What is the most attractive body fat
percentage for men? If you're dieting to
super low body fat levels in the hopes
of scoring some action, picking up a
donut might be wiser instead. Wouldn't
it suck if like you felt your best at
12% but women loved you the most at 3%?
They don't prefer shredded people on
average. If I just get to 12 and 1/2%
body fat, I'll be the optimally
attractive, you're leaving 90% of
attraction on the table still.
Hey folks, Dr. Mike here for RP
Strength. What is the most attractive
body fat percentage for men?
We have that and more because we are
reviewing a study today. The study is
called the relationship between body
fatness and physical attractiveness in
males by Fan Jia and colleagues.
Let's dive super deep to see what's
going on here because if you're dieting
to super low body fat levels in the
hopes of scoring some action, picking up
a donut might be wiser instead. What?
Um, I like love your donut.
Can I like eat your donut? You're like,
"Whoa, whoa, whoa, is donut a euphemism
for some part of my body or you
literally mean my donut?" Let's find
out. All right, so first, what was the
basic research question that the study
was asking?
They were trying to find out if people
rate male attractiveness
as peaking at a specific level of body
fat or body mass index
rather than do they think leaner is
always better? Cuz leaner is better is
something that a huge fraction of
fitness males think, but that may or may
not be the case.
Another question is is body fat percent
a better predictor of attractiveness or
is BMI a better predictor of
attractiveness uh or is the shoulder to
waist ratio a bigger predictor of
attractiveness? So, is it somebody do do
women or other men like men to be
leaner? Or is it really like as long as
they're not too big cuz a BMI measures
size? Or is it really like if your
shoulders are super wide and your waist
is super narrow, like even leanness and
BMI don't matter much, it's all about
shape. So, great questions there.
Another question is like do does the
best looking BMI line up with what from
evolution we would predict as like the
healthiest most robust BMI cuz like low
20s all the way to mid to high 20s in
BMI seem to be what evolution would
predict as like the healthiest BMI. We
don't know if people actually prefer
that in the sexual attractiveness of
males or not. So, we'd be finding that
out. Another thing is the study tested
folks in China or as I like to pronounce
it China. Scott, how was that? Pretty
good?
>> Pretty good. Now, tell you what,
brother. Now, I thought we won World War
II. Lithuania
and the United Kingdom. That's right,
it's not the United Kingdom, it's the
the United Kingdom. There's 18 letters
missing there. So, we have three
different countries and are there going
to be any differences in ratings between
those countries or is this like if all
three countries are basically the same,
we can start to suspect that like oh,
there's like a pretty good deal of
cultural universality to this, which
means maybe it's more biological as to
how people identify who's attractive and
maybe less cultural. And they got men
and women to rate the bodies. So, men
were rating how attractive the men are
and women were rating how attractive the
men were. So, maybe there's differences
between them, maybe not.
Now, how did they do this? What was the
study design?
They had 283
university recruited participants from
Beijing, a place in Lithuania that looks
like
Panevėžys
or some shit like that. Lithuanian
language is practically like
incomprehensible
and Aberdeen
and so China, Lithuania, United Kingdom
and they had both male and female raters
and plenty of them. So it's not just
females assessing males. It's males
assessing males as well. Scott, remember
you and I filmed that pilot called males
assessing males and CBS said that not
only was it insanely in poor taste that
this was an entire category they had
never even requested for us to submit.
>> Yeah, but we got it published elsewhere.
We sure did.
Next up,
the stimulus, right? The testing
protocol was every rater, male and
female, received 15 black and white Dexa
body images of real people. All of these
people were men. All of their faces were
blurred and the height was not shown.
So really we're talking about just black
and white Dexa images where you can see
shape.
You can see body fat uh like on the
periphery and that's about it.
These men who were in these 15 pictures
ranged from 5.9% body fat for the
leanest of these males to 37.2%
body fat for the fattest of these males
and that corresponds to a body mass
index at the lowest of about 20 and the
highest of about 34. Big broad range
which is great because they can really
tell some differences.
And the core predictors here, the
independent variables are going to be
body fat percent, body mass index,
shoulder to waist ratio which is really
easy to figure out. And the really cool
thing is that these images represented
three groups of five images ranked by
adiposity. So there was five people on
the leaner side, five people and images
on the moderate side and five people and
thus images on the heavier side on the
fatter side of things. So, that's kind
of cool because it wasn't just random
people. It was very distinct and the
whole spectrum was covered, which is
awesome.
