Reply
Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. #1
    Registered User EiFit91's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2020
    Age: 51
    Posts: 779
    Rep Power: 4920
    EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500)
    EiFit91 is offline

    Another Feigenbaum claim: BMI underreports obesity

    https://twitter.com/Jordan_theCoach/...35518146912256

    Thought this one may make for an interesting discussion.

    "BMI underreports obesity because it misses 1/2 of folks who are carrying too much body fat, but have BMI <30. nearly 95% of folks w/ BMI > 30 are carrying too much body fat. In short, there are way more “skinny-fat” than jacked folks. Current rec is to add WC to BMI for screening"
    The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.

    - Richard Feynman
    Reply With Quote

  2. #2
    Registered User EliKoehn's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2019
    Age: 51
    Posts: 1,916
    Rep Power: 8906
    EliKoehn is a name known to all. (+5000) EliKoehn is a name known to all. (+5000) EliKoehn is a name known to all. (+5000) EliKoehn is a name known to all. (+5000) EliKoehn is a name known to all. (+5000) EliKoehn is a name known to all. (+5000) EliKoehn is a name known to all. (+5000) EliKoehn is a name known to all. (+5000) EliKoehn is a name known to all. (+5000) EliKoehn is a name known to all. (+5000) EliKoehn is a name known to all. (+5000)
    EliKoehn is online now
    I thought BMI was discarded as a primary metric a long time ago?

    Click link if you want to see some obesity: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/DJURC0RvKBA/maxresdefault.jpg
    Bench: 320
    Squat: 375
    Deadlift: 495

    "... But always, there remained, the discipline of steel!"
    Reply With Quote

  3. #3
    Registered User EiFit91's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2020
    Age: 51
    Posts: 779
    Rep Power: 4920
    EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500)
    EiFit91 is offline
    Originally Posted by EliKoehn View Post
    I thought BMI was discarded as a primary metric a long time ago?

    Click link if you want to see some obesity: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/DJURC0RvKBA/maxresdefault.jpg
    I think BMI combined with waist circumference is a decent measurement for most people.

    Low BMI = Skinny with little muscle
    Normal BMI + high waist circumference = Skinny-fat
    Normal BMI + low waist circumference = Lean
    High BMI + high waist circumference = Fat (but could also have a good muscle base)
    High BMI + low waist circumference = Muscular

    "High waist circumference" would be > 37 inches in males.

    Muscular guys with a large skeletal frame would be the main exception to the above scheme IMO.
    Last edited by EiFit91; 06-14-2021 at 02:04 PM.
    The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.

    - Richard Feynman
    Reply With Quote

  4. #4
    Super Spreader desslok's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2010
    Posts: 24,932
    Rep Power: 142475
    desslok has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) desslok has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) desslok has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) desslok has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) desslok has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) desslok has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) desslok has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) desslok has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) desslok has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) desslok has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) desslok has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    desslok is offline
    BMI was great when it was invented 170 years ago, but its about as useful as other 170 year old things. I personally prefer the 3 somatypes.
    A dock in harbor is safe, and thats what docks are built for.
    Reply With Quote

  5. #5
    Registered User Heisman2's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2005
    Posts: 13,645
    Rep Power: 73032
    Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    Heisman2 is online now
    When I have looked at this I recall it missing more like 20%, not 50%. I may have to look into this again unless someone else wants to search the literature.

