Do you believe in perfect ratio or proportions? Is dimorphicism always ideal?

[NuclearGeo20]

Yea caused by wide skull, more room for icd to be ideal and good ipd but fucks esr. His fwhr is too high but since his is esr is low it means normal ipd which gives him ideal midface ratio. Looks pretty harmonious which induces that esr is cope, icd and mfr are law

You seem pretty knowledgable. Let me ask you this then. What do you think of Zayn Malik's ipd. His esr is .416 but his eyes dont look close set. What do you think?

 

[chadisbeingmade]

Take a look at barett, you claimed you know more than @chadisbeingmade but you think esr is more of a harmony killer than icd? Low icd is the most cuckish thing you can have. Many get a way with low esr and good icd. Low icd and good esr means cyclops narrow skull cuck

Nigga don't involve me in convos with genuine retards JFL. He is a rage baiter and knows I IQ mog him to oblivion.

 

[mandiblade]

Unless your ratios are deformed tier, they are extreme copium.

Do you mind elaborating?

 

[Zeekie]

That definition is of no biological relevancy. The only way to establish a definition that is of biological RDI is to
1. Get a random dude
2. Lock him in a room
3. Give him a DNA methylation test
4. Give him exactly the amount of each RDI of each nutrient, while accounting for bioavailability
5. Ensure that he has sufficient amounts of each nutrient
6. Give him 0.1mg less than what is needed in 1 control nutrient until he becomes biologically deficient
7. If he is fine, continue reducing it until he becomes deficient

If this happens, congratulations! You have established the minimum amount of that one nutrient needed for anyone who..
1. Has the same genes as him
2. Eats the exact same macros as him(raw values, not ratios of macros)
3. Eats the same amount of each nutrient with the same level of bioavailability


If this has been done, link the study. Otherwise, please never bring this up again

You are not 100% correct either btw

@veggiedietcell @thereallegend

That's kind of a stretch. Nutritional science is far from perfect, we don't even have a well-established RDA for something like boron. All we have is a rough estimate of potential intake, and even that varies depending on who you ask. Even with that, the RDAs we do have, while not as accurate as they could be, still serve reasonably well as general guidelines for most people. It's unrealistic to expect anyone to hit the "perfect" intake of every nutrient on a daily basis. No one is actually doing that.

Even if the system isn't perfect, wouldn't you agree that having some kind of framework is better than having none? Anyway, no scientific field is would exist if we didn't base most of our interpretations of everything on assumptions and rough guesses. In my opinion, the FNB metrics work well enough for the average person to at least make sure they're not dying from crippling deficiencies.

As a matter of fact, we probably have different micronutrient requirements depending on our individual genetics, so that makes it even harder lol

 

[mandiblade]

That's kind of a stretch. Nutritional science is far from perfect, we don't even have a well-established RDA for something like boron. All we have is a rough estimate of potential intake, and even that varies depending on who you ask. Even with that, the RDAs we do have, while not as accurate as they could be, still serve reasonably well as general guidelines for most people. It's unrealistic to expect anyone to hit the "perfect" intake of every nutrient on a daily basis. No one is actually doing that.

I was pointing out the nuisance. If you hit the RDAs, you probably will not be deficient. My point is that the opposite cannot be said the other way around with 100% confidence.

Even if the system isn't perfect, wouldn't you agree that having some kind of framework is better than having none?

Yes, it is. Those frameworks are supposed to be hard science(e.g. biochemistry, paleanthropology), not nutritional "science."

Anyway, no scientific field is would exist if we didn't base most of our interpretations of everything on assumptions and rough guesses.

With the hard science-derived data we have today, we can conclude with much certainty the diet we should be consuming for our health.

In my opinion, the FNB metrics work well enough for the average person to at least make sure they're not dying from crippling deficiencies

I addressed this.

As a matter of fact, we probably have different micronutrient requirements depending on our individual genetics, so that makes it even harder lol

That was not what I meant.

 

[NuclearGeo20]

Finally we don’t have a retard attempting to cope here

to some extent but ratios don't tell the full story.

 

[pfl]

Finally we don’t have a retard attempting to cope here

with that guys logic this would be a chad

 

[davidlaidisme67]

to some extent but ratios don't tell the full story.

Yeah true cause coloring is also a factor

 

[Zeekie]

I was pointing out the nuisance. If you hit the RDAs, you probably will not be deficient. My point is that the opposite cannot be said the other way around with 100% confidence.

Yes, it is. Those frameworks are supposed to be hard science(e.g. biochemistry, paleanthropology), not nutritional "science."

With the hard science-derived data we have today, we can conclude with much certainty the diet we should be consuming for our health.

I addressed this.

That was not what I meant.

Yeah I understand your point, but understand mine.. Does it really matter? This system has to be at least somewhat true, there's really no need to try and complicate it any more than it is already, these rough estimations will work well for the majority of individuals, so people should just follow them and not worry too much.

Also, these aren't "hard" science exactly, I mean yeah, those are dietary guidelines suggested for most of the population, but no one's stopping anyone from continuing research and evolving our current understanding. We have fixed metrics for RDAs because this system just works, it's functional, there's no need to make it more complicated because the average person already doesn't care about following it, imagine if we kept trying to add more onto it? "If it ain't broken, don't fix it."

And yeah we could conduct the research, but sadly no one is really willing to fund that as far as I'm aware, don't get me wrong, I'd be damn cool to address some of the gaps we have in our nutritional understanding.

