Must-haves after LL

Edit Post

Quote from: Body Builder on October 23, 2020, 12:06:13 PMI said that generally speaking, taller men, especially from new generations, are slim with narrower shoulders.

Absolutely true.
In every population the height increase in these last 100 years is due for the most for limbs length. It’s a fact everybody can check about. And it’s a fact that shorter people tend to have an higher height/limbs ratio.

Edit Post

Does the paper state growth, or just ossification?

How does growth vary with the onset and termination of ossification?

What is the distribution, the mean, the detailed ranges, the interquaetiles etc.?

Are the individuals from distinct genetic lineages?

Is the method of analysis the gold standard?

You do know that the link you are relying is so low impact factor that reputable scientists wouldn't rely on it?

Have you read the actual paper or just the abstract?

I have researched and can find no quality evidence to support your statement that 'shoulder width has not reached max' in this population

Please can you provide a quality source that substantiates your claim. I hope you aren't a scientist or in the medical profession as that would be the nadir.

Edit Post

Quote from: HeightGain on October 25, 2020, 02:45:10 PMDoes the paper state growth, or just ossification?

How does growth vary with the onset and termination of ossification?

What is the distribution, the mean, the detailed ranges, the interquaetiles etc.?

Are the individuals from distinct genetic lineages?

Is the method of analysis the gold standard?

You do know that the link you are relying is so low impact factor that reputable scientists wouldn't rely on it?

Have you read the actual paper or just the abstract?

I have researched and can find no quality evidence to support your statement that 'shoulder width has not reached max' in this population

Please can you provide a quality source that substantiates your claim. I hope you aren't a scientist or in the medical profession as that would be the nadir.

Pretty sure you already have read my reply but for some reason chose to respond now. Read the papers, I am not going to answer all of your questions. You demand scientfic papers for my claim while I arleady provided a source and when the other guy claims that foods lead to younger genrations with smallers frames without any source, you say nothing.

I hope you're not a scientist because your stupidity seems outstanding.

Edit Post

Just read your response, some people don't live on this site. You haven't answered any of the questions.

You have not substantiated your claim and obviously can't. It is obvious you haven't read your resource link, you looked at an abstract.

When researching papers you look at the quality of the research journal, then you scan the abstract then read the results section. When you understand the paper you quote it in the work you are doing.

Edit Post

Quote from: HeightGain on October 25, 2020, 03:24:37 PMJust read your response, some people don't live on this site.

Yeay, yeah, the rest do live on this site.

Quote from: HeightGain on October 25, 2020, 03:24:37 PMYou haven't answered any of the questions.

And I don't have to; When you ignore bs BB's BroScience like new gen males with smaller frames and females with less curves because of 'food' and then complaining about research papers with questions like you belong to the Norwegian Nobel Committee, why would I take you seriously?

Quote from: HeightGain on October 25, 2020, 03:24:37 PMYou have not substantiated your claim and obviously can't. It is obvious you haven't read your resource link, you looked at an abstract.
When researching papers you look at the quality of the research journal, then you scan the abstract then read the results section. When you understand the paper you quote it in the work you are doing.

What are you even talking about? Scroll down, it's below the abstract. The point is, my and ZUCC420's claims about clacivle ossification age are correct, and you're arguing for the sake of argument.