The primary outcome measure was
attractiveness rated by ranking the
cards in a sorting task. The
experimenters told the subjects to say,
"Okay, you have 15 cards, right?" Cuz
each card is a picture of uh a male with
certain body fat percent, certain DEXA
scan. "I want you to sort all of them in
a way that the first one you put down is
the most attractive, the second one is
the second most attractive all the way
down to where the last one is the least
attractive." And this is a pretty easy
sorting card to do, a sorting game to
do. 15 is just not that many to sort and
you just pretty quickly find out where
light goes to one end of the pile, where
it goes to the other, then you do a
couple comparisons, you're like, this,
this, that, and it's good to go. It's
not perfect, we'll talk about the
limitations of this study later, but
it's a really, really good start.
For the comparators, we're comparing
attraction in this study ranked across
different body fat percentages
and BMI levels and looking to see if we
can have a peak.
We're also comparing whether body fat
percent or BMI or shoulder-to-waist
ratio are the most predictive of what
people rate as most and least
attractive, and of course, we're going
to compare against genders of sexes of
who did the rating. Do males and females
appraise male physiques differently? And
countries of the world, do Chinese
people, Lithuanians, or the people of
who have the greatness of Britain among
them, are they going to be saying
somebody fats and some muscularities are
different than others?
They also have an evolution-based model
that predicted a certain BMI range would
likely be chosen, so let's see if that
one checked the box as well. All right,
here are the results, what actually
happened.
Body fat percent showed a peaked
relationship with attractiveness, with
the middle levels rated the highest.
Remember, we had five lean people, five
moderate people, and five fatter people.
The moderate category won.
The middle levels were rated the
highest, and the very lean folks and the
very fat folks were rated substantially
lower.
Next,
the most attractive male bodies seemed
on average to cluster around 13 to 14%
body fat.
And I'm going to say that again. In this
study, and we'll bring in other studies
later when we discuss this in more
depth, 13 to 14% body fat was rated as
most attractive by hundreds of
college-aged women, by the way, as well
as college-aged men.
This is a big deal just by itself. We'll
talk about it in just a little bit.
BMI also had the same peak in
relationships, with 23 to 27 BMI being
the best scoring across all of the
different sizes of bodies.
The shoulder-to-waist ratio showed a a
rough uh peak of about 1.57.
So, shoulders being 1.57 times as wide
as the waist, that's distinctly wider
shoulders than waist, but some folks in
the sample were even more extreme, and
they didn't get the favorable votes. So,
1.57 seems to be a kind of a a little
bit of a maximum there where people
really prefer a distinct
shoulder-to-waist ratio, but it's not
the more the merrier after that.
When body fat percent, or as it's known
as adiposity, the amount of fat you
have, and shoulder-to-waist ratio were
considered together,
body fat percent explained more variance
across all three populations. Let me put
that to you in non-science speak. How
lean you were, or in this case
moderately lean, explained more of
people's attraction to you than the
shoulder to waist ratio. Both are
important, but leanness is more
important. You guys, this is really good
news cuz it's much easier to change how
lean you are than to change how wide
your shoulders are and how narrow your
waist is. Those are related, but not
entirely related.
Here's some country nuance. In China and
Lithuania, the shoulder to waist ratio
didn't add much once body fat percent
was considered. But in the United
Kingdom, both mattered. So, the United
Kingdom folks looked more closely at
shoulder waist ratio as well as body fat
percent and BMI, but body fat percent
still mattered more in the United
Kingdom than shoulder to waist ratio.
Very interesting.
And here's something that actually
really blew me away. I was not expecting
this result. These are not fitness
industry people, mind you, but males and
females doing the rating rated roughly
the same statistically undifferentiably
to who was attractive and who wasn't
based on what body fat, BMI, and
shoulder waist ratio. So, like all the
15 people they had to sort, pretty much
everyone did roughly the same job
between the two genders. I would not
have seen it. Scott, would you have seen
that coming?
I thought that the guys would just make
all the shredded dudes and the shoulder
to waist ratios of a million the
hottest. Nah, I I think we're like
biased with our like fitness lens, but
you know, in the real world, if you see
someone 13% body fat and you don't
train, you're like, "That dude's
shredded."
>> Yeah, that guy's in good shape.
That's true. Yeah, if you don't train,
there's a lot of work there. All right.
