Re: What are you eating ??
Posted: 19 Feb 2021, 20:38
Homemade pizza
Followed by a strawberry Cornetto
Followed by a strawberry Cornetto
Tankslap - A motorbike forum for all types of woke libtard snowflake bikers.
https://www.tankslap.co.uk/
Exactly. No differentiation from fat and muscle content. Says my healthy weight range starts at 56.7 kg. If I was that weight I’d look like a starving ice addict.Kwacky wrote:BMI isn't a very good indicator IMO. Is a one size fits all approach to weight.
Whilst I'm most certainly ignorant in this area, I wonder how much the disparity between what the scientific health experts know to actually be a healthy weight for the human animal, and what we see as "looking good", is down to changing public perception.?kiwikrasher wrote:Exactly. No differentiation from fat and muscle content. Says my healthy weight range starts at 56.7 kg. If I was that weight I’d look like a starving ice addict.Kwacky wrote:BMI isn't a very good indicator IMO. Is a one size fits all approach to weight.
The indicator for healthy weight is regarded usually in the terms of how much excess fat, especially visceral fat you are carrying. Because muscle is denser than fat you can weigh heavier being fit and healthy with a very low body fat percentage that some one of a similar size that has more fat percentage, yet their BMI would be a lower number. BMI was developed in the 70’s as a quick indicator of obesity risk, but as always, one size does not fit all.StMarks wrote:Whilst I'm most certainly ignorant in this area, I wonder how much the disparity between what the scientific health experts know to actually be a healthy weight for the human animal, and what we see as "looking good", is down to changing public perception.?kiwikrasher wrote:Exactly. No differentiation from fat and muscle content. Says my healthy weight range starts at 56.7 kg. If I was that weight I’d look like a starving ice addict.Kwacky wrote:BMI isn't a very good indicator IMO. Is a one size fits all approach to weight.
I'll reference that ^ consideration, by citing this image from that literary epic; WALL-E
Whilst I emphatically agree with all of that.....kiwikrasher wrote:,,,The indicator for healthy weight is regarded usually in the terms of how much excess fat, especially visceral fat you are carrying. Because muscle is denser than fat you can weigh heavier being fit and healthy,,,,
Ok, you’ve just convinced me I’m still a fat c**tStMarks wrote:Thanks for the explanation Kiwi, however knowing that wouldn't stop me from taking the opportunity to take a cheeky little dig at those of us who are currently feeling "a little touchy" on the subject.
Whilst I emphatically agree with all of that.....kiwikrasher wrote:,,,The indicator for healthy weight is regarded usually in the terms of how much excess fat, especially visceral fat you are carrying. Because muscle is denser than fat you can weigh heavier being fit and healthy,,,,
Playing devil's advocate; Our skeletal muscle makes up 40-50% of our body mass, and muscle is 15-20% more dense than fat.
Therefore wouldn't that make the difference between the someone who had no fat whatsoever, & someone who had no muscle whatsoever (everyone falls between those impossible extremes) at the very most 10% difference (20% of 50% ) ?
2x slices of Toast & Marmalade, with a cup of coffee.
Shhhhhhh.!Jack wrote:Is that regurgitated ?