In terminal of fighting south paw is harder to deal with
In terms of life in general right handed just makes everything easier as some thing require special configurations for left handed people like guns or exercise equipment
So you think I'm in a good position to have good strength? Because I've started lifting 2 years ago and so far I'm seeing the opposite, only in the squat I'm doing really well.
What does this mean lol. Shorter limbs are a big advantage in terms of raw strength, bench press etc. I don't think anyone debates this.
The right is more athletic in terms of running yes, this is why Africans dominate in those areas.
>attractive
Personal choice, but as stated, this is often a product of Hollywood and what depictions of superheroes kids see growing up. Personally, long legs on men tend to be feminine.
In fact most ancient European statues, from Greeks to Romans, the Gods, and Emperors will more often than not have shorter legs, or even legs/torso. Rarely longer legs than their torso.
https://i.imgur.com/gEmEEEg.jpg
I'm right side and I fricking hate it because I lose a lot of height when sitting. Like, you could take a random person shorter than me by 10-15 cm and our heads would probably be at the same level when we sit
Lol yeah, the sitting height test. Some 6'4" guys are even with 5'10" guys when sitting.
Right, and you cherry picked 1 statue, which I really said you would do. And what I said, human biology and evolution backs it up.
What I am saying is LITERALLY agreed upon by reddit too, which hate to talk about racial differences. Studies back it all up.
The vast majority of European origin men do not have longer legs than their torso. There is nothing to debate about this. And thus most of the statues follow the same pattern. Why wouldn't they?
>The vast majority of European origin men do not have longer legs than their torso. There is nothing to debate about this. And thus most of the statues follow the same pattern.
What.
You are describing Asian people. No, actually, ther eis probably no one on this Earth whose legs are as long as his or her torso. That's asinine. You mean torso+head probably, but all Europeans have legs longer than their torso+their head. For Asians, it's closer to what you claim.
A point of interest is that earlier animations, would generally depict the big powerful muscle unit as short legged. But later on, the Hollywood superhero type, like spider man, to say x men, this trend would be reversed, in which they had long legs.
What a thread. You might be right but no sources of any kind make it speculation, not fact.
The animation example, for instance, is a product of its time where muscular meant a big chest and arms, and animation was at a stage where these proportions made it easier to show that to the audience.
Also all examples of the statues and depictions in history might be THEIR aesthetic preference at the time, just like hollywood has long legs as preference today.
Now, of course you might be right, but damn if you aren't just theorizing instead of showing sources and proof.
Would actually love to see some sources, as it is interesting to know.
Right, and you cherry picked 1 statue, which I really said you would do. And what I said, human biology and evolution backs it up.
What I am saying is LITERALLY agreed upon by reddit too, which hate to talk about racial differences. Studies back it all up.
The vast majority of European origin men do not have longer legs than their torso. There is nothing to debate about this. And thus most of the statues follow the same pattern. Why wouldn't they?
And if you want the "science and biology" then those from a hot climate (Africa) have on average longer limbs, arms and legs, while those of a cold climate (European) have shorter arms and legs.
This goes even back to Allen's rule of 1877 in animals. And the same principles apply. Cold climate animals have shorter limbs. Warm climate longer limbs.
For modern studies, this is more often than not displayed in the sitting height test.
A white male and a black male of equal height will sit on a bench. Are they the same height still? Nope. Often the white occurs taller. Why? Because they have the longer torso when legs are taken out of the equation.
I guess there are a lot of white males with a short torso and long legs/arms in America due to their African admixture somewhere down the line. There are much less in European countries.
Just looked into your actual source of Allen's rule and Bergmann as well. They might prove your point actually.
https://i.imgur.com/axEpZkX.jpg
And the difference are more subtle anyway, OPs image is kind of extreme. Pic related is more appropriate.
A point of interest is that earlier animations, would generally depict the big powerful muscle unit as short legged. But later on, the Hollywood superhero type, like spider man, to say x men, this trend would be reversed, in which they had long legs.
And if you want the "science and biology" then those from a hot climate (Africa) have on average longer limbs, arms and legs, while those of a cold climate (European) have shorter arms and legs.
This goes even back to Allen's rule of 1877 in animals. And the same principles apply. Cold climate animals have shorter limbs. Warm climate longer limbs.
For modern studies, this is more often than not displayed in the sitting height test.
A white male and a black male of equal height will sit on a bench. Are they the same height still? Nope. Often the white occurs taller. Why? Because they have the longer torso when legs are taken out of the equation.
I guess there are a lot of white males with a short torso and long legs/arms in America due to their African admixture somewhere down the line. There are much less in European countries.
I just state it is likely higher, but not by a huge amount than European nations, which could be why there are more long legged guys on here who are mainly Americans. But this I guess at, yes.
And people tend to pick what is "best" based on their own proportions, rather than actual scientific data, or by actual strength tests.
I'm right side and I fricking hate it because I lose a lot of height when sitting. Like, you could take a random person shorter than me by 10-15 cm and our heads would probably be at the same level when we sit
In terminal of fighting south paw is harder to deal with
In terms of life in general right handed just makes everything easier as some thing require special configurations for left handed people like guns or exercise equipment
Not what the thread is about but you just reminded me I fight (and throw) left handed but write right handed.
>In terminal of fighting south paw is harder to deal with
Only in modern boxing. Which is a sport, not a fight.