    Edit: I misread it. 20% is the number I recall for people who have a normal BMI but actually have excess adipose tissue.
    Reply With Quote

  6. #6
    Registered User Strawng's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2016
    Age: 27
    Posts: 4,526
    Rep Power: 89812
    Strawng has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Strawng has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Strawng has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Strawng has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Strawng has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Strawng has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Strawng has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Strawng has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Strawng has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Strawng has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Strawng has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000)
    Strawng is offline
    I hate to say it, and I really think his claim of eating 2.7k cals per day at his size and activity level due to NEAT down-regulation is one of the biggest crocks of chit I've ever heard even in the $hitness industry, but I believe he's right on this one. Here's a study that shows BMI majorly underreports obesity 9from a BF % standpoint), particularly in white men:https://bmcobes.biomedcentral.com/ar.../2052-9538-1-9. The popular claim is that BMI doesn't "account for muscle", but the vast majority of even men aren't so over-muscled to the point of being obese. Matter-of-fact, if you're natty you can likely really only be "overweight" by BMI and remain lean. I mean, just think about it: Do you really see more bodybuilders than skinny fat people & overweight people without slabs of muscle? Unless you think Instagram & superhero movies are real-life, then you have to be honest and acknowledge that BMI likely misses more overweight people who are actually less healthy than their weights imply than superstuds who have so much lean muscle they're considered overweight or obese.

    The majority of people have never lifted a weight or at least trained properly, and have little muscle mass despite being overweight or obese. Compounding this, East & South Asians oftentimes develop metabolic issues like Type 2 diabetes even at a healthy BMI due to having smaller frames. If they're underestimating obesity in white men, BMI charts are certainly missing many smaller framed people who have a high BF %.
    Reply With Quote

  7. #7
    Registered User EiFit91's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2020
    Age: 51
    Posts: 779
    Rep Power: 4920
    EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500)
    EiFit91 is offline
    Originally Posted by Strawng View Post
    I hate to say it, and I really think his claim of eating 2.7k cals per day at his size and activity level due to NEAT down-regulation is one of the biggest crocks of chit I've ever heard even in the $hitness industry, but I believe he's right on this one. Here's a study that shows BMI majorly underreports obesity 9from a BF % standpoint), particularly in white men:https://bmcobes.biomedcentral.com/ar.../2052-9538-1-9. The popular claim is that BMI doesn't "account for muscle", but the vast majority of even men aren't so over-muscled to the point of being obese. Matter-of-fact, if you're natty you can likely really only be "overweight" by BMI and remain lean. I mean, just think about it: Do you really see more bodybuilders than skinny fat people & overweight people without slabs of muscle? Unless you think Instagram & Superhero movies are real-life, then you have to be honest and acknowledge that BMI likely misses more overweight people who are actually obese than superstuds who have so much lean muscle they're considered overweight or obese.

    The majority of people have never lifted a weight or at least trained properly, and have little muscle mass despite being overweight or obese. Compounding this, East & South Asians can develop metabolic issues like Type 2 diabetes even at a healthy BMI due to having smaller frames. If they're underestimating obesity in white men, BMI charts are certainly missing many smaller framed people who have a high BF %.
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Strawng again.
    The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.

    - Richard Feynman
    Reply With Quote

  8. #8
    6'0" 200 nothingshocking's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2017
    Location: Uranus, Gambia
    Posts: 16,296
    Rep Power: 394431
    nothingshocking has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) nothingshocking has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) nothingshocking has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) nothingshocking has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) nothingshocking has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) nothingshocking has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) nothingshocking has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) nothingshocking has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) nothingshocking has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) nothingshocking has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) nothingshocking has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    nothingshocking is offline
    I would have to weigh 184 to not be overweight on the bmi scale.

    I'm 192 in my avi.
    This machine is obsolete
    Reply With Quote

  9. #9
    Real Estate Expert rectifryer's Avatar
    Join Date: Sep 2012
    Posts: 10,578
    Rep Power: 87417
    rectifryer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) rectifryer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) rectifryer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) rectifryer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) rectifryer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) rectifryer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) rectifryer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) rectifryer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) rectifryer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) rectifryer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) rectifryer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000)
    rectifryer is online now
    It's 100% correct, BMI is useless in every way. It doesn't even make a distinction by sex. Just height vs weight, we're all the same, drink your soy milk and lick the aspartame block.
    Misc's sole and prevailing real estate expert
    Reply With Quote

