Posts by Olivia White2

I appreciate everyone weighing in with their thoughts.
I’ve been putting in the work every single day for a week now. 🙂

gentlefox22 said:You aren't going to achieve legs like those; your hips are far too wide, at least as far as this photo shows.
Here is a GIF for you; just ignore the upper body part.
https://media2.giphy.com/media/kipKR...58304663447083

First, tell me if these legs meet your standards, and then I will proceed with my argument.

The woman in the GIF is absolutely stunning.

As for the hips—well, that happens to be my favorite part of the leg profile 😁, and I have zero intention of narrowing them down. I don't need longer legs, either. In my estimation, my legs are perfectly proportioned for my height. I stand about 5'7", which provides ample length, and once I put on some heels, the effect is even more pronounced. Honestly, some of these comments make it sound as though I’m some sort of toddler in these photos.

crimsonfox26 said:My honest opinion? You are chronically lacking muscle mass. Personally, I don't care for these legs because they look quite wobbly. The knees aren't even my primary concern here.

The real issue is that you seem reluctant to train, but if you were to actually commit to some fundamental movements—say, squats, lunges, or deadlifts—I suspect you would be quite surprised by the results. You would feel better and certainly possess more confidence regarding your physique.

...
Start working out. 😁

It is an undeniable fact that I lack muscle mass. If I weren't already motivated to take action, I wouldn't have brought this topic up in the first place. I am here specifically to hear advice from those with more experience.
Apologies if I haven't managed to respond to everyone; I am currently in quite a rush.

shadowharbor said:And let me tell you, it’s anything but easy.
Men tend to struggle with leg development quite often, primarily because their upper bodies tend to dwarf their lower halves, though I realize that’s a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison when weighed against the specific issue you're facing. It has always piqued my curiosity, however: is the difficulty rooted in the sheer intensity of the training itself—specifically a lack of targeted isolation movements—or is it simply a matter of men being too lazy to train them properly?

Honestly, those bodybuilders just aren't putting in the work when it comes to actual conditioning. You should see the leg definition on professional NFL players; that’s where the real strength is.🤣
I’ve gone ahead and put together a truly magnificent link regarding the foliage. I have to admit, I completely overlooked that particular detail before, but there it is now.

I’ve just finished watching this video, and frankly, I find myself somewhat exasperated by the sheer lack of nuance presented. It’s one of those pieces that attempts to draw sweeping conclusions from incredibly thin evidence, which is a tired tactic if there ever was one. We see this constantly in modern media—this rush to be first rather than being right. It reminds me of those debates you hear on cable news where everyone is shouting over one another, yet absolutely nothing of substance is actually communicated. One is left feeling as though their intelligence has been insulted. There is a certain level of intellectual laziness at play here that is difficult to ignore. I suspect some might argue that the presentation was engaging, but engagement is not a substitute for accuracy. To suggest otherwise is to succumb to the most basic forms of logical fallacies. We should demand better. We really should.

shadowharbor said:I am of the firm belief that most things in life boil down to a simple cocktail of genetics and sheer grit. Depending on the specific goal, one factor usually outweighs the other, though the balance shifts constantly. Take calf development, for instance; it’s highly probable that some individuals simply possess longer Achilles tendons, making hypertrophy an uphill battle regardless of effort. I recall someone mentioning in another thread that calves are roughly 80% genetic. Whether that specific figure is mathematically sound or merely anecdotal is debatable, but even if we accept that premise, it still leaves a 20% margin for improvement through disciplined work.
I honestly think you’re blowing this whole leg situation way out of proportion. Look, I get it—you don't exactly think they're a perfect ten, but that doesn't mean you should banish skirts from your wardrobe for the rest of eternity. Not really. Then again, everyone has their own particular hang-ups, I suppose. If you want my honest take? Your legs just lack a bit of definition and muscle tone. It's nothing a little work can't fix, though. Especially the thighs.

