Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 12:06 pm
fat fuck
I sympathyse with palm, though - that doesn't make sense that if standards go up, the standard for underweight would be the standard for normal...
Bandwidth Place 2
The sequel.
https://mylilsite.net/bwp/
Brainstorming a computer, consultants wanted
Page 4 of 4
Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 3:53 pm
Gahhhh.. I can't really talk, because it doesn't seem to bother you. Heh.
I sympathyse with palm, though - that doesn't make sense that if standards go up, the standard for underweight would be the standard for normal...
I sympathyse with palm, though - that doesn't make sense that if standards go up, the standard for underweight would be the standard for normal...
Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:04 pm
im underweight and tall so its strange...
overall if the standard of a whole population goes up, then yes the underweight weight also goes up
that means palm would have to up his weight from 30yrs ago to now to be maintain underweight status, if he din up his weight hed be less than underweight now
overall if the standard of a whole population goes up, then yes the underweight weight also goes up
that means palm would have to up his weight from 30yrs ago to now to be maintain underweight status, if he din up his weight hed be less than underweight now
Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 7:09 pm
"less than underweight" is NOT "normal", its 'omg-have-you-been-eating-at-all?!?".
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 8:37 am
In todays world perfection is demanded. So you need to be the ideal weight for your height. Smarter people will realize though, that if a person is particularly muscular that his weight will reflect that.
You shouldnt be under and you shouldnt be over.
You shouldnt be under and you shouldnt be over.