  10. #10
    team ketchup AdamWW's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2006
    Location: Seattle, Washington, United States
    Posts: 24,218
    Rep Power: 124439
    AdamWW has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) AdamWW has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) AdamWW has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) AdamWW has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) AdamWW has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) AdamWW has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) AdamWW has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) AdamWW has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) AdamWW has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) AdamWW has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) AdamWW has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    AdamWW is online now
    Originally Posted by Strawng View Post
    I hate to say it, and I really think his claim of eating 2.7k cals per day at his size and activity level due to NEAT down-regulation is one of the biggest crocks of chit I've ever heard even in the $hitness industry, but I believe he's right on this one. .

    Agreed, but just FYI it wasn't actually Jordan's stats and intake he was talking about with the 2.7k number, it was Alan Thrall's... but Alan is even more active than Jordan based on the videos and interviews I've seen him in before.

    So the number was basically for a 6 foot, 185lb, 10% bodyfat male doing 9-10 miles of walking a day plus almost daily strongman / strength training.

    Which is obviously absurd.
    The power of carbs compels me!
    Reply With Quote

  11. #11
    Registered User Strawng's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2016
    Age: 27
    Posts: 4,526
    Rep Power: 89812
    Strawng has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Strawng has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Strawng has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Strawng has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Strawng has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Strawng has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Strawng has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Strawng has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Strawng has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Strawng has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Strawng has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000)
    Strawng is offline
    Originally Posted by AdamWW View Post
    Agreed, but just FYI it wasn't actually Jordan's stats and intake he was talking about with the 2.7k number, it was Alan Thrall's... but Alan is even more active than Jordan based on the videos and interviews I've seen him in before.

    So the number was basically for a 6 foot, 185lb, 10% bodyfat male doing 9-10 miles of walking a day plus almost daily strongman / strength training.

    Which is obviously absurd.
    Ahh well that does make it a little more excusable. He's 100% wrong. There's not a chance in Hell Thrall only eats that much, but it'd be more egregious if Jordan were tracking his OWN calories that poorly lol
    Reply With Quote

  12. #12
    team ketchup AdamWW's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2006
    Location: Seattle, Washington, United States
    Posts: 24,218
    Rep Power: 124439
    AdamWW has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) AdamWW has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) AdamWW has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) AdamWW has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) AdamWW has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) AdamWW has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) AdamWW has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) AdamWW has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) AdamWW has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) AdamWW has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) AdamWW has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    AdamWW is online now
    Originally Posted by Strawng View Post
    Ahh well that does make it a little more excusable. He's 100% wrong. There's not a chance in Hell Thrall only eats that much, but it'd be more egregious if Jordan were tracking his OWN calories that poorly lol
    Yeah it doesn't make it any less silly tho.

    A 185lb, 6 foot tall dude, at like 10% BF....

    I would estimate on just that 9-10 miles of walking he's at least burning 900-1000 calories alone... add in the training, knowing how intensely he goes... it has to be anywhere between 500-800...


    And that isn't even factoring in NEAT or anything else.
    The power of carbs compels me!
    Reply With Quote

  13. #13
    Registered User Strawng's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2016
    Age: 27
    Posts: 4,526
    Rep Power: 89812
    Strawng has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Strawng has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Strawng has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Strawng has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Strawng has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Strawng has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Strawng has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Strawng has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Strawng has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Strawng has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Strawng has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000)
    Strawng is offline
    Originally Posted by AdamWW View Post
    Yeah it doesn't make it any less silly tho.

    A 185lb, 6 foot tall dude, at like 10% BF....

    I would estimate on just that 9-10 miles of walking he's at least burning 900-1000 calories alone... add in the training, knowing how intensely he goes... it has to be anywhere between 500-800...


