Hilary Swank Soild Looking in a Bikini

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 13 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #94914
    GWHH
    Participant

    Hilary Swank Soild in a Bikini on the Beach in Hawaii 8/12/10

    she gained 19 lbs of muscle for the 2004 movie million dollor baby!

    Million Dollar Body: Hilary Swank, 36, shows off her incredibly flat stomach
    By Daily Mail Reporter
    Last updated at 11:07 AM on 16th August 2010

    She may have turned 36 a week ago, but judging by her trim figure Hilary Swank is showing no signs of easing into middle age.

    The Oscar winning actress donned a pretty pink string bikini that showed off her toned and athletic physique whist on holiday in Hawaii with her boyfriend John Campisi.

    Strolling side by side, the couple walked along the beach path in front of their hotel.

    Lets go this way: The Oscar winner is on holiday in Hawaii with her boyfriend of four years, agent John Campisi
    Swank, who won her first Oscar for Boys Don’t Cry and her second for Million Dollar Baby, has been dating Campisi, a talent agent for Creative Arts Agency, since 2006.
    While Swank appeared to have no problem wandering around partially dressed, her boyfriend seemed more comfortable covering up in long board shorts and a T-shirt.
    Swank’s body may look like the result of hard work, but she says she ‘loves’ staying in shape.
    Rocking body: Hilary Swank shows off her washboard abs in a pink bikini

    She claims to be ‘athletically inclined’ and says she ‘loves sports,’ using Power Pilates and Core Fusion, a mix of pilates, yoga and cardio, to keep her body in perfect shape.

    For her role in Million Dollar Baby in 2004, Swank had to gain 19 pounds of muscle to make her role as a female boxer believable. She cut down on carbs, ate high protein and high fat meals in order to achieve the boxer look and gain minimal fat.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1303170/Hilary-Swank-shows-rock-hard-abs-tiny-pink-bikini.html#ixzz0wnldBDtF

    #94919
    cpbell0033944
    Participant

    She’s looking very good!

    #94963

    Thin and skeletonlike is not ripped.

    Please stop posting shit like this, worst is: ‘Keira Knightley ripped’

    #94968
    cpbell0033944
    Participant

    Solarian, aka LordDaroth wrote:

    Thin and skeletonlike is not ripped.

    Please stop posting shit like this, worst is: ‘Keira Knightley ripped’

    Sorry, I disagree. She’s lean, yes, and not heavily-muscled, but she’s not skeletal.

    #94969
    Tonus
    Participant

    I don’t know that I’d describer her as “ripped” but she definitely doesn’t appear emaciated. I’d describe her as “athletic.” I’d also describe her as “pretty fucking amazing.” She looks great!

    #94971
    TC2
    Participant

    Let’s clear some definitions up, because it pisses me off when people get it wrong and I go in expecting more than what I got.

    This would be defined as RIPPED:

    http://heidivuorela.blogg.se/

    This would be defined as BUFF:

    http://amg-lite.com/?view=http://www.amgprofiles.com/DianaT/Pics/Diana1104.jpg

    This would be defined as MUSCULAR:

    http://amg-lite.com/?view=http://www.amgprofiles.com/Lindsay/Pics/Lindsay1201.jpg

    This would be defined as HUGE (for mainstream standards anyway):

    http://www.female-bodybuilders.org/sissel-lyngvaer/

    Hillary Swank would currently be defined as FIT:

    So the proper definition is FIT.

    #94974
    FlakBait
    Keymaster

    since we’re defining things….
    [/URL]

    #95002
    luvmuslgirls
    Participant

    the_collector_2 wrote:

    Let’s clear some definitions up, because it pisses me off when people get it wrong and I go in expecting more than what I got.

    This would be defined as RIPPED:

    http://heidivuorela.blogg.se/

    This would be defined as BUFF:

    http://amg-lite.com/?view=http://www.amgprofiles.com/DianaT/Pics/Diana1104.jpg

    This would be defined as MUSCULAR:

    http://amg-lite.com/?view=http://www.amgprofiles.com/Lindsay/Pics/Lindsay1201.jpg

    This would be defined as HUGE (for mainstream standards anyway):

    http://www.female-bodybuilders.org/sissel-lyngvaer/

    Hillary Swank would currently be defined as FIT:

    So the proper definition is FIT.

    Collector? I agree with you and Solarian. Although I think you stretched your point a little thin and simplistic. For example, the RIPPED and MUSCULAR pics are just that. it could be said they are both in ripped and muscular shape. Meaning low and very low bodyfat. Extreme muscle definition. The HUGE model fits this category also.
    Actually, I would have selected a woman such as Julie Bourassa as an example of huge. http://amg-lite.com/?view=http://www.amgprofiles.com/JulieB/Pics/Julie0005.jpg

    All in all, Hillary Swank isn’t more than a LITTLE muscle and mostly Hollywood skin and bones. Look at those knobby knees and elbows. In the movie, Million Dollar Baby, she was looking good, but not really ripped.

    #95003
    TC2
    Participant

    luvmusgirls,

    They were for general terms. Most of the time people around here exaggerate the definitions to the extreme. For instance, Keria Knightly would not be considered BUFF or Ripped, yet some posters would define her as that.

    The terms I listed were just to give a better general idea. At least if someone says “Muscular woman on beach” I can expect to see someone with noticeable muscles. Or if I read about a “buff woman” I can expect her to look like she has at least some biceps.

    If you want to spend time googling better definitions, be my guest.

    #95010
    luvmuslgirls
    Participant

    Yeah, sorry about my over analyzing. I just am that way. But I agree with on what’s been said about when someone posts “muscular women” and it turns out not to be the case. After you been on this site awhile, you get to know the members responsible for misrepresenting , or at least, exaggerating their posts.

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 13 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.