Here HereCanton said:I'm a bit skeptical. We're talking about the land of sumo wrestlers here.
My thoughts exactlyCanton said:I'm a bit skeptical. We're talking about the land of sumo wrestlers here.
Fails on both musclemass and bone density. By volume, muscle is almost three times heavier than fat, and bone tissue heavier still, so bmi is not the most useful way to test such things.Amnestic said:Doesn't BMI generally fail to account for musclemass?Nomad said:I agree, it'd be more logical for them to go with BMI or something if they have to regulate it.Amnestic said:Foolish. People are different heights and thus different builds. Sliding scale depending on height>>>Set figures across the board.
I just measured my waist for comparison, and I'm at 70 cm. And I'm so thin that the doctors scold me every time I'm doing a health checkup because I don't eat enough.
which begs the question. if ones pelvic structure is too large to physically allow such a waistline are they exempt or do they have to undergo re constructive surgery. personally I think the media are making up laws again. like they did with that "curvy cucumbers" banquiet_samurai said:Chrissyluky said:indeed we should. also why are the females allowed to be fatter? And do pregnant women have to obey this law?quiet_samurai said:Lol good!
We should adopt that in America for a year... somebody call Obama.
Probably becaue it makes their boobs bigger......?
No, women already have wider hips and waists to begin with anyways.