So, what did the authors think all of
this meant?
Couple of points. People seem to prefer
moderate male fatness, not extremes of
fatness or leanness. The fatness
extremes we saw coming. The leanness
extremes is bit of an interesting thing.
At least in this strip-down kind of
bodies-only setup, this is what people
prefer.
Adiposity, otherwise known as fatness,
appears to be a more reliable cue for
attractiveness than shoulder-to-waist
ratios.
Uh
that means that pushing, especially
combined with the fact that extreme
shoulder-to-waist ratios showed no
benefit, if you have a choice between
being a little bit leaner versus being a
huge massive shouldered super tiny
waisted freak, the being a bit leaner is
a good thing. Now, I'm saying a bit
leaner, but I really shouldn't be saying
it like that.
Being close to about 13 to 14% body fat
pays more dividends than a massive
shoulder-to-waist ratio.
The other thing is this, it turns out
the best body mass index, the degree of
overall body size, did match
evolutionary predictions, which is
really cool. So, it looks like humans
choose what is most attractive to them
highly based on an very implicit, very
unconscious feeling that comes from
evolution.
When you see someone super hot, it's
just kind of automatically that you
think they're hot. You're not doing any
kind of formal analysis. You're not
like, "Oh, let me see her
shoulder-to-waist ratio." You just
either feel it or you don't. That's deep
inbuilt evolutionary logic that executes
automatically without your consent.
Actually, this is some of the stuff I
talk about in my upcoming new book, The
Aesthetic Revolution. As a matter of
fact, Scott, can I pimp the book? Pick
it up.
Ta-da!
Uh it's uh going on sale mid-June, and
uh we'll throw a pre-sale link into the
bottom of this video so you know when it
comes out. But, uh you can buy it, and
basically I talk about a lot of stuff,
mostly sort of three things. One,
practically how do you get lean and
jacked to be your best looking self. Two
is what kind of cool amazing
technologies and innovations are coming
down the pipeline to help us get more
lean and jacked and better looking. And
three is a bit more of an emotional
component of like, you know, should
people focus on like their external
appearance, or is that toxic and bad? I
get into all that stuff. But, one of the
things I get into there is the fact that
people appraise others because of their
attractiveness isn't even conscious.
People do it subconsciously. And so when
when folks say, "Well, you just have to
change your perspective." Like, yeah,
but it's not my perspective. It's like
somewhere deep in my brain. It's built
in. Just the same we hear people picked
who they thought was attractive and it
really lined up with evolution, which is
I suppose not surprising, but really
really cool news.
The interpretation the researcher
basically the researchers had was that
people are judging on kind of survival
health fertility cues, subconsciously of
course, but not on just who is the most
jacked and who is the most lean cues,
which is kind of an interesting thing
for us in fitness to hear because we get
a little carried away with extreme
sometimes.
They also
did uh in the discussion section they
highlighted a bit of a difference.
Females seem to prefer the males that
are likely to be most fertile and
healthy, 13 to 14% fat, but in most not
all rating situations, males prefer
females that are slightly thinner than
that. And that remains an open question
as exactly what that means with the
evolutionary psychology.
They also did something really cool
which we'll talk about a little bit when
we discuss this just shortly
uh is that they acknowledge that
real-life attractiveness is just very
multifaceted. You got the face, you got
the shape, you got the swag, you got the
outfit, you got the talk, you got the
everything else. And so it really this
is just a small part of attractiveness.
There's nobody saying that like body fat
percentage is the only thing you get
rated on. Not even close. It's a small
part, but a significant part.
All right. So, what do I think that this
study did well? What are the strengths?
There's a bunch.
The objective body composition is
amazing. DEXA link data avoids entirely
the well, everyone guesses body fat
wrong problem because we know exactly
what their body fats are. They're not
asked to guess about body fat and just
attraction. We already know the body
fat.
Amazing that they did cross-cultural
sampling. We had China, we have
Lithuania, which is Eastern Europe, and
UK, which is Western Europe. So, like,
we got Asia, but a big part of Asia. We
got Western Europe, Eastern Europe.
That's a lot of diversity, and plus you
test the robustness, because if every
single result came back completely
differently from all the countries,
you'd be like, "Man, it's really
cultural and really country-specific."
But, because the results are almost
identical from all the countries, it
looked like, "Oh, huh, interesting. Man,
really a lot of people all around the
world, both male and female, by the way,
kind of prefer a really well-under-
stood thing.
