM, or 23.3
So 5+20+23.3+12.8+5.3 = 66.4
In other words if I dedicate my life to fitness I can be 2/3rds a chad
Looking at the numbers above I wonder if I'm overestimating the upper limit of LBM, where diminishing returns really set it. If 6'3'' 225 is more accurate, 207 lbs of lean body mass (in this case I think I want to adjust not because I think the size isn't useful, but more because the size is so rare. 6'6'' 250 8% body fat is professional athletes and athletes at top athletics programs in college and almost no one else. In that case my potential changes to 72.5 and current to 36.7
The real question now, besides if weights and scales need to be finagled, is how is this scale calibrated?
I think my weights are going to be far, far, far different than a lot of yours, and even my factors.
First off I don't even want to include height or muscles. Instead I want to include lean body mass. Lean body mass increases with height, it increases with muscles, it increases with frame. It matches with my belief that what turns women on isn't height and muscles, what turns them on is the thought that they're with the biggest Gorilla that can beat up the other gorillas. A 6'5'' guy with no weight training can still have 160 pounds of lean body mass, 10% body fat, and 176 total pounds and look like a lanklet, but he's still have greater lead body mass than a 5'8'' gymcel. An inch in height is roughly equivalent to 5 lbs of lean body mass. In other words, if you're 5'8'' you have to put on 45 pounds of muscle to compete with an untrained 6'5'' guy
Lean Body Mass is therefore my first and most important factor.
Next is body fat%. Low body fat % is a huge physical fitness indicator to women. Fat is unattractive and getting it off of one's face is huge and it additionally helps with all proportions. A common retain from gymbros is that they get more attention from women on a cut than on a bulk, but the main reason for this I think is because it's much faster to improve your body fat % (3 months of dieting and you can reduce your body fat % total 10%, i.e. from 20-10%).
Next is Facial Features. At the end of the day I've known guys with low body fat without a lot of muscle, but are still at least average height that do fine with women. I've never known a 5'6'' lanklet with a pretty face that slays. What I see more often with these guys is that women like to include them in their instagram pictures, but I get no sense that they're fucking them. It's definitely a help, but I just don't think it matters as much as the other two. I don't see guys with 25% body fat and no muscle getting a ton of pussy because their jawline is perfect under all their fat.
Next is wealth. This one is hard to scale because I think it applies to women unevenly. In my experience intelligent women sniff out wealth and start bending over for it. Any time in college or with roommates I saw a girl and a guy together and didn't think it quite made sense, it was always, 100% of the time because his parents had money. These girls still liked the other factors, but they had an additional metric that affected them more.
I'll include race as an extremely minor factor. Women don't hate you because you're Indian, they hate you because you have 115 lbs of lean body mass and every other man on the planet could beat the shit out of you. I do think there is a minor preference for white above all, however, as whites are the most successful race after east asians and seen as a status symbol. Black/Asian/Latina/Indian women definitely get wet over the thought of ascending social strata by getting with a white man. This is another one that is unevenly applied because some will fetishize the masculinity and danger of black men, or what I'd call the 'elvishness' of asian men.
Last note is that there's not a linear response between any of these variables and the Points you get. The curve is sigmoidal. Examples: if you are 40% body fat vs 30% body fat it makes a small difference, but the improvement is pretty linear between say 25% and 12% before leveling off heavily again. For money, 15k per year to 50k per year, it's an improvement for sure, but only a couple of blips. Your biggest improvement will be from 50k to 130k and then it'll start being diminishing returns
Lean Body Mass: 40%
Body Fat %: 20%
Facial Features: 17.5%
Wealth: 17.5%
Race: 5%
Now to calculate the perfect man by selecting the values for where increases in the variable are becoming asymptotic. I think that would be around 6'6'' 250 pounds at 8% body fat. That's 230 lbs of lean body mass. He's white and makes 250k per year and/or has very wealthy parents. Model face.
And the man that scores 0 being at the other asymptote let's say about 5'6'', 180 pounds at 33% body fat, that's 120.6 (let's just say 120) lean body mass and doesn't have a good face, lower third non-existent and makes 30k per year.
For face and race I can assign myself values. Race is white so I give 5 full points. Face is medicore but not horrific (maybe, I might be fooling myself), I'd give myself 30th percentile on the safe side, which is 5.25 points. Wealth we have to consider by percentile as the increase is exponential particularly at the ends. I am a 71st percentile earner, but the scale I have is from 45th-97th (between the asymptotes) which actually sticks me dead center, we'll say 8.8 points. I'm 30% body fat so that's 12% of the total 20%, or 2.4 points. I am 153 pounds of lean body mass, so that's 33 pounds along a 110 pound range, or 30%, or out of 40 points 12.
In other words I am 5.3+8.8+2.4+12+5 = 33.5/100
Now the question is what is my potential
Well it's very likely I'll be getting another job at 100k even in the next few months, so that's 83rd percentile, 12.8 points in wealth. I could feasibly get down to 8% body fat, so 20 full points. I'm a bit of a framecel so even at 6'1'' could probably only hit around 200 pounds at 8% so that's 184 LBM, or 23.3
So 5+20+23.3+12.8+5.3 = 66.4
In other words if I dedicate my life to fitness I can be 2/3rds a chad
Looking at the numbers above I wonder if I'm overestimating the upper limit of LBM, where diminishing returns really set it. If 6'3'' 225 is more accurate, 207 lbs of lean body mass (in this case I think I want to adjust not because I think the size isn't useful, but more because the size is so rare. 6'6'' 250 8% body fat is professional athletes and athletes at top athletics programs in college and almost no one else. In that case my potential changes to 72.5 and current to 36.7
The real question now, besides if weights and scales need to be finagled, is how is this scale calibrated?
