Instruction

It's hard to get perfect, but it's possible. However, for this there must be an initial predisposition. So, if by nature you have a normal or large-boned physique, it is unlikely that you will be able to bring your waist to 60 cm, and your hips to 90, unless, of course, you exclude the appeal to surgeons and surgery, such as removing ribs. The same goes for the chest. If by nature the breast is small in size, it will not be possible to enlarge it without surgical intervention. It is worth noting that this ideal is very doubtful and such volumes will look good only in combination with a fairly high growth. In addition, such an asthenic physique looks advantageous only on fashion catwalks, but in life it does not look so attractive.

Proper nutrition. If natural data are conducive to making sizes 90-60-90, you can try to get closer to the "ideal". To do this, you need to draw up a nutrition plan, which you will have to adhere to constantly. You will have to exclude all fatty and starchy foods, forget about chocolate and sugar, and leave only low-fat chicken from meat. It is allowed to eat lean fish cooked without the use of oil. Vegetables should be the main food ingredient. Low-fat dairy products in the morning will also be very useful. All alcoholic beverages must be completely excluded.

Sports activities. Constant aerobic exercise will be very useful for weight loss of the whole body. You should also pay attention to the exercise bike, which perfectly forms the hips. However, you should not overdo it, since pumping the muscles of the thighs leads to an increase in their volume. It is better to use an exercise bike or bicycle regularly, but little by little. In order to bring the waist volume closer to the desired one, you need to constantly work on the oblique muscles of the abdomen. Bends to the sides, circular rotations of the pelvis and rotations of the hoop will be useful exercises here. You need to do it regularly, every day. The waist will never be 60 cm if the stomach is not flat, but flabby. To achieve a flat stomach, you can use the torso and leg lifts from the “lying” position, as well as the “scissors” exercise.

Cosmetic procedures and massage can have a positive effect on blood circulation, which will increase metabolic processes, and weight loss will go faster. With the help of various wraps and massage, you can achieve good results in reducing cellulite and fat deposits in the abdomen, thighs and buttocks.

Of course, if nature itself has not endowed you with the desired body composition, then you can always turn to the help of surgeons. Modern plastic surgery allows you to change the shape of the body associated with the structure of the skeleton. Also often used such operations as liposuction and lipolifting, involving the removal of subcutaneous fat.

90-60-90 are not just numbers. This is the Standard of Female Beauty. Ideal proportion. "Gold standard". Any girl knows: if you have such parameters, you are ideal. And it doesn't matter what height you are - 150 cm or 190; it doesn't matter if your body type is slim or "big-boned". The main thing is to correspond to the cherished figures, and the "testimony" of the mirror and the opinion of men do not have any objectivity.

When His Majesty Fashion speaks, Mind and Logic fall silent. But we live in a free country, so we will boldly express an alternative point of view, without fear of being dressed in a striped robe “from Cardin” and hidden in a jail. So...

The phenomenon of "90-60-90" is explained very simply: fashion models are recognized as the standard of beauty of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. And now their painful thinness and standard sizes, like those of factory dolls, are a universally recognized role model. But who invented the 90-60-90 formula? Who forced the girls of the world to turn themselves into the type of concentration camp prisoner in order to achieve this standard? No one knows the exact answer, but there are several interesting hypotheses on this score.

Elemental laziness. Sewing "on thin" is much easier! Why make it difficult for yourself?

Aesthetics: Everyone knows that a long tight dress looks very beautiful and elegant on its own. The fashion designer creates a dress for its own sake, and not clothes that will adorn the girl, as it should ideally be. He creates a collection, like a composer of a melody, and girls occupy a secondary role in his system of values ​​- a performer, an instrument, a living mannequin.

"Living mannequin". What do you think, on what apprentices “bring up” the masterpieces of fashion designers? On a standard mannequin with world-famous parameters 90-60-90. Where these figures (90-60-90) came from, history is silent, but since the numbers are very, outrageously round (any other parameters of the female figure would have to be measured, mainly in millimeters), the logical conclusion suggests itself that this is not the notorious the ideal proportion of women's volumes, but simply the sizes as close as possible to the average and "fixed" on convenient numbers. Perhaps we owe the appearance of this “gold standard” to simple hardworking engineers who, when designing a standard model dummy, simply decided not to bother themselves and others with subtle calculations.