If you’re looking to actually make progress, my advice is simple: ditch the stationary bike, the treadmill, and any other form of cardio for now. It’s a waste of your potential at this stage. If you’ve been completely sedentary up until this point, you need to start by building a foundation with dumbbells and kettlebells specifically targeting the lower body. Once you’ve built that baseline, move on to the Olympic barbell. That is when you really go to work—attack the deadlift, the squat, and the hip thrust with everything you've got. Only after you have mastered those heavy, compound movements should you even bother thinking about moving to the machines or isolation exercises. Focus on the big lifts first; everything else is just noise.

Much appreciated. I’ll take those constructive suggestions to heart and give them a thorough review.

shadowharbor said:Genetics dealt me a bit of a mixed bag, honestly. On one hand, I was blessed with great legs, but on the other, my waistline is a total disaster. It’s a different set of struggles entirely when you're dealing with that kind of imbalance. 🤣

And who exactly is out there claiming that I don't have issues with my profession, either? 🤣
I’ve decided to call it quits on that particular endeavor. It's simply not happening.

I happened to catch a glimpse of your photos yesterday. You’re looking fantastic—honestly, don't even bother stressing about it.

gentlefox22 said:"Work on my thighs and calves?"
Just post a picture of your own legs so I can see what kind of physique you're actually aiming for.

Fine, obviously I can't replicate someone else's exact leg shape because genetics aren't a DIY project, but I was looking at a photo of Griffin on a fitness forum today and noticed how her right outer thigh has that distinct curve, and the calf muscle is clearly defined from the front. It’s more prominent on that side simply because of how she’s standing—she’s engaging those muscles differently—but honestly, you wouldn't even see that definition if she weren't an athlete.

She didn't just go through the standard college route; she also earned a degree in kinesiology. You have to respect the hustle of pulling off two degrees, yet people just love to tear her down for no reason.

Andrew Wells58 said:What can I even say? Theory won't actually tone your legs.🙂 Mozart, you should try hitting the gym with that friend of yours. Who knows? You might actually find you enjoy working out for its own sake, and maybe some other perks will fall into place!

Well, I get it. Thanks. I suppose I’ll just have to head to the gym. I have an exercise bike at home, but let’s be honest—that isn't going to do much for building up my thighs and calves.

You're at least the only one who bothered to respond. Everyone else has been silent, and frankly, I thought this was a pretty straightforward question.
Either people are just wired to see a problem they don't like and decide there's no point in helping—which, more often than not, is a flawed assumption—or this forum isn't actually read by any real fitness professionals, just hobbyists who aren't quite sure enough of themselves to offer actual advice.

Andrew Wells58 said:but maybe other areas can be enlarged—making them look relatively smaller by comparison.

Precisely what I was getting at.

A few years back, I had an encounter with a woman who possessed absolutely stunning legs and was constantly rocking mini-skirts. She actually had the audacity to ask why I never wear skirts. My response? Quite blunt: I told her I wasn't fond of my knees because they protrude far too much. She just laughed in my face and remarked, "Well, I have knobby knees too, and yet I'm always in a mini." She insisted I should start wearing skirts because my legs are actually quite lovely. Now, let’s be clear: they look perfectly fine in trousers. I almost exclusively wear tight pants—they accentuate the hips, hide any thigh gap issues that might make me look awkward in these photos, and effectively camouflage my knees.

That woman, with those incredibly sculpted legs, had perfectly streamlined limbs, great muscle tone, and beautiful calves; the whole silhouette was flawless. Honestly, I was stunned when she claimed to have knobby knees. I didn't notice it at all, nor could I really tell what her knee structure was like even later on. Perhaps there is a theory here: if one manages to create an "hourglass" shape with their lower body—where the thighs and calves are significantly wider than the knees—the entire aesthetic becomes more attractive, visually minimizing the knees. At least, that is my current hypothesis.

I have never once in my life worn a miniskirt or even a simple skirt. It started years ago because I was far too thin, and even after reaching a healthy weight, I’ve never felt particularly inclined to put my legs on display.

