[grosum]

Thats nothin, scroll down to THE DAY AFTER and check out the leg vascularity.
http://www.elenaseiple.com/journal.html

[Bart Gunn]

[David C. Matthews]

I have never

ever

EVER!

seen that much vascularity on anyone's abs before, male or female.

I'm not quite sure whether I find that degree of vascularity attractive, but these two photos of Amanda (and the one of Elena) are valuable reference pics; show me where the veins are, and I'll then pick and choose which ones to highlight and which to omit for the effect I want.

So, many thanks for posting and linking to these pics!!

[Anonymous]

Although it is unhealthy to have a low body fat percentage, the body fat you're probably thinking of are the "bad fats" that aren't really necessary.

When your muscles are working harder than your heart, they send the blood back faster than the heart can pump it out. Thus the resulting shift in blood flow causes the veins to swell. Slightly unattractive yes, unhealthy nope.

Two things:
1. It is unhealthy for women to drop below 14% body fat. We need to carry more fat than men, "healthy" or not.
2. The extreme vascularity you describe IS unhealthy, as Pimp and others have laid out.

Vascularity is something that I haven't ever considered. Sure, I know it's all there, but I never thought about it in a sense of attractiveness vs. unattractiveness. To me, it's like unusually large muscles: they exist sometimes, and may or may not look good…you just kind of ignore their "attractive" appeal and admire what's there. So, since I have always ignored it, I must ask why it's a big deal to you guys.

[Eric]

I'm not into vascularity, myself.

Too much of it distracts me from their beautiful muscles…

Later,

Eric F., EnhanceMan

[Anonymous]

I'm not into vascularity, myself.

Too much of it distracts me from their beautiful muscles…

Hmm, that makes sense.

[Debido-San]

believe it or not…I've seen more vascularity on a woman's abs….you guys wanna see?  😀

EDIT: Aww why not…here's the pic…looking at the two, maybe the girl in this pic could be less or just about equally vascular….I don't know lol…you guys decide!

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/6130/veinabs3vr.jpg

And no, I'm pretty sure it's NOT Amanda Dunbar again…just look at the date lol…

[The_Pimp_NeonBlack]

And no, I'm pretty sure it's NOT Amanda Dunbar again…just look at the date lol…

It is not Ms. Dunbar in that photograph, dear Debido-san. If you would be so kind as to note her hands, the Lady in that photograph is of a considered more accompaniment of years than Ms. Dunbar (who was born in 1980 if I's recall). The Lady in the photograph is also married, Ms. Dunbar is not.
And the vascularity seems on almost equal, but the Lady in the photo does not appear to have stripped as much water weight as Ms. Dunbar, so it is hard to make a clear judgement.
But it matters not.
Peace
The Pimp NeonBlack

[pete]

Hi All.
'Scuse my igorance, but in the photo that "Bartgunn99" posted a coupla days ago, why is  the lasses left arm  LESS  vascular than the rest of her so obviously is….. shouldnt the inside of her arms be as veiny as the outside, if her skin is that "thin"?

[David]

Hi Pete,
it all depends on where the veins under the skin run and how much she's been flexing. If Amanda in the picture you mentioned had been doing a lot of flexing of her right arm it might have made them more visible than the ones in her left at the moment.

[Author]

Posts