So, the fashion designer created a collection of his masterpieces. What does he need now? That's right - a living mannequin, the most appropriate in terms of parameters to the "dead". According to such criteria, female models are selected. Short girls do not look as attractive and elegant as tall ones, therefore, in order to achieve the maximum effect and emphasize all the advantages of the dress, the model girl (in professional jargon, “hanger”) must have, in addition to standard sizes also high "model" growth.

CONCLUSIONS: If you do not plan to become a model in the future, you can safely send the formula "90-60-90" to the wastebasket. The ideal proportion of a female figure: waist = approximately 2/3 of the volume of the chest and hips, and nothing else. There are no exact numbers (90-60-90 or any other) for all women, regardless of their body type and height.

In order for the figure to be truly beautiful, not only proportionality is important, but also the corresponding volumes, which are different for different heights and body types. The most fortunate in this regard are women who have a thin-boned "graceful" physique; they, having a "gold standard", look charming at any height (although for undersized 90-60-90 - often too much). The average type (“sports”) already gives a noticeable spread: short ones have a dream figure (“everything is with her”), tall ones have a chiseled elegant figure prone to thinness (this type is well illustrated by most fashion models). If you squeeze a quite attractive woman of a large-boned type (especially a tall one) into a size 90-60-90, you get a pitiful sight that will be attractive only in lesbian circles.

You should never mindlessly follow fashion. You won’t put on a thing that, even being trendy, doesn’t suit you at all? Your body is also to some extent a dress, which, being "altered" by you in an inappropriate volume, will only reduce your attractiveness. Look for your own "gold standard", consulting not only with fashion, but also with a mirror, not forgetting to take into account the opinion of men - true connoisseurs of female beauty.

Now you will not surprise anyone with the fact that every self-respecting girl or woman is constantly striving for model standards in order to always please the opposite sex. But if you think about it, where did these sung parameters 90-60-90 come from, why do all the girls strive for them so much, and men praise them so much? And is it really so?

After all, if you think about it, not only “ideal” women are happy and bathe in the attention of fans and boyfriends. However, the general madness about ideal parameters is already literally going wild, girls are ready not to eat for a whole day or a week in order to get rid of a couple of extra centimeters on their hips or waist. Is it normal? Let's figure it out.

There was a time when rounded shapes and quite fat parameters were considered fashionable, we are now talking about the era of antiquity, many monuments of culture and painting that have come down to our time testify to this.

Why? The answer is simple: at that time people lived simpler, they had fun, they loved to eat delicious food and drink good wine, at that time there was no concept of “let me count the calories I eat”.

However, at the same time, they worked hard, ate healthy food, which did not allow them to disperse to incredible weight categories. However, then the Middle Ages came with its self-restraint in everything, which undoubtedly affected the figures of women, they became much thinner.

The cheerful Renaissance brought back into fashion buxom and well-fed beauties, whose parameters were mainly 98-72-98, which by our standards is already close to fullness.

Since the 19th century, thin girls have become popular, but this did not concern the chest, the elegance of the waist in those years was achieved by hard corsets and tugs, which, by the way, does not lead to anything good.

But what to do, there were such ideals, they had to be supported with all efforts - a waist of 45 centimeters - this was a normal phenomenon of that time. The fashion for skinny women with a big bust continued along with the appearance of fashion houses and girls who advertised these very clothes at fashion shows. It was the 20th century, the fashion industry was just emerging.

And yet it remains unclear where the fashion for the ideal figure of a girl 90-60-90 came from? After all, there have never been such standards in history, so that we don’t see them in historical films and on television - the dimensions of women of past centuries were very different from those presented.

There is an opinion that these standards are a far-fetched thing that fashion designers and designers formed only to make it easier for them to make patterns, the sizes of which, in their opinion, are ideal, and things were all standardized.

So they began to hone female beauty under these very standardized parameters. There is another opinion on this matter: it is believed that none other than Marilyn Monroe became the setter of golden parameters, although for some reason it is forgotten that her height was small - only 166 centimeters, which is why it was difficult to call her thin.

There is another point of view, psychologists say that men are physiologically “programmed” for procreation, even for the most walking and not going to start a family of specimens, this function works very well on a subconscious level.

