Adonis Index: What is YOUR score?

  • tj78

    Posts: 39

    Jul 15, 2009 3:17 AM GMT
    Ok, so there is this a newer fitness concept which is marketed as The Adonis Index, which is supposed to help men achieve the ultimate desirable body shape.

    The index is based on the mathematical concept of The Golden Mean (or the Fibinacci Series) which is a proportion of 1 to 1.61 that is found all over in nature, and is also very pleasing to the eye.

    The Adonis Index is simple enough: divide the circumference of your shoulders by the circumference of your waist, and the closer it is to1.61 the closer you are to perfection!

    More info can be found at www.adoniseffect.com

    Ok, so my shoulders are 50", and my waist (true waist) is 32", which gives me an index score of 1.56

    What is your score? I wanna see what 1.61 looks like! (I also wanna see what other 1.56ers look like, too)
  • offshore

    Posts: 1294

    Jul 15, 2009 3:21 AM GMT
    No good - those simple indexes are the same as BMI indexes.

    Ie, they cater for the generic statue, not for body builders.

    I have a BMI index that says I am grossly over weight, yet last time I checked I had body fat percentage of 7%.

    That linked index is fine for pretty boys, but I like my men sturdy and have good muscles lol.
  • tj78

    Posts: 39

    Jul 15, 2009 3:52 AM GMT
    offshore saidNo good - those simple indexes are the same as BMI indexes.

    Ie, they cater for the generic statue, not for body builders.

    I have a BMI index that says I am grossly over weight, yet last time I checked I had body fat percentage of 7%.

    That linked index is fine for pretty boys, but I like my men sturdy and have good muscles lol.


    First of all I never meant to presume it was for body builders, but rather for optimum "visual pleasure" based on the Golden Mean

    And actually, you have to be bigger in the shoulders than I am and leaner in the waist than I am to hit 1.61

    whats YOUR index score?

    PS - BMIs are EXTREMELY general, and only useful for those who are worried that they are very overweight...
  • swimbikerun

    Posts: 2835

    Jul 15, 2009 6:57 AM GMT
    offshore saidNo good - those simple indexes are the same as BMI indexes.

    Ie, they cater for the generic statue, not for body builders.

    I have a BMI index that says I am grossly over weight, yet last time I checked I had body fat percentage of 7%.

    That linked index is fine for pretty boys, but I like my men sturdy and have good muscles lol.
    Yeah but the BMI specifically says:
    It may overestimate body fat in athletes and others who have a muscular build.
    It may underestimate body fat in older persons and others who have lost muscle mass.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2009 6:03 PM GMT
    tj78 saidOk, so there is this a newer fitness concept which is marketed as The Adonis Index, which is supposed to help men achieve the ultimate desirable body shape.

    The index is based on the mathematical concept of The Golden Mean (or the Fibinacci Series) which is a proportion of 1 to 1.61 that is found all over in nature, and is also very pleasing to the eye.

    The Adonis Index is simple enough: divide the circumference of your shoulders by the circumference of your waist, and the closer it is to1.61 the closer you are to perfection!

    More info can be found at www.adoniseffect.com

    Ok, so my shoulders are 50", and my waist (true waist) is 32", which gives me an index score of 1.56

    What is your score? I wanna see what 1.61 looks like! (I also wanna see what other 1.56ers look like, too)



    Heh? icon_confused.gif
    Can't understand...I'm so bad at math, what?!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2009 6:41 PM GMT
    Having studied both architecture and art, I understand the Golden Mean. It's application to human anatomy is forced and contrived, however. It is seen in some aspects of nature, but not all.

    If people wish to apply it to human creations for its esthetic value, fine. But to impose it upon the human body is arbitrary and unnatural. It is a the last thing I would ever judge a person by, nor play scoring games with it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2009 7:59 PM GMT
    er... Fibonacci.

    We're supposed to look like spirals. Awesome.