Left is usually manlet body proportions, close to dwarfism.
I'm 177cm and I'm left, 177cm is not THAT small
There are some strongman types who are left and normal height like you
So you think I'm in a good position to have good strength? Because I've started lifting 2 years ago and so far I'm seeing the opposite, only in the squat I'm doing really well.
Left side is a reduced Cro-Magnon type. Very powerful if you have good nutrition and reach normal size.
>Which side is the best?
the one I'm dominant
The right is your common Hollywood hero phenotype, so most people being brainwashed naturally think this side is best or whatever.
Of equal height, the left, long torso is the much more powerful (and European) bodytype.
The legs hold a much lower center of gravity, and more mass is accumulated in the body with overall more power in the core.
Of course it goes without saying, the right makes the faster and long distance runner. Much more common in African countries.
The right is like a deer, long legs, bouncy and swift. The left is the bear. The powerhouse.
>Left: Fat, useless, weak
>Right: Powerful, athletic, attractive
What does this mean lol. Shorter limbs are a big advantage in terms of raw strength, bench press etc. I don't think anyone debates this.
The right is more athletic in terms of running yes, this is why Africans dominate in those areas.
>attractive
Personal choice, but as stated, this is often a product of Hollywood and what depictions of superheroes kids see growing up. Personally, long legs on men tend to be feminine.
In fact most ancient European statues, from Greeks to Romans, the Gods, and Emperors will more often than not have shorter legs, or even legs/torso. Rarely longer legs than their torso.
Lol yeah, the sitting height test. Some 6'4" guys are even with 5'10" guys when sitting.
>In fact most ancient European statues, from Greeks to Romans, the Gods, and Emperors will more often than not have shorter legs, or even legs/torso.
Right, and you cherry picked 1 statue, which I really said you would do. And what I said, human biology and evolution backs it up.
What I am saying is LITERALLY agreed upon by reddit too, which hate to talk about racial differences. Studies back it all up.
The vast majority of European origin men do not have longer legs than their torso. There is nothing to debate about this. And thus most of the statues follow the same pattern. Why wouldn't they?
>What I am saying is LITERALLY agreed upon by reddit
>agreed upon by reddit
Lol
>The vast majority of European origin men do not have longer legs than their torso. There is nothing to debate about this. And thus most of the statues follow the same pattern.
What.
You are describing Asian people. No, actually, ther eis probably no one on this Earth whose legs are as long as his or her torso. That's asinine. You mean torso+head probably, but all Europeans have legs longer than their torso+their head. For Asians, it's closer to what you claim.
Right learns taekwondo
Left never gets close
Game over
Taekwondo is gay as frick and left would wrestle rape the right twink
>t. 203cm tall Frisian with long legs
What a thread. You might be right but no sources of any kind make it speculation, not fact.
The animation example, for instance, is a product of its time where muscular meant a big chest and arms, and animation was at a stage where these proportions made it easier to show that to the audience.
Also all examples of the statues and depictions in history might be THEIR aesthetic preference at the time, just like hollywood has long legs as preference today.
Now, of course you might be right, but damn if you aren't just theorizing instead of showing sources and proof.
Would actually love to see some sources, as it is interesting to know.
>Reddit
Hahaha
This anon again.
Just looked into your actual source of Allen's rule and Bergmann as well. They might prove your point actually.
And agreed on this as well, glad to see nuance
The right side is correct. Men have proportionally longer legs than females. This is also why men look better in jeans than women.
A point of interest is that earlier animations, would generally depict the big powerful muscle unit as short legged. But later on, the Hollywood superhero type, like spider man, to say x men, this trend would be reversed, in which they had long legs.
And if you want the "science and biology" then those from a hot climate (Africa) have on average longer limbs, arms and legs, while those of a cold climate (European) have shorter arms and legs.
This goes even back to Allen's rule of 1877 in animals. And the same principles apply. Cold climate animals have shorter limbs. Warm climate longer limbs.
For modern studies, this is more often than not displayed in the sitting height test.
A white male and a black male of equal height will sit on a bench. Are they the same height still? Nope. Often the white occurs taller. Why? Because they have the longer torso when legs are taken out of the equation.
I guess there are a lot of white males with a short torso and long legs/arms in America due to their African admixture somewhere down the line. There are much less in European countries.
You are right, but amount of black admixture in American whites, even at extremely low amounts, is minimal
I just state it is likely higher, but not by a huge amount than European nations, which could be why there are more long legged guys on here who are mainly Americans. But this I guess at, yes.
And people tend to pick what is "best" based on their own proportions, rather than actual scientific data, or by actual strength tests.
I'm left for sure. I'm 5'11" and 30 pant length is sometimes too long
I'm right side and I fricking hate it because I lose a lot of height when sitting. Like, you could take a random person shorter than me by 10-15 cm and our heads would probably be at the same level when we sit
Right is superior. Women worship me.
I'm right hand side and it's obviously the more aesthetic
And the difference are more subtle anyway, OPs image is kind of extreme. Pic related is more appropriate.
And this is what a longer legs and short torso statue would look like.
Do they look like this? Of course not.
I’m 6’3” and left.
I should wear at least 34” inseams but 32” is more of a comfortable fit and pants don’t get all frayed at the end.
I'm right and a 5'8 manlet