And attractive, and precisely on an intuitive level, a man considers a woman who is capable of bearing offspring, as evidenced by the soft roundness of the body, good hips and large breasts.

What parameters of the female figure do men consider ideal?

So, it turns out that all the glorified thin women are not so popular among men? Need to get fit and bulk up quickly? Of course not, this opinion is also erroneous, and, what is most interesting, there is simply no concrete and exact answer to this question.

It is believed that having met a girl, a man within 10 minutes is able to evaluate her appearance and form his opinion about her attractiveness, which, by the way, is very difficult to change later. So you get it, no inner world and no way through the stomach, but again, all this is theoretical, but practically everything is different.

Scientists even tried to conduct an experiment on students, and decided to tie their opinion to the state of hunger. First they were shown pictures different girls in a state of hunger, that is, on an empty stomach, and then in a state of satiety. And what do you think? When men were hungry, they were more interested in girls of denser forms, and in a state of satiety - thin girls.

This only says that it is proved once again that a man on a subconscious level chooses the one that is able to feed offspring, because overweight women(full, not huge!) It is easier to bear and feed a child. Such examples can be given a great many, what is the conclusion?

And there is only one conclusion - there are no uniform standards. Although scientists still agreed that the main thing is not the parameters, but their ratio, which between the hips and the waist should be approximately 0.7. Men with the naked eye are able to evaluate this parameter and tilt their opinion in one direction or another regarding the girl.

How to achieve parameters 90-60-90?

Even after a lot of facts and confirmations on the topic that parameters are not a determining factor, most girls still prefer to remain of the opinion that the standard is the standard to strive for.

However, for some reason, they do not think about the fact that for some it is simply impossible due to some physiological features body, bone size, or skeletal structure.

By the way, even nationality and family roots can affect the parameters, for example, English and Dutch women are considered the most busty, but in Switzerland things are different, the natives are owners of rather modest forms.

Another point that makes women strive for extravagant parameters is the mass of information that comes in clear form from television and the Internet.

A large number of photos beautiful girls who show off their figure in 90-60-90 makes ordinary women acquire various complexes, after which violent diets appear that do not bring benefits, but only cause harm.

Few people think that looking like this is their job, in which they are also well helped by a team of makeup artists, stylists, and computer geniuses who create beautiful pictures.

Dear ladies, go in for sports, lead an active lifestyle and love yourself! If everything goes on like this, then you can completely forget about the golden parameters, let models and cover girls suffer with them. If you are a fit and healthy girl, then this will certainly have a positive effect on your life in all its manifestations.

The article will focus on the ideal female body with parameters 90-60-90. Everyone will find for themselves the answer to the question of how such a standard of beauty arose. The text also lists celebrities with the specified forms.

90-60-90. What woman would not want to become the living embodiment of these? And even if in real life it is almost impossible to match them, but only to get closer, they have become a popular brand anyway: this is the name of the best fitness programs, modeling body cosmetics ...

Ask any man what a female figure should be, and he, almost without hesitation, will repeat the cherished numerical code. But when did the fashion for these ideal figures appear?

Versions of the appearance of a numerical idol

Today it is already difficult to get to the bottom of the truth why these average parameters became the embodiment of the dreams of women and men (only in different senses).

There are at least three versions - and they all have the right to life. And the truth, like this number itself, will be a kind of “golden mean”.

Version 1. Romantic Marilyn

Each era erected certain parameters on a pedestal. IN Ancient Greece- they are immortalized in statues of goddesses, in the Middle Ages pale prudes with a faintly white complexion came into fashion, the Renaissance opened the world to mysterious women (the famous Mona Lisa), baroque and rococo - girls with an aspen waist, the 19th century glorified natural femininity and beauty.

It was in the middle of the 20th century, when cinema gained crazy popularity, that the incomparable Marilyn Monroe appeared on the horizon. With a height of 162 centimeters, her figure was very close to the cherished figures and corresponded to such parameters as 88-56-90. Due to her short stature, it seems that she was far from thin, but nevertheless she asked fashion trend for the next century.

Version 2. Pure mathematics

Particularly pedantic researchers of this issue find the root cause of the appearance of the digital ideal in the exact sciences, namely in the law of normal distribution. Its main researcher was the German mathematician Karl Gauss. What is this law? In simple terms, we can say that any set of values ​​is grouped around an average value.