    8.gif

    And yes, I agree with Red_Vespa. This sounds worse than the numerology nonsense. Different cultures have different ideas of which body proportions symbolize their most ideal aesthete. This can be actually seen by the very different art forms in different cultures. Because both are related. The purported golden ratio sounds more applicable to MODERN ideas of what beauty is. Don't forget that at some time in the renaissance for instance, the ideal body figure for women was pearshaped.

    Not to mention that the modern held notion of the ideal perfect male body proportions is grounded on Greek Sculptures (as evidenced by the use of the word 'Adonis' in this index). Greeks revered the human body (the ancient Olympics were actually done in honor to the human body), thus it's not surprising that they made the best sculptures in ancient history. But it may surprise most of you that the proportions of greek statues were not based on real proportions at all.

    The later greek sculptures mostly used the Lysippan Canon of Proportion conceived by Lysippos of Sikyon, himself a sculptor. And the main idea of it was to make the head smaller and the body and the legs longer than actual human proportions to make it seem more 'real than real'. This is actually where we get the modern idea of the perfect male body.

    This is his most famous work, an Apoxyomenos (it's not a personal name, it represents an athlete cleaning himself by scraping dust and grime off his skin):

    286px-Apoxyomenos_Pio-Clementino_Inv1185

    In contrast to an earlier master sculptor, Polykleitos, who used another method, the Polykleitan Canon of Proportion, by which he measured every joint of the human body and recreated it. More realistic than that of Lysippos. but still not quite real.

    His most famous work is that of a Doryphoros (Spear-bearer):

    Doriphorus02_pushkin.jpg

    Not to mention the most famous example of male beauty. Michelangelo's David:

    Michelangelos_David.jpg

    Which aside from being Lysippan, it is actually built with a much larger head and right hand than normal as it is meant to be viewed from below and at certain angles. Also noticeable is the slope of the forehead. All of which are intended to create the 'illusion of realism'. Sounds like an oxymoron, but it's not. It's regularly used in art. Because our mind perceives things far more differently than reality, and we only realize this when we examine things at different distances, different angles, or longer periods of time, or in this case... when we actually start measuring things for indices.

    The point is, all of those were beautiful. But even their creators know that they were only ART. Bigger than life.
  • MSUBioNerd

    Posts: 1813

    Jul 15, 2009 8:07 PM GMT
    I agree with Red_Vespa. The Golden Mean shows up in a number of natural systems--most notably in many shells--and is indeed the foundation of ratios in classical Greek architecture, but its application to humans is rather forced. There are a number of measurements we can make where the ratio is somewhere in the range from 1.4 to 1.8, and there's a strong tendency to assume that those therefore "should" be at the 1.618... level.

    The ratio tells me that it would be better for me to have a more developed upper body, given that I'm coming out around a 1.52 and don't think shrinking my waist is realistic. I don't disagree. But I think it's problematic to assume that there is a universal ideal; not only do bodies truly differ substantially in skeletal structure, but so do tastes. What I'd be happiest looking like is clearly not going to be the same thing as what chuckystud would be happiest to look like.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2009 9:09 PM GMT
    i'm 1.619 but i could skew that by measuring after i'm pumped up after an upper body workout.

    P.S. i have seen "David" in Florence and it is no way realistic.The statue is kinda warped.
  • tj78

    Posts: 39

    Jul 15, 2009 9:11 PM GMT
    http://goldennumber.net/body.htm


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2009 9:45 PM GMT
    I am a 1.6; 48 inch shoulders and 30 inch waist.
    What does this mean, should I charge more? Kidding.

    I am familiar with Fibonacci retracement in technical stock analysis, but didn't know it had anything to do with perceived beauty. Must be true what they say that science, math, art are all interrelated. I wish Leonardo was alive to explain. Interesting.