To be perfectly honest, I am quite lazy when it comes to working out, and I used to harbor this firm belief that exercise wouldn't actually do much for the silhouette of my legs. However, it recently dawned on me that perhaps, through dedicated training, one might actually achieve some semblance of decent results. Previously, I operated under the assumption that calf exercises only serve to develop the back of the lower leg, but I've recently entertained the notion that stronger calves might actually improve the profile of the leg from a side or front view, thereby theoretically enhancing the overall aesthetic. Or am I just talking nonsense? Furthermore, what specific calf exercises exist that target more than just the posterior portion, perhaps focusing on the lateral or middle sections of the leg?

My knees, specifically—is there truly nothing that can be done to make them appear flatter? 😁

The legs are located here.

On a side note, I also deal with vitiligo, which is visible in the photos, though I manage to camouflage it quite effectively during the summer months using self-tanner.

And I am certainly not being overly critical of myself alone. Looking at women out in public wearing skirts, I would estimate that about 30% of them possess legs that, if they were in my position, would discourage me from wearing a skirt at all.
I simply have no desire to showcase my imperfections unless absolutely necessary.

I always stick to cotton tights during the winter months, but lately, I've found myself increasingly bothered by the aesthetic issue of visible seams pressing against my backside whenever I wear thinner trousers.
Are there actually seamless tights available on the market, or is it simply that the seams are less pronounced in sheer pantyhose?
I noticed one forum member mentioning some sort of push-up option from Victoria's Secret that comes in 100 denier.
Those caught my interest; I assume they function more like heavy-duty pantyhose than traditional tights, but I am still uncertain whether they feature those pesky seams.

Here is my update 🙂
I just underwent neurosurgery at the Mayo Clinic. Both the surgeon and I are incredibly pleased with how everything turned out. This was a significantly more complex procedure than a standard bone shaving for a classic osteoma, primarily due to a few complications. The pre-op CT scan revealed that the tumor had actually penetrated nearly the entire length of the bone in that area. Consequently, once the tumor was removed, the surgeons had to reconstruct the site using a bone-mimicking material to prevent any unsightly indentation. They managed to handle the removal and the reconstruction all in one single session—which I feel is worth highlighting, as I have heard horror stories about patients undergoing the removal first, only to be left with a hollowed-out area, then having to decide if they even have the energy to return for a second surgery to fix it. Furthermore, during the actual procedure, it became evident that we weren't dealing with a textbook osteoma after all; the mass was highly vascularized, which required much more intensive work from the surgeon. Most importantly, the biopsy results came back clear. The incision itself was made in a crescent shape tucked right under my hairline. Since they had to shave the area around the cut during surgery, I am currently sporting a headband whenever I step outside until my hair grows back. We could have opted for a smaller incision on the forehead, but that would have been far too conspicuous, and since aesthetics are quite important to me, the surgeon wisely chose the longer, more discreet route under the hair.

The pain is non-existent. I experienced some minor discomfort around the incision site during the first week, but that has already subsided.
I am sharing this primarily to encourage anyone dealing with a similar lump on their face or head to stop procrastinating and get it addressed.

And here is what the representative claims:
Numerous clinical studies have demonstrated that taking two DuPont ® tablets daily over several months can significantly boost moisture levels within the deeper layers of the skin. Consequently, the surface layer becomes noticeably plumper, softer, and smoother. You’ll likely see the effects of DuPont ® first in areas prone to extreme dryness—think elbows, knees, hands, or shins. As time goes on, you'll start noticing changes across the entire body, including the face.

Alright, look, we all know this is a standard issue, but has anyone actually managed to fix this aesthetic dilemma?

I did a bit of digging on Google and the only thing that popped up was DuPont supplements that might potentially do the trick. Most women take them primarily to boost skin hydration. There are plenty of stellar reviews for these capsules on Amazon, though they're mostly from women using them specifically as an anti-aging solution.