That is, all objects with a certain parameter (for example, the proportions of a figure) are formed around objects with an average value, and combining these groups allows us to get the "average of the averages". According to this law, translated into centimeters, such an approximate average value will be 90-60-90. One question remains, how did a complex scientific formula break into the world of fashion?

Version 3. Conquerors of the podium

The third version indirectly intersects with the second. It is believed that the standard - 90-60-90 gained popularity at the end of the 20th century, when fashion models became the ideal of female beauty. It was bred as an average value convenient for workers in the beauty industry. By the way, the German top model Claudia Schiffer was very close to him with the parameters of the figure - 95-62-92.

Of course, such forms are almost impossible to meet among the fair sex in ordinary life, but fashion houses and do not hide - you need to set a hard selection to make the model faceless. Pay attention should not be on the woman, but on what she demonstrates on the podium. All designers meet the same standard, and those who do not meet it are left out of the fashion industry.

Celebrities of the past

Despite the rarity of such forms in nature, nevertheless, cinema, almost from the moment of its inception, was “occupied” by actresses with ideal proportions:

Marilyn Monroe

Figure parameters: 88-56-90.

Norma Jean (real name of a celebrity) has become for centuries not just an ideal of beauty, an icon of style, charm, charm and exceptional femininity. She can rightfully be called legendary.

They say that everything ingenious is simple. Both the first and the second in this incredible woman, actress and singer were in abundance. Graceful gait, white, styled curls, bright scarlet lips and, of course, perfect round shapes- such, at first glance, a simple set of female tricks made her image recognizable and unique.

It was Monroe who graced the cover of the first issue of Playboy magazine. Thus, her ideal figure was presented to the general public.

Gina Lollobrigida

Figure parameters: 94-53-90.

The unearthly beauty of the Italian actress, director, screenwriter and producer Gina Lollobrigida became famous by playing Esmeralda in the film Notre Dame Cathedral, as well as one of the main roles in Fanfan-Tulip. This incredible woman harmoniously combines perfect appearance, talent and wonderful spiritual qualities.

Lollobrigida is over 90 years old, but she continues to lead an active lifestyle, wears dresses with a neckline and does charity work.

Ornella Muti

Figure parameters: 89-61-89.

Which of the men was not delighted with the stunning girl from the film "The Taming of the Shrew", who managed to "tame" Adriano Celentano himself? Yes, it was the incomparable Ornella Muti or Francesca Romana Rivelli (real name of the actress).

Having crossed the sixty-year milestone, Muti retained a beautiful figure. This is facilitated by the regular training of the actress according to a special technique.

Stars of the 90s and 2000s

Time has changed, but not the fashion for 90-60-90. Most beautiful women the world continued to strive for ideal forms:

Cindy Crawford

Figure parameters: 86-66-89.

At one time, Crawford became the highest paid fashion model. They talked about her, admired her, and for fashion houses with a worldwide reputation, Cindy's participation in the show was an honor. The authors of her photographs were the best photographers. Her unique highlights perfect figure and a mole above the lip.

Cindy Crawford believes the secret of her beauty healthy sleep And .

Monica Bellucci

Figure parameters: 91-60-88.

The chic Italian actress Monica Bellucci is so beautifully built that it seems that you can’t think of a more perfect figure. All this, combined with a languid, soulful look and burning black curls, made her a sex symbol of the 90s. But at the same time, one should not forget that not only her appearance paved the way for her in the cinema, Bellucci is a very talented actress, subtly conveying the emotions of any character.

Monica herself never considered herself slim.

So. Today we will talk about the female figure. More precisely - about a certain ideal figure. There is such a widespread opinion - that "ideal" is when 90x60x90. What are these numbers? This is the circumference of the hips - waist - chest. In centimeters. Where did it come from? Well, the question of female beauty has occupied many inquisitive minds for a long time - and now they measured and compared. And someone somewhere came to the conclusion - that all women who have ever been considered the owners of an ideal figure - the proportions are close to the same 90 60 90.