    I measured my eyes/nose/mouth. Apparently, the width between your pupils should be 1.618 x the width of your nose and your mouth should be 1.618 x the width of your nose too. Well, I am not so fortunate on that. I overshoot to a whopping 1.857 on the eyes and undershoot to only 1.428 on the mouth. Oh well, maybe you could put a bag over my head?

    Anyone have a 9.708" x 6" cock that I could see? I just want to see if I would like it.

  • dannyboy1101

    Posts: 977

    Jul 15, 2009 9:47 PM GMT
    blah

    Whoever truly decided on this number sure was fond of himself. Would a chubby chaser's preferred adonis number be slightly different?

    Sorry boys, but in this case I don't think that you can use science to call yourself beautiful (or close to it). Maybe you might have to develop a healthy balance of self worth and self critique.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2009 9:52 PM GMT
    Alpha13 saidi'm 1.619 but i could skew that by measuring after i'm pumped up after an upper body workout.

    P.S. i have seen "David" in Florence and it is no way realistic.The statue is kinda warped.


    The point exactly.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2009 9:54 PM GMT
    dannyboy1101 saidblah

    Would a chubby chaser's preferred adonis number be slightly different?



    That would be a 1:1 ratio or less than depending upon how you like emicon_smile.gif
  • tj78

    Posts: 39

    Jul 15, 2009 10:04 PM GMT
    Basically its like this: there are no tricks or gimmicks here.

    The human body DOES follow the Golden Mean in many ways. In the male body, one of them is in the proportion of the shoulders to waist. It just is.

    So you, in order to measure your leanness-to-musculature ratio, can apply the ratio to your body. Thats all. No biggie. No threat to the idea that "we all find different things beautiful"

    No one is trying to make us all clones. hehe
  • MSUBioNerd

    Posts: 1813

    Jul 16, 2009 12:10 AM GMT
    "The human body DOES follow the Golden Mean in many ways. In the male body, one of them is in the proportion of the shoulders to waist. It just is."

    See, again, it's actually not. You're claiming this as a fact, and we're disputing it. The burden of proof is logically on you to prove that it is, so a citation would be helpful to your case. Even so, I'll give you some citations of my own to back my statement that it's not.

    As a first pass, for instance, the Wikipedia entry on the golden ration contains "Some specific proportions in the bodies of many animals (including humans[66][67]) and parts of the shells of mollusks[4] and cephalopods are often claimed to be in the golden ratio. There is actually a large variation in the real measures of these elements in specific individuals, and the proportion in question is often significantly different from the golden ratio.[66] " and that reference 66 is to this textbook on anthropometrics.
  • tj78

    Posts: 39

    Jul 16, 2009 12:33 AM GMT
    MSUBioNerd said"The human body DOES follow the Golden Mean in many ways. In the male body, one of them is in the proportion of the shoulders to waist. It just is."

    See, again, it's actually not. You're claiming this as a fact, and we're disputing it. The burden of proof is logically on you to prove that it is, so a citation would be helpful to your case. Even so, I'll give you some citations of my own to back my statement that it's not.

    As a first pass, for instance, the Wikipedia entry on the golden ration contains "Some specific proportions in the bodies of many animals (including humans[66][67]) and parts of the shells of mollusks[4] and cephalopods are often claimed to be in the golden ratio. There is actually a large variation in the real measures of these elements in specific individuals, and the proportion in question is often significantly different from the golden ratio.[66] " and that reference 66 is to this textbook on anthropometrics.



    You don't have to wax intellectual with me about what is or isn't my burden of proof. I am a lawyer, I know all about that stuff. I have posted this link already on this site, but it seems some people may have missed it....
    http://goldennumber.net/body.htm

    if you are hungry for more:

    http://library.thinkquest.org/18054/data/text/english/e03.html


    Now this isn't a graduate thesis. When I was a Classic Civilizations major at UCLA my thesis was on the Parthenon. No, this is just for fun. But it IS based on several hundred years worth of mathematical and scientific study on the topic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2009 1:12 AM GMT
    Regarding David in Florence:

    David was meant to be viewed from below, not straight on in its present location. Originally, it was meant to be placed on the outside of a building several stories up. When viewed from below, the right hand looks to be more in proportion to the body rather than its abnormally large size when viewed straight on in the gallery.

