oh dear - "ideal" rarely has anything to do with "reality".
what are you basing your ideal on?
if you have an hourglass bone structure (wide hips, wide ribcage, low waist) then you'll never look like a supermodel - more like a victoria's secret model.
you have to base your ideal on what your body is in reality. if you are genetically programmed to be big in the bust and butt, then getting the straight lines of a gymnast or a 1920s flapper is simply not going to be feasible without damaging your health.
if you know your body looks good "in general" clothed but you don't look as good without the clothes, that's yet another sign that you need to hit the weight training. a truly fit body looks better naked than dressed (barring things like pregnancy damage, of course: me, even when i was below 120lbs and looked like a stick insect, my stomach was still poochy and sagging because of having big babies - my first was 23-3/4" (60.3cm) long! my stomach and boobs actually looked like popped blisters but even though my fat level was that far down, i still had no six-pack - that's because my skin is stretched out physically and the only way to correct that kind of damage is surgery which, frankly, i don't think is worth it (any guy who has a problem with pregnancy damage is not someone i want in my bed in the first place).
|