The first example is 90 60 90, most likely, anyone will call Marilyn Monroe. Her "indicators" are well known - they are 86-60-92. Actually, here it is - indeed, the numbers are close to 90 60 90. At the same time. It has always been obvious to me that the formula 90 60 90 is wrong. After all, it is clear that people are higher and lower. More complete and less complete. Well, we can't talk about fixed absolute values. It goes without saying that, at a minimum, we should talk about proportions, and not about absolute values.

Those. some part of the body must depend on the other by some coefficient. This is the first. Farther. After all, no one has these same 90 60 90. Even Marilyn Monroe. Let's call a spade a spade: 86-60-92 is not 90-60-90. It's a completely different ratio. If the formula was correct - well, then Marilyn would not have become famous. They would have found exactly that female representative - who REALLY has 90-60-90.

Already the simple fact that no one has 90-60-90 in the generally recognized ideal figures - this by itself proves that this is an incorrect ratio. Therefore, we draw the only correct conclusion in this case: this formula is false.

So. Formula rejected. But instead of this formula, I want to pay attention to something else. It has always been clear to me that 90-60-90 is just a common myth. But here's what I noticed when comparing the proportions - that really surprised me. Namely: I paid attention to completely different indicators. The formula 90 60 90 measures "girth". But do we see this girth when we look? We see only the apparent width and length of individual parts of the body. We do not see their "girth". Therefore, it is logically simple - that in general "girth" does not need to be considered. So. I began to compare the width of the shoulders and the width of the hips. Not girth - but simply visual width. And this is what I got:

It is very difficult to find a suitable photo, with the right angle, with the correct arrangement of arms and legs - in fact, you need a photo at attention, feet shoulder-width apart. Therefore, I bring such photos - what I managed to find.

Marilyn Monroe

I understand that the angle is not very correct. But pay attention to the width of the hips and shoulders - they are identical. This is not an approximate match - they do match.

Paying attention to the coincidence of the shoulders and hips, I stupidly began to sort out all the actresses and all those who are generally considered to be "beautiful". It is important to understand here that everyone has different tastes and we are talking about an average opinion, i.e. some kind of mass recognition of beauty.

Megan Fox:

If you attach a ruler to the screen and measure the width of the hips in the widest part - and then put it on the shoulders - almost a complete match. She really has the width of the hips EQUAL to the width of the shoulders.

Angelina Jolie - the most Good photo. This is exactly the angle you need:

Actually a complete coincidence of the width of the shoulders and hips. The width of the shoulders must here and in other cases be taken from the upper section, not counting the tips, where it already begins to go down.

Since it was Jolie that I managed to find such a successful photo - just the right position of the body and the right angle - it is on it that I will graphically show the coincidence of the lines of the visual width of the shoulders and hips:

As you can see, the shoulders are taken to the sections from which the bevel down already begins, and not the maximum width. Ie, as it were, hands are not taken into account. And if we take these indicators, then Angelina Jolie - indeed - we observe a complete coincidence of these indicators.

Natalya Varley

Complete match

Jennifer Aniston

Kate Beckinsale

Milla Jovovich

Natalie Portman

Halle Berry

Maria Sharapova

Etc. etc.
Actually, I specifically went through all the famous actresses or simply recognized as beautiful. For example, I am not a fan of Marilyn Monroe. But as a researcher, I put it at the top of the list - because. she is indeed recognized as beautiful by a large number of people. For example, Sharapova - I remembered that she is considered very beautiful by the Americans. That's why I added it. Why am I saying this? To the fact that these are not some of my preferences and selection. A completely neutral analysis of those whom society massively recognizes as beautiful. And everywhere the equality of the width of the hips and shoulders can be traced.

While searching, I came across the following picture:

This is a composite picture-aggregate of women, recognized as the standard of beauty for their time. Please note - that in different periods there were popular high and low, wide and thin. But everywhere one can trace the preservation of the proportion of equality of the width of the shoulders and hips. In this picture, it just becomes obvious. That all contours - which actually stretch out, then shrink from time to time - preserve the equality of the shoulders and hips. Well, the presence of a pronounced waist. (shoulders = hips, and there is a waist) is the only constant of all contours.

Of course, one can object here: in the picture above, the author followed the proportions of the hips, waist, chest. Growth. But not the shoulders. And I will answer: yes, there are "approximate" contours. But nevertheless - the author followed the fidelity of the contours this time. And two - we just sorted it all out. And indeed they all have the same shoulders and hips.