I stumbled upon this thread on our forum:

A user named Diskutantica top-secret-koka wrote:

Back when I was using them, there was only one variety available. From what I can tell, they haven't changed the packaging—it was an orange-yellow box with a wavy gold line running through the middle. Which of these would that be?
To be perfectly honest, I suspect all their products are virtually identical; it’s that marine complex that actually does the heavy lifting, and apparently, they include that in everything they make.
If I were buying them today, I'd go with these http://www.imedeen.co.uk/products/an...erfection.aspx

Just so you know, the tablets have a slight oceanic taste and don't sit particularly well on an empty stomach. However, unlike most of those skin-hair-nail supplements, I didn't notice any weight gain or increased appetite.

My skin definitely felt less dehydrated; that was the first thing I noticed after just a few weeks. After that, the skin gradually becomes more resilient and thicker—almost denser—and by the end of about two months, it feels completely "new," almost like someone else's skin..It cleared up my hyperpigmentation and spots; previously, I was so "translucent" that my veins would practically show through my skin, but that effect eventually faded. As far as wrinkles go, I didn't really have an issue, so I can't say if they work in that regard. A friend of mine had issues with broken capillaries, and they helped her with that.

Bryan Barnes2 said:Where exactly on the head is it located, and what is the size of the growth?
Operating in such a delicate area isn't exactly a simple matter.

I can't think of a single reason why you wouldn't be able to have children—there shouldn't be any obstacles there at all.

It’s right on my forehead—exactly where that girl in the third link from my previous post had hers. It looks identical, though mine is slightly larger. She ended up having surgery after three years, whereas I’ve been dealing with this for seven, and frankly, the aesthetic aspect is becoming quite bothersome.
Once I realized online that people frequently opt for removal strictly for cosmetic reasons—rather than medical necessity—I decided I wanted it surgically removed as well. My plan is to start with my primary care physician to get a referral to a specialist (presumably someone specializing in cranial surgery?). I just hope there's a surgeon in the USA who performs these types of procedures.

"(An osteoma is a benign tumor composed of bone tissue—specifically, mature bony trabeculae. It can exist deep within the bone or protrude from its surface, most frequently appearing on the skull where it may bulge into the orbit or the paranasal sinuses.)"

Here are a few examples regarding the surgical removal of forehead osteomas:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3634204/

http://www.lovethatface.com/2012/12/...eir-treatment/

http://exploreplasticsurgery.com/tag/forehead-osteoma/

Regarding forehead osteomas:
"Forehead osteomas are a relatively common and benign condition where a knob of normal bone forms under the skin. They can occur at birth, develop over many years, or develop quite rapidly.
Because these bony lumps aren't mobile, they are generally harmless and typically present no issues beyond mere cosmetic concerns. Interestingly, some patients endure this condition for years simply because they remain unaware that treatment is usually nothing more than a straightforward office procedure."

It appears that jaw osteomas are also relatively frequent:

"This is a benign, slow-growing bony outgrowth, most commonly located in the mandible or the anterior sinuses, typically surfacing in individuals over the age of 40.

Treatment is surgical and involves a peripheral osteotomy of the tumor. Given its benign nature and the lack of tendency toward recurrence, a segmental resection of the jaw is not indicated for this type of tumor."

Of all various types of osteomas, the sinus osteoma is undoubtedly the most prevalent.

Seven years ago, I was diagnosed with a benign tumor located on my skull—it’s essentially part of the bone itself. For the first two years, it showed some growth, but since then, it has remained largely stagnant. Based on my own research, I suspect it might be an osteoma, though I haven't been able to track down my original medical records to confirm. Now, I am looking to schedule a follow-up, and I find myself wondering: is an MRI sufficient to get a clear picture of the current situation? I believe my previous scans were just standard X-rays or perhaps a CT scan, but I have always operated under the assumption that an MRI provides superior detail. I am simply unsure if the clarity will be comparable.
Furthermore, I need to know if this diagnosis poses any risks regarding pregnancy. I don't have children yet, but it is a consideration.
Ideally, I would prefer to have it surgically removed, as it is quite an aesthetic nuisance. However, my father is constantly hovering and trying to dissuade me; he keeps telling me this horror story about a woman who had a bony protrusion on her arm surgically removed, only to suffer from chronic pain for the rest of her life.