100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Y do guys like small chicks? | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
isaac_dede
on
Wed 03/03/10 01:02 PM
|
|
because generally they are in better shape, and our better looking. ouch, untrue and mean  As a general rule, I would say he is correct about the better shape part. If a woman is thin, she will have less chance of having the health problems that go along with being overweight. (guys too) But the better looking part is pretty subjective. I can take it to another extreme, skinny = malnourished   thin does not mean healthy Generally thin does mean healthier than fat...unless you are talking about people with diseases anorexia or bulimia but if you take two people without diseases one thin(not crack thin) and one heavier the thinner one is going to be healthier. still disagree, take 2 random thin people, 2 random regular people, 2 random thick people, 2 random fat/obese people. I'd still think that the regular sized would be healthier than the thin, and the thick would be healthier than the fat/obese. But what do I know, this is just my opinion  That depends on your definition of regular....if someone has a waist size of 27/28 are they thin or regular? what if their waist size is 36/38 is that regular? Are they 5 ft tall, 6 ft tall, or 7 ft tall? That's my point everything is subjective and depends on more data than supplied. And by whose standards are they being judged on? Would this same information be the same for a naturally thin person vs an athlete? Generally a naturally thin person and an athlete of the same height have about the same waist size...abs show through because of fat loss around the stomach. The only people to build their abs up to such a point that it would affect waist size would be pro body builders. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if ever all things were equal - thin and thick would be healthy Thin and thick can be healthy, being over-weight isn't, it all depends on your BMI Being over-weight can put a LOT more pressure on your internal organs. If being thinner wasn't associated with being healthier, then the U.S. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, and the U.S. National Institutes of Health wouldn't have developed this health risk calculator You won't see a doctor telling someone thin to gain weight if they have high blood pressure, but you always see doctors telling over-weight patients to LOWER their weight when they are over-weight for the same condition. BTW - being thin is NOT the same thing as being anorexic. That would be a warped definition. Being thin just means having little body fat. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if ever all things were equal - thin and thick would be healthy Thin and thick can be healthy, being over-weight isn't, it all depends on your BMI Being over-weight can put a LOT more pressure on your internal organs. If being thinner wasn't associated with being healthier, then the U.S. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, and the U.S. National Institutes of Health wouldn't have developed this health risk calculator You won't see a doctor telling someone thin to gain weight if they have high blood pressure, but you always see doctors telling over-weight patients to LOWER their weight when they are over-weight for the same condition. BTW - being thin is NOT the same thing as being anorexic. That would be a warped definition. Being thin just means having little body fat. BTW - I never mentioned anorexia, bulimia nor any other eating disorder (how you like them there apples)  I did say malnourished, so who's definition is warped now  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
franshade
on
Wed 03/03/10 01:22 PM
|
|
and before it's taken to a personal level - this is what I look like (default pic)
You tell me am I thin, regular, fat, or obese? Am I healthy? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You certainly look healthy from here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BTW - I never mentioned anorexia, bulimia nor any other eating disorder Which is probably why I didn't quote you anywhere None the less, some people do confuse the two terms which is why I clarified it  I did say malnourished, so who's definition is warped now Yours, if you think "malnourished" = thin. Malnourished simply means lack of proper nutrition. An over-weight 5th grader sucking down donuts and Coke could easily be malnourished You tell me am I thin, regular, fat, or obese? What's your BMI? Am I healthy? It's not possible to determine that from a picture. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
franshade
on
Wed 03/03/10 01:46 PM
|
|
BTW - I never mentioned anorexia, bulimia nor any other eating disorder Which is probably why I didn't quote you anywhere None the less, some people do confuse the two terms which is why I clarified it Then it's a good thing I am not easily confused  I did say malnourished, so who's definition is warped now Yours, if you think "malnourished" = thin. Malnourished simply means lack of proper nutrition. An over-weight 5th grader sucking down donuts and Coke could easily be malnourished Wrong again, my definition is not warped just differs from yours  You tell me am I thin, regular, fat, or obese? What's your BMI? I'll tell you mine if you tell me yours :smitten Am I healthy? It's not possible to determine that from a picture. then how can you nor anyone else assume that thin = healthy with only words being typed? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BTW - I never mentioned anorexia, bulimia nor any other eating disorder Which is probably why I didn't quote you anywhere None the less, some people do confuse the two terms which is why I clarified it I did say malnourished, so who's definition is warped now Yours, if you think "malnourished" = thin. Malnourished simply means lack of proper nutrition. An over-weight 5th grader sucking down donuts and Coke could easily be malnourished You tell me am I thin, regular, fat, or obese? What's your BMI? Am I healthy? It's not possible to determine that from a picture. BMI is not an accurate tool, which has been determined sure it may help to 'give you an idea' but it is flawed. Especially because it deals strictly with weight, a body builder, or an athlete with considerable muscle mass is going to be out of range of the BMI as it does not take into account body types either. A more accurate description coule be from using a standard measuring tape |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and before it's taken to a personal level - this is what I look like (default pic) You tell me am I thin, regular, fat, or obese? Am I healthy? Your beautiful Frannie Bananie!!:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isaac - re: BMI