How has this fact not been brought up yet? For me, it's a mystery. But here I am writing, apparently, for the first time about it. Not the girth of the hips, waist, chest should be looked at. The proportions of the shoulders and hips are very important. And, I will say, it makes sense. Correct proportions are very important. The left hand should match with the right. Left foot with right foot. The left half of the face should be symmetrical to the right. Otherwise, we will say that this is ugliness, that the features are wrong. Accordingly, there is another line of symmetry, maintaining proportions - this is the width of the shoulders and hips. This is important for women. Men have different proportions and, to be honest, I'm not very interested in doing this.

Of course everyone has different tastes. And ideas about beauty - too. But the coincidence of the width of the shoulders and hips can be traced in all generally recognized "ideals". In view of this, you can even give advice on fitness. After all, they strive to get the "ideal" body. Here is the desire for 90-60-90 - this is the way to disfigure your body. But the desire, in particular, to match the width of the shoulders and hips is the way to the right proportions. Accordingly, you can swing your shoulders if they are smaller than your hips. And swing your hips - if they are smaller than your shoulders.

It is very interesting that the figures can be very different. As you can see in that last picture - in different periods, women were popular either wider or narrower. Either higher or lower. The chest is either smaller or larger. Those. it generally varies greatly. But the symmetry of the width of the shoulders and hips is present everywhere.

Well, of course, all of the above, in addition to the equality of the shoulders and hips, have other female features. Of course - everyone has a pronounced waist. Well, and so on. It just isn't covered much in this article. This article refuted the hard values ​​of 90-60-90. A clear equality of the width of the shoulders and hips is shown - which, by the way, is present in most women. And here - I will say - there is nothing strange and no. After all, this is the "norm". But as for the waist - it just has to be. For all of the above, it is quite different - but everyone has it.

In general, everything must be done to the end. Yes - I showed that comparing "girth" is generally wrong - because visually we do not see the girth - we see a two-dimensional width / height. Actually, I also showed that not the chest should coincide with the hips (90-90), but the shoulders with the hips. And not just shoulders - but the visual top of the shoulders "without" arms. Further. It remains to disassemble the issue with the waist. And here - everything is very simple. We will take the visual width of the waist and divide by the visual width of the hips. Let's calculate these ratios.

Marilyn Monroe 63%
Megan Fox 66%
Angelina Jolie 62.5%
Varley ~ 70% (taken from other photos, could not find the exact one at all)
aniston 66%
Beckinsale 66% (from another photo)
Jovovich 68% (other photo)
Portman 71%
Berry 63%
Sharapova 71%
60/90 = 66%

Which suggests that the waist should be from 60 to 70 percent. 60 is already too thin, and 70 is already almost no waist.

That. the parameters of an ideal female figure are analyzed: no girths, but the visible width of the shoulders (without arms, that is, as if only half the width of the arms enters the shoulders) should coincide with the visible width of the hips. Between these lines there should be a waist that is 60 to 70 percent of the width of the hips.

Finally, I will give a scientific interpretation of the beauty of the female body. So. female beauty is the ability to procreate. Everything is very simple here. Needed to have children wide hips, health, youth. And the beauty of a woman from the point of view of a man is an assessment of the ability of this woman to produce offspring.

Update 1
The more time passes, the more I understand how accurately I described everything here. In theory, it had already existed for a long time - I understood that it was wrong to count by girths. But when I laid out everything here, everything became much simpler. So. For further consideration of the topic, it is logical to give examples of a non-ideal figure. And here I ran into the most interesting. The fact is that the simplest thing is to analyze the proportions of actresses. The reasons are very simple: a lot of photos from different angles. This is where I ran into a huge problem: it turns out that all the girls who are photographed a lot and often and whose photos are easy to find in Google pictures have absolutely correct proportions according to the above theory. There, indeed, the visual width of the shoulders coincides with the hips and there is a waist of 62-68%.

It was very difficult to find the wrong proportions. Because they can't become famous actresses. They do not pass for a banal reason - they do not have the same proportions. I began to sort out not top actresses - who are taken to the main roles. And the secondary ones. Which seem to be beautiful - but they never made it to the main roles. Here among them I found what I need. I do not just bring their photo below - I could not resist and in graphics editor, as best he could, adjusted their figure to the standards that he himself brought higher. The first photo is the original, the second photo is corrected by me under ideal proportions.