They did a great job of separating the
variables. They had three shoulder-to-
waist ratios, three adiposity, and three
BMI ratio levels, basically. It's a very
clear design to try to test the extremes
and test the middle, instead of just
getting a weird random sample and we
learn nothing from that. They did great
job at reducing confounds. They blurred
the faces, cuz otherwise, the cute
people would just be getting better
ratings, and then people would say
that's body fat-related. Uh, they
removed the height, which is really
important. Removing height's a big deal,
cuz height's a big deal in attraction.
And, uh, they did black and white
pictures, so that there's no skin tone
effects or anything like that. Although,
in DEXAs, typically, you can't assess
skin tone anyway, so no big deal.
Um,
they had both male and female raters.
That's huge. Like, it's double the
participants, which is annoying, but
because it's a one-time rating task,
it's not that annoying. It's just really
cool and allows us to really examine
like what are males looking for versus
what are females looking for. Wonderful,
wonderful that they did this.
They also had a hypothesis ahead of
time. They They put their money where
their mouth is, and they said, "Hey,
evolution predicts that a mid-range BMI
is going to be the thing, and and we're
going to test that." They weren't just
like trying to fish for data, which is
totally cool if that's how you do your
study, but they really they had a
hypothesis, which was really neat to
see. And the outcome, the testing
variable was super simple, super
intuitive. Sort by attractiveness is
really easy for participants to figure
out. It's super easy to, uh, interpret.
It has some drawbacks, but like it's
really, really robust. Um so this is all
really great stuff. Now, the study did
have some weaknesses, and I'm not
picking on the folks that did the study.
Every study has weaknesses almost by
design because you can only do so many
things well, otherwise you're just
trying to solve the whole world all at
once.
First, there were This is something you
might have thought of yourself already.
There were only 15 images of the body.
Scott, that can't possibly represent
enough variation to conclude ton, right?
Like there aren't 15 body shapes in the
world. There's like 150 at least to
paint a really good perspective. You
can't do a sorting task with 150, that
would take 10 hours. 15 is limited. Um
any one guy's proportions in there can
sway the set. Bone structure, muscle
distribution, fat distribution, even at
the same percentage could could heavily
sway the curve at at least enough to
give us not as precise of a measurement
as we wanted. Um another thing is like
um external and ecological validity
problem. You're seeing people with X-ray
vision. And people don't really assess
their mates with X-ray vision. You don't
have a DEXA scan in your face. And so
it's great for isolating shape, but it's
ecologically a little bit weird. Um only
fat on the sides can be seen in a DEXA,
at least visually. Uh not fat on the abs
or chest or anything like that. And
those are very big missing pieces
because ab fat and especially male
facial fat are huge cues for women. But
they're not included here.
Women like some jawline. They like some
cheek bones. And they like some ab and
oblique outlines. None of this is
visible in these DEXAs. This is just
bodies only and only from two
dimensions.
Different guys will get their best
jawline cheek bone ab situation at
different body fat percents. One guy
will need to be 9% fat in order to have
that nice chiseled face look. Another
guy will need to be at 19% fat only and
he's already got well ahead on the
chiseled face situation. So, for those
guys, their optimal body fat percent for
attraction, man, that's very different
cuz imagine you're the guy that's 19%
fat and you have a pretty chiseled face
already. If you get down to 9% fat,
women think you're fucking Skeletor and
there's something wrong with you. If
you're 9% fat and you're leanest and
you're like, "Oh, the study said 14% was
great." You're at 14%, you got a fat
little round little kid face. Some women
aren't into that sort of thing. So,
something is definitely missing from the
facial fat situation.
The sampling is different. These were
younger folks, more educated. They're
the university students. Uh they're not
representative of the full country's
mating market. These also were not
fitness people, which is huge to
remember. If you want to be taking
muscle mommies home from the gym, man,
you got to think it through and be like,
"Okay, is this exactly the same thing
that they want versus what I have to
offer?" Now, generally speaking,
altering how you look for hoes, as
they're known colloquially, you know, no
disrespect, is not a good idea to begin
with, but if you're really into a
certain thing and you know that certain
thing likes you to look a certain way
and you like to look a certain way,
you're good to go. Here's what I mean by
that. If you're into like hardcore
fitness girls and you are into hardcore
fitness yourself and you think you look
best at 10% fat, they might agree with
you or enough of them do that you I'm
saying you can date one of them and then
she's great, she loves your abs, it's
all awesome. The average girl likes a
guy who's 14% fat, but you're not dating
the average girl anymore. You're not
interested in the average girl. So,
that's something to keep in mind.