    I have visited the statue in Florence and researched its creation and placement. The statue is the depiction of a man that is in his early twenties, not in keeping with the story in the bible after which the statue is supposedly fashioned.

    The depiction is beautiful, but not proportional in the classic sense.

    If you view it from below, it was obvious that Michaelangelo was gay and was playing a joke on the Florentines, because all you see from below is his crotch with an empasis on his scrotum, flashing the onlookers.

  • MSUBioNerd

    Posts: 1813

    Jul 16, 2009 1:59 AM GMT
    I checked out goldennumber.net. It is a site of assertions and not data; on the page about the human body, it makes the same assertion you do about the ratio of shoulders to waist, but with nothing to back it up other than its say-so.

    On its page about human beauty, the first reference is to Marquardt Beauty Analysis, a site which advocates phi as the determinant of beauty as researched and developed by a plastic surgeon. The main product being pushed is an archetypal mask (they provide their patent numbers for it and everything), based on phi that is supposed to be both a guide to use of makeup and for cosmetic surgery. Although the site claims that it is the foundation for beauty in both genders, and body as well as face, virtually the entire thing is devoted to female faces, and mostly lacks any evidence or data.

    Additional references are found to Beautyrank.com (which is explicitly about female facial beauty) and to beautycheck.de which is impressively academic (they give details about actual experiments they performed in manipulating digital faces and the results of how subjects rated the attractiveness of the results, and a statistical analysis thereof), but is again limited to just faces, and relies more on female faces (64) than male face (32).

    The thinkquest page is a good source for statements about what various people have historically asserted about the golden ratio in regards to human beauty. That doesn't mean that those assertions are correct or universal, though.

    So the only corroboration we have of your assertion about the value of phi being the ideal ratio of a man's shoulders to his waist is an assertion of the same without evidence on the goldennumber.net site. I'll take the anthropometrics textbook instead.
  • DanielQQ

    Posts: 365

    Jul 16, 2009 4:23 AM GMT
    Sorry to be cynical, but this whole thread just seems to be designed for people who want to brag about being "an Adonis." Why not let them have their fun!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2009 5:51 AM GMT
    vitruvian-man.jpg

    Arms Stretched/ Radius of circle = 1.61
    Top of head to navel /Navel to floor= 1.61

  • danisnotstr8

    Posts: 2579

    Jul 16, 2009 6:08 AM GMT
    sundayswim saidvitruvian-man.jpg

    Arms Stretched/ Radius of circle = 1.61
    Top of head to navel /Navel to floor= 1.61



    If you didn't bring up DaVinci, I was going to. He also showed the ratio 1,618 from the chin to the crown in another hypotenuse.

    Speaking of all this, I was amused about two months ago as I drove through the Gordon Square neighborhood on Detrioit Avenue in Cleveland. A new interior design studio opened there and it's called "One Point 618." icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2009 6:16 AM GMT
    sundayswim saidvitruvian-man.jpg

    Arms Stretched/ Radius of circle = 1.61
    Top of head to navel /Navel to floor= 1.61



    Your point being?





    I think you guys are all forgetting about the superior shoulder to waist ratio, called the Eternal Ratio of 1.777. This is the true and ultimate indicator of attractiveness, if you were born even a hundredth off then you totally fail at attractiveness and can only wish you all the happiness a hopelessly lonely life can bring.

    Do not question the legitimacy of the Eternal Ratio!




    Also don't pester me for silly things like "proof" or "evidence".










    icon_rolleyes.gif




  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2009 4:46 PM GMT



    42
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2009 7:18 PM GMT
    I'm sure there's lots of money that will be made from this groundbreaking methodology.

    Erm.