Arianny Celeste

Alice Milano

Both have a visual width of the shoulders slightly more than the hips. There is quite a bit - but this is already enough for the eye to see a flaw, and the models / actresses have not made it to the top. I fixed it - and it really got better. There are other examples that I have found. And I realized something while looking for flawed actresses. Actresses with the wrong symmetry of the shoulders-hips ... there are no photos that show this. Everywhere, either the shoulders and waist in the frame, or the waist and hips. Those. or top part- or lower. Never together in the frame all entirely. Also, if everything is in the frame, then the shoulders are always turned. Those. the torso is turned - this visually reduces the shoulders and makes them visually equal to the hips, hiding the fact that they are larger. It is the work of the photographer - who consciously takes photos from such angles and such poses - to make the picture perfect. The photo that I could still find was very difficult to take. And for Alice Milano, this is generally cut out from a photo just from the street - the paparazzi accidentally took a picture. With some other actresses, I didn’t manage to find angles that reveal a flaw at all - they make sure that there are no such photos so much.

Update 2
Above are the ideal proportions. But this does not mean that this is the only beauty factor. This is one of the significant factors. Those. Simply - the correct proportions of the body. But there are others. Do not focus only on individual factors - and forget about others. A very important factor is simply banal health. Healthy body- nice. Unhealthy is ugly. Let there be ideal proportions - this will not fix the matter. Health is achieved by the right way of life. I have a purely theoretically planned separate article on this topic - but they may never get around to it at all. I have a lot of things planned - but not everything can be stated. So I'll lay out the basics briefly here. Health is proper nutrition. No other crazy diets. Proper food and diet is the food that our ancestors ate. Vegetable and meat. This is an absolute non-use of alcohol and tobacco. I am already silent about other substances. The human body does not require a single gram of alcohol and not a single cigarette in general for a lifetime to function properly. Not a drop of alcohol should be consumed in any form. Smoking is also absolutely not allowed. All this destroys your health, ages the skin. All this is visible. It's really visible. It destroys the body. Mandatory sports. For women, heavy sports are not allowed - dumbbells, barbells. But light fitness, gymnastics, etc. - required. female body prone to greasing. This female feature. If you look at the photo of the "ideals" above, you will see that they are neither thin nor fat. There are no bones sticking out anywhere. And nowhere is the relief hidden by subcutaneous fat. The skin is healthy, toned, elastic, a certain relief is visible, nothing hangs down, there are no layers of subcutaneous fat anywhere that hides the muscular relief, no skin hangs anywhere. They not only have a visual width of the shoulders that coincides with the hips and a waist of 62-68% - their body radiates health. It's just nice to look at the skin. She is in excellent condition. For beauty, you just need to keep your body in a healthy state.

Well, once again in conclusion. All the girls above who possess beautiful bodies and became top actresses - they all play sports. These are athletes. Literally. There is no magic there. Natural data is natural data. Everywhere there is a huge job in the first place. Gyms are now available to everyone - there are no problems with this. There is no other way to take care of your body other than playing sports. A person who does not play sports cannot have any beauty in principle.

Update 3
I will add something that I have long wanted to add. The ideal female figure has an underdeveloped chest. It is very small compared to the pelvis, the volume of the lungs is very small. I did not want to initially use this word, this term. But it's still the right thing to do.

Update 4
After many years of thinking about the above information, I noticed the following: the width of the hips can be achieved by the width of the pelvis and the width of the hips. Those. the pelvis is at the level of the pelvis. The level of the pelvis passes just above the point where the legs diverge in different directions. And below the navel. The line of the hips - passes below the point of gre, the legs diverge. Those. owners of a narrow pelvis can pump up the muscles of the thighs and thereby visually normalize the figure. But the true ideal figure is the width of the hips precisely due to the pelvis. Those. the pelvis is the base of the waist, it is wide. And the narrowing goes to the bottom. If you look at all the ideal figures above, then everywhere the width of the hips comes precisely from the pelvis. Those. wide hip bone. It is this bone that should be widely spaced.