Another thing is the ranking task is
awesome, but it's forced ranking and no
ties. So, some people could have been
roughly the same, but they were forced
to rank them, which means the
differences between body fats might
actually not as be as big as we think.
It's just they had to rank them one way
or another. So, that came through in the
data. It's not a terrible thing, but it
it it's it's definitely uh a thing. If
you let people rank equally on some, you
could see a huge cluster of like these
guys all look roughly the same to me,
which means that it wouldn't be like oh
anywhere between 11% and 16% fat is
really good. It's going to actually mean
like it's not just anywhere between
these is really good. It's that anywhere
between them really just doesn't matter.
Like that would be really insightful
versus if they ranked them and they
meant the rankings, they would actually
you know 11 and 12 are the best, 13 14
not as great, and 15 16 maybe not as
great cuz they had to rank them.
>> [gasps]
>> Here's another thing. Muscularity isn't
cleanly separated here.
Uh BMI can reflect muscle or fat.
The DEXA helps but with only 15 images,
it's hard to isolate like does this
person have a higher body fat percent
but more muscle or a lower body fat
percent but less muscle. The structure
sort of does that but if you blur the
face and you can't tell the height, it
gets really confusing as to how jacked
they really are. It's some you can tell
to some extent cuz of the muscle shape
but not as much as maybe we would like.
If you got their body weights on there,
it could tell us a lot more but then
it's not a shape test, it's a body
weight test and it gets more
complicated. Now, this is not this is a
weakness of the study in the sense of if
the study was trying to sort in in the
real world what really matters the most
but it wasn't. And so this critique is a
little bit not I'll say a little bit of
a cheap shot but just it's it's not
really a critique of the study, it's
just for us to remember. There's missing
context here. There's no clothing.
There's no posture. There's no evidence
of grooming or lack thereof. Little
scraggly beard versus clean cut look.
There's no movement. How you move, your
swag is a huge part of attraction.
There's no voice, right? Do you Are you
Are you like hey guys, how are you?
That does different between different
women and has an optimum somewhere.
Status cues. Do you have a $15 trillion
watch on and do butlers just follow you
everywhere you go or do you live in a
trash can? That's a big deal.
Personality vibe is huge. And you know,
like is this person a cool person I can
relate with? Man, that's a big deal. And
all of these are absent and they matter
a ton. This study did not try to say
that these don't matter, but just in
case you're confused and think if I just
get to 12 and 1/2% body fat, I'll be the
optimally attractive, you're leaving 90%
of attraction on the table still.
>> [sighs and gasps]
>> All right. In the real world, what is
the male body fat attractiveness
optimum?
I'd put my money on this. It's very
likely about 13-ish percent fat.
And it's exactly where we'd expect to
land on evolutionary grounds of maximum
health and maximum muscle anabolism,
which is actually really cool. So,
notice your best body fat for bulking in
most cases is 10 to 15%. Your best body
fat for health is 10 to 15%. Your best
body fat for feeling good day-to-day and
like vibing and having mental energy and
physical energy and recovery and just
being happy versus diet miserable is 10
to 15%. And hey, check this out. The
average female and male prefers you for
that good old-fashioned, you know, what
at 10 to 15%. It's neat. It would really
Scott, wouldn't it suck if like you felt
your best at 12% but women loved you the
most at 3%? Yeah. [laughter]
I mean, some of those in the fitness
industry might think that's the case,
but it is not remotely the case. So,
this is actually really awesome.
How do I translate this to the real
world?
After you finish contest prep or 12-week
diet
and you go and like go to bars and clubs
and hit on women, that's not your best
time to be hitting on women.
When you're off season just vibing and
you're at, you know, 11 and 1/2 or 12
and 1/2%, that's actually the time when
you're most attractive. So,
that's really cool, Which is just
really, really awesome.
It's very likely from this data set that
the average woman
peaks at a lean athletic preference,
which is, you know, if you don't think
13% is lean athletic, you're delusional
fitness industry person like me. Cuz
first time I hear that, I'm like, "13%
is fat." But I've gone insane.
They don't prefer shredded people on
average. Some do, but mainstream girls
don't typically go for veins and
striations. That's a real thing.
