I have made my own index for muscularity of my Kepler Bb humanoids. It is a scale from -3 to 3 in which only 0-3 are based off of muscle mass directly. -3 = Very fat, no muscles show -2 = Fat, Massive muscles show -1 = Slightly fat, most muscles show 0 = average muscle:fat ratio 1 = slightly muscular 2 = Muscular 3 = Very Muscular The muscular humanoids are attractive to both sexes. This is based off of appearance and indirectly, muscle mass. Is this a good standard? I am asking because when Robin, Lisa, and Alma start a civilization, one of the things they would be looking for is a positively skewed distribution. What I mean is that for all ages and thus general population, it is skewed more towards 3 than -3. In other words like this: Now I know this is an extreme I am showing here but I think it accurately shows what they are wanting(but at a much larger scale) . Now Alma has put some limits on who is allowed to be transported. Those are: Minimum age 15(beginning of adolescence) Not pregnant Not having a young child(younger than 10) 1:1 sex ratio(To preserve monogamy and be more family orientated) and Not ill I am not wanting to use BMI since that would add controversy as to whether a muscular man should be considered healthy or overweight. There is enough of that already in the real world. And I am not wanting to use BVI(volumetric weight distribution) since again there is controversy since 2 people can have the same BVI but in different conditions. So I figured that muscularity index would add the least controversy. But other than the controversy being low and it being a unique scale, is it a good standard? Basically, I am nearing the point where a civilization forms and Robin, Lisa, and Alma give a long speech and presentation about the species itself, the civilization plan, and anything else that might be important. So I need to know if I should add this or whether I should make a different index based off of it. I mean 2 muscular people can have different degrees of muscularity in each of the major muscle groups. But is it okay the way it is or should I revise the index to take this into account? Now I have already taken into account things like height and weight and the fact that someone can have a lot of fat and a lot of muscle at the same time. My momma is like that. People have told me that if they are starting a civilization, they should have a more flatlined distribution such as this one: Now obviously this isn't the kind of graph I was looking for but you don't see any noticeable bell curve. It is pretty much an equal distribution. But I can see problems with an equal distribution. For one, it would really constrain who Alma can send to the planet for civilization formation and I think it is constrained enough as it is. Another is what if a muscular man marries a fat woman or vice versa? There would be no way to know whether the child will end up fat like his/her mom or muscular like his/her dad unless the child had a very specific mutation that makes him/her gain fat more easily or is double muscled(Which means that the myostatin gene has been deleted causing there to be only 1 limit on muscle growth, metabolism and so automatically the child would be 2 or 3 on the index for most of its life and anywhere from -1 to 1 in the gender neutral stage). However, if 2 muscular people have a child, their child will probably naturally be muscular as well. Same goes for 2 fat people most likely having a fat child. Now what would happen if the distribution was more to the left such as in this graph: Well if the civilization was in a famine this would be good but they are not in a famine. There is plenty of game and fish and actually a surplus of fruits and veggies. Robin and Lisa have more plants than they need. They will give people young trees and bushes first(once they are established, nature can take care of it). Once Robin builds a greenhouse for everyone, they will give out seeds of some of their greenhouse perennials(I say that because they last for years in a greenhouse, even if naturally they would only last a year or 2). Anyway, since they are in this surplus situation, having more fat people than muscular people will just make the whole thing worse since healthy + fat leads to a lot of risks for MIs, arrhythmias, strokes, cirrhosis, etc. just the opposite of what they want. Even worse is that it would be passed on via genetics, even with lifestyle changes. This would make the whole situation exponentially worse as the civilization advances, even if they improve their medicine a great deal and find a way to actually reverse MIs or cirrhosis or other types of infarction. Reversing it might not prevent it and the next time it happens, it might be even worse and the reversal may or may not be effective. So that is why I think I rightward distribution is better than an equal or leftward distribution. So anyway, do you think the index is good the way it is and do you agree with a rightward distribution being best?