please explain how the standard measuring tape would be useful if using the same scenario a healthy person and a weight lifter, there are bound to be very different measurements. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and before it's taken to a personal level - this is what I look like (default pic) You tell me am I thin, regular, fat, or obese? Am I healthy? It's hard to tell from that picture. Can you post one with your clothes off please? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and before it's taken to a personal level - this is what I look like (default pic) You tell me am I thin, regular, fat, or obese? Am I healthy? Your beautiful Frannie Bananie!!:  aww thank you sunshine  When I grow up I wanna be as beautiful as you are, inside and out
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and before it's taken to a personal level - this is what I look like (default pic) You tell me am I thin, regular, fat, or obese? Am I healthy? It's hard to tell from that picture. Can you post one with your clothes off please? your wish is my command 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and before it's taken to a personal level - this is what I look like (default pic) You tell me am I thin, regular, fat, or obese? Am I healthy? It's hard to tell from that picture. Can you post one with your clothes off please? your wish is my command  might have to check back on this thread!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
isaac_dede
on
Wed 03/03/10 02:00 PM
|
|
Isaac - re: BMI please explain how the standard measuring tape would be useful if using the same scenario a healthy person and a weight lifter, there are bound to be very different measurements. BMI is supposed to calculate body fat percentage if you consider let's say Randy Couture professional MMA fighter. He's 6'1 and 205 pounds according to the BMI calculator he'd have to have 27 percent body fat(which is overweight, bording obesity)......in order to see your abs defined generally you have to have below 10 percent body fat.....you can see it is flawed logic. However if you consider the measurements of his neck, waistline and other factors into the mix you get a better Idea. Here is a link to enter in your measurements as well as your weight. http://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/bfb |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my definition is not warped just differs from yours Apparently, different from the dictionary too then how can you nor anyone else assume that thin = healthy with only words being typed? OK, to be "technical" a person could be thin and also have excessive internal fat, but that's a rare condition and not what everyone here is referring to This is why I said "all things being equal" earlier. There are so many terms being thrown around that it's hard to know which applies to what. Thin could also be called slim. Regarding 'heath' indicators, waist circumference is a better measure because it reflects internal body density. Obviously that circumference is going to be greater on a over-weight person On the other hand, osteoporosis occurs more frequently in 'thin' people later in life, but again, this is the exception and not the rule with a thin person. Bottom line, those who are generally at the peak of health, say a triathlon athlete, is always thin (lower BMI) and not over-weight 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
isaac_dede
on
Wed 03/03/10 02:24 PM
|
|
my definition is not warped just differs from yours Apparently, different from the dictionary too then how can you nor anyone else assume that thin = healthy with only words being typed? OK, to be "technical" a person could be thin and also have excessive internal fat, but that's a rare condition and not what everyone here is referring to This is why I said "all things being equal" earlier. There are so many terms being thrown around that it's hard to know which applies to what. Thin could also be called slim. Regarding 'heath' indicators, waist circumference is a better measure because it reflects internal body density. Obviously that circumference is going to be greater on a over-weight person On the other hand, osteoporosis occurs more frequently in 'thin' people later in life, but again, this is the exception and not the rule with a thin person. Bottom line, those who are generally at the peak of health, say a triathlon athlete, is always thin (lower BMI) and not over-weight really?  He has a BMI of 27...which is considered overweight...hmmmm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
AngelArs
on
Wed 03/03/10 02:50 PM
|
|
He has a BMI of 27...which is considered overweight.. I would need more information to comment. Something sounds a bit skewed. BMI is not perfect, BUT is IS a way for doctors, researchers, dietitians, and government agencies to all be on the same page, which is why it was developed by the National Institutes of Health. BMI replaced the old life insurance tables as a method to gauge healthy weight. Those were really out of whack BTW - your same source relied on BMI for this article US researchers found that obese patients with kidney tumours have 48 per cent higher odds of developing a clear-cell renal cell cancer (RCC) than patients with a body mass index (BMI) of less than 30. And the odds increase by four per cent for every extra BMI point. BMI is a tool. Nothing more. Nothing less. . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He has a BMI of 27...which is considered overweight.. I would need more information to comment. Something sounds a bit skewed. BMI is not perfect, BUT is IS a way for doctors, researchers, dietitians, and government agencies to all be on the same page, which is why it was developed by the National Institutes of Health. BMI replaced the old life insurance tables as a method to gauge healthy weight. Those were really out of whack Nothing is skewed BMI is a formula to determine your BMI you need to times you're weight by 703 then dived it by you're height in inches squares....BMI=(weight in pounds)*703/(Height in inches)^2 He is 6'1(73inches), 205lbs. 205*703=144,115 73^2=5329 BMI=144,115/5329=27.04 According to the standard BMI table Below 18.5 Underweight 18.5 -24.9 Normal 25 - 29.9 Overweight 30 & Above Obese Classify him as overweight.... Or if you want to go with Micheal Jordan in his prime..according to his BMI it would put him as well between the 26-28 range which would classify as being overweight...but he had a waist size of less than 30.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing is skewed BMI is a formula to determine your BMI you need to times you're weight by 703 then dived it by you're height in inches squares....BMI=(weight in pounds)*703/(Height in inches)^2 See here. I would classify him as an athlete (same with Micheal Jordan). As stated on that page: "It may overestimate body fat in athletes and others who have a muscular build." Obviously most people are not athletes, especially in the U.S. and Australia. Athletes need to also included other factors such as waist circumference in their measurements. |
|
|
|
|