    And that isn't even factoring in NEAT or anything else.
    Oh, I completely agree. I don't care if Alan is in a medically-induced coma the whole time he's not walking 10 miles per day and doing strongman training/coaching, he ain't maintaining on 2.7k calories. His fuking BMR alone at those stats would be just over 2k calories!

    Edit* Alan at one point claimed he ate 10k calories per day to gain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4VMK9z_o-c

    I just...I...?!

    Yknow, it actually all makes perfect sense if I just don’t think about it at all…any of it…at all…
    Last edited by Strawng; 06-14-2021 at 03:30 PM.
    Reply With Quote

  14. #14
    team ketchup AdamWW's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2006
    Location: Seattle, Washington, United States
    Posts: 24,218
    Rep Power: 124439
    AdamWW has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) AdamWW has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) AdamWW has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) AdamWW has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) AdamWW has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) AdamWW has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) AdamWW has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) AdamWW has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) AdamWW has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) AdamWW has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) AdamWW has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    AdamWW is online now
    Originally Posted by Strawng View Post
    Oh, I completely agree. I don't care if Alan is in a medically-induced coma the whole time he's not walking 10 miles per day and doing strongman training/coaching, he ain't maintaining on 2.7k calories. His fuking BMR alone at those stats would be just over 2k calories!

    Edit* Alan at one point claimed he ate 10k calories per day to gain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4VMK9z_o-c

    I just...I...?!

    Yknow, it actually all makes perfect sense if I just don’t think about it at all…any of it…at all…
    Yeah apparently he did some crazy 5 months bulking thing because he wanted to just pack on weight for certain lifts… so he was definitely gaining a lot of fat doing that

    BUT, he made a follow-up video when he was maintaining at about 215lb wherein he was eating about 4K on non-lifting days and up to 6k on lifting days.

    Either way, MUCH MORE than 2.7k
    The power of carbs compels me!
    Reply With Quote

  15. #15
    Registered User Heisman2's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2005
    Posts: 13,645
    Rep Power: 73032
    Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    Heisman2 is online now
    For those curious, this is a good read describing some of the issues with BMI: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/obr.13190
    Reply With Quote

  16. #16
    Registered User pumpkineskobar's Avatar
    Join Date: May 2013
    Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Age: 32
    Posts: 58
    Rep Power: 102
    pumpkineskobar has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) pumpkineskobar has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) pumpkineskobar has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) pumpkineskobar has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) pumpkineskobar has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) pumpkineskobar has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) pumpkineskobar has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) pumpkineskobar has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) pumpkineskobar has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0)
    pumpkineskobar is offline
    Originally Posted by EiFit91 View Post

    "High waist circumference" would be > 37 inches in males.

    Muscular guys with a large skeletal frame would be the main exception to the above scheme IMO.
    Why not waist to hip ratio of 0.9 or less? 37 inches waist seems pretty arbitrary and would benefit people with smaller frames (like the BMI)
    Reply With Quote

  17. #17
    Registered User EiFit91's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2020
    Age: 51
    Posts: 779
    Rep Power: 4920
    EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) EiFit91 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500)
    EiFit91 is offline
    Originally Posted by pumpkineskobar View Post
    Why not waist to hip ratio of 0.9 or less? 37 inches waist seems pretty arbitrary and would benefit people with smaller frames (like the BMI)
    Others here will know more than me, but from what I have seen plain waist circumference tends to be either as good as or a better indicator than waist to hip ratio:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/0801582

    https://academic.oup.com/qjmed/article/96/6/441/1585183

    37 inches is where you start to see increasing health risk in studies, so in that sense it is not arbitrary.
    The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.

    - Richard Feynman
    Reply With Quote

  18. #18
    Registered User Heisman2's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2005
    Posts: 13,645
    Rep Power: 73032
    Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    Heisman2 is online now
    For people who want to read more on the utility of waist circumference measurements in comparison/addition to BMI, this is a great read: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41574-019-0310-7
    Reply With Quote

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
www.000webhost.com