Another thing, it's very likely not just
a number, the looks is a checklist.
Jawline and cheekbones showing, which
may occur fatter or skinnier for you,
depending on who you are. Waist clearly
smaller than shoulders.
No belly overhang, and some ab
visibility without that dehydrated
competition face look is what females
are looking for on you to be the most
attractive. If you check all those
boxes, man, you're really good. I'll get
to that later, cuz you could be
prioritizing a shit ton other way if
you've checked all those boxes. If not,
you can still check more boxes, go to
town if you like.
For a reasonably trained person, a
reasonably trained man,
facial fat, belly overhang, etc.,
shoulder-to-waist ratio, all that stuff
I just said, probably peaks somewhere
between 10 and 17% body fat, with the
center of mass about 12 to 15% body fat.
Which means, if you have genetically a
fatter face, going down to close to 10%
body fat will really, really do good
things for you. If you genetically have
a very lean face and very good body
proportions, being closer to 17% body
fat is probably going to do you much
better than getting freaky lean and
having weird jawlines, and people run
scared from you.
It is almost certain
>> [clears throat]
>> that having more muscle shifts that
entire window upward. So, if you are
more jacked, if you have a bigger
shoulder-to-waist ratio,
and you have more ab thickness,
uh you can be a few percent fat higher
and still be very attractive. If you
don't have much muscle, you have to be a
little bit leaner for you not to just
look sloppy.
And fat distribution shifts this a ton.
If you're like me and almost all the fat
that you ever gain goes to your gut,
then for you to look presentable, you
have to be very lean. If your fat mostly
goes to your thighs and to your butt and
to your arms and not to your midsection,
you won the fucking lottery and at 20%
body fat, you look like you're in great
shape and fuck you on that.
>> [laughter]
[screaming]
>> It's a real thing.
Now,
it's very likely that dropping into the
stage lean death phase zone just tends
to reduce your average appeal because it
can be read as wiry, harsh, obsessive,
and frankly irritable, which you're
probably irritable cuz you're so pissed
you don't get to eat Cheetos all the
time. It's just not paying the dividends
unless you're hooking up with girls that
love shredded men. And the girls that
like competitors typically like them
off-season better than they like them
pre-contest anyway.
It's also likely that above the high
teens, average ratings tend to drift
down unless you're very muscular or
unless a woman specifically prefer
prefers a soft build. And here's the
thing, is a lot of women like a fucking
#dadbod
and that's totally cool. Like, Scott,
you and I, we don't really have much
opinion on the male body, I guess. But
when a girl is like a little sloppy, a
little out of shape for daddy, that
could be fucking hot, huh? We don't need
You don't bitch, you don't need to be
some kind of sculpture for your boy, you
heard me? Yeah, that's true.
>> I'm saying. You just show up with a
little pizzazz. You're You're
overqualified. Matter of fact, if you're
female at all, you're overqualified with
me.
What?
>> [sighs]
>> If you want a single actionable rule,
get lean enough for facial definition, a
little lean face.
Have a visible waist taper, smaller
waist, bigger shoulders.
As soon as you get that,
you're fit enough.
Continue to do whatever you like in
fitness, but if you want to attract more
females and males, I suppose, spend the
rest of your effort on adding muscle,
potentially, though that's optional,
improving your style, improving your
social ease, and so on and so forth,
stuff that has to do with bodies and
faces. Improve your grooming, etc.,
etc., etc.
The
being super lean
is mostly for other men on Instagram or
very fitness industry lean this
preferring females.
That's a very small fraction of females.
And so, just remember, our golden number
from this is, yeah, 13 to 14% body fat
is what most people of college age
female consider the most attractive. So,
if you're over that body fat percent,
well, like you want to be more
attractive, you got to get leaner.
That's us.
If you're under that body fat percent as
a male, then like you don't need to be
any leaner at the very least, in most
cases, to attract females. Facial fat
matters. Some people need to get leaner
to get that down. Some people can be
heavier, but really it's around that 12
to 15% mark where most people are having
their best time. If you want to have a
really really good time,
get you you get you to downloading the
RP Hypertrophy app and the RP Diet Coach
app and give a look to my book. It's
going to be coming out and it's a whole
lot of fun. Tons of pictures of me
naked. Just kidding. The editor said
that was weird and they wouldn't answer
my emails after that.
See you guys next time.