Lastly, the last comment was not something you meant, it was just a personal addition, really determining an exact RDA for everyone is very hard, depending on one's genetic makeup, sex, weight, race, muscle-to-fat ratio, etc., etc., we will all have different nutritional requirements so achieving your definition of a "biological RDI" isn't that simple

 

[mandiblade]

Does it really matter? This system has to be at least somewhat true, there's really no need to try and complicate it any more than it is already, these rough estimations will work well for the majority of individuals, so people should just follow them and not worry too much

I was saying that it is largely true, contextually, and can't really be used as hard-and-fast rules to determine deficiency outside those contexts.

Also, these aren't "hard" science exactly, I mean yeah, those are dietary guidelines suggested for most of the population, but no one's stopping anyone from continuing research and evolving our current understanding. We have fixed metrics for RDAs because this system just works, it's functional, there's no need to make it more complicated because the average person already doesn't care about following it, imagine if we kept trying to add more onto it? "If it ain't broken, don't fix it."

See my above comment.

And yeah we could conduct the research, but sadly no one is really willing to fund that as far as I'm aware, don't get me wrong, I'd be [قل أستغفر الله] cool to address some of the gaps we have in our nutritional understanding.

Lastly, the last comment was not something you meant, it was just a personal addition, really determining an exact RDA for everyone is very hard, depending on one's genetic makeup, sex, weight, race, muscle-to-fat ratio, etc., etc., we will all have different nutritional requirements so achieving your definition of a "biological RDI" isn't that simple

I'm pretty bad at phrasing things, but IDT you understood me properly

 

[Zeekie]

I was saying that it is largely true, contextually, and can't really be used as hard-and-fast rules to determine deficiency outside those contexts.

See my above comment.

I'm pretty bad at phrasing things, but IDT you understood me properly

yeah I probably did not understand your point..

 

[mandiblade]

yeah I probably did not understand your point..

So..do you agree with this?

it is largely true, contextually, and can't really be used as hard-and-fast rules to determine deficiency outside those contexts

 

[iblamemygenes]

You seem pretty knowledgable. Let me ask you this then. What do you think of Zayn Malik's ipd. His esr is .416 but his eyes dont look close set. What do you think?

It doesn’t look .415 but it’s because his mfr is ideal so they don’t look to close together, his icd isn’t ideal but doesn’t look terrible so that too, also good pfl

 

[camondo88]

perfect faces don't actually look good.

orc, what are examples of imperfect faces you think look good

 

[Orc]

orc, what are examples of imperfect faces you think look good

brad pitt has pretty awful ratios altogether.

 

[Boyoshutup]

Bones>everything.

 

[Bitchwhipper2]

Not really.

Everyone has their own preferences which deviate slightly from the norm

 

[lurker999]

View attachment 3755301
with that guys logic this would be a chad

he is extremely handsome so idk what ur talking about

 

[NuclearGeo20]

Bones>everything.

Then why do ancient humans not look like super models? Not all of them, but a lot of them. Bones won't change your base

 

[pfl]

he is extremely handsome so idk what ur talking about

did i say he wasnt? hes just not chad

 

[Futura]

Maybe a bit of a redundant question as I'm sure most people would answer "Yes", but do you really?

I'm personally a man of science, I'm a fucking nerd and proud of it, I like to say all of my thoughts and ideas regarding nutrition, exercise, attractiveness, living a better life, hell even my career and life plan are based on scientific research, I follow what has the highest probability of working.

In the realm of facial beauty there's, of course a lot of research and discussion, but my question is, how many of you guys actually are about this stuff, for example, the jaw being 89-90% the width of the cheekbones or the face being 1.35x longer than it is wide, these are very objective measurements which the scientific literature clearly suggest are ideal for attractiveness (regardless of race or gender). Yet still, having a lot of ideally appropriate ratios for facial features there's some prevalence of people in these spaces overly glorifying have wide jaws, even when they're out of the ideal proportions, having overly developed cheekbones even when they mess up facial width-to-height ratio, this is specially true for dimorphic features, people seem to think "the more masculine the better".

Intuitively and logically we all know that's not true, of course, but if we all know and accept that reality, why don't people speak and make suggestions accordingly? If you're one of those people, do you think it's just a matter of YOUR personal preference, or that the literature is wrong and actually having heavily dimorphic features is more ideal? Or do you just think this way subconsciously?

Ogre (Bad Harmony)

Dimorphic Chad (99% Dimorphism, 99% Harmony)

Ideal jaw width is 95-100%

 

[Halcyon0x]

Maybe a bit of a redundant question as I'm sure most people would answer "Yes", but do you really?

I'm personally a man of science, I'm a fucking nerd and proud of it, I like to say all of my thoughts and ideas regarding nutrition, exercise, attractiveness, living a better life, hell even my career and life plan are based on scientific research, I follow what has the highest probability of working.

In the realm of facial beauty there's, of course a lot of research and discussion, but my question is, how many of you guys actually are about this stuff, for example, the jaw being 89-90% the width of the cheekbones or the face being 1.35x longer than it is wide, these are very objective measurements which the scientific literature clearly suggest are ideal for attractiveness (regardless of race or gender). Yet still, having a lot of ideally appropriate ratios for facial features there's some prevalence of people in these spaces overly glorifying have wide jaws, even when they're out of the ideal proportions, having overly developed cheekbones even when they mess up facial width-to-height ratio, this is specially true for dimorphic features, people seem to think "the more masculine the better".

Intuitively and logically we all know that's not true, of course, but if we all know and accept that reality, why don't people speak and make suggestions accordingly? If you're one of those people, do you think it's just a matter of YOUR personal preference, or that the literature is wrong and actually having heavily dimorphic features is more ideal? Or do you just think this way subconsciously?

Generally personal preferences matter WAY less than we think

I believe that objective beauty exists, but the guidelines that each chronic rater use are very arbitrary. It must be done to quantify beauty though.

 

[AverageCurryEnjoyer]

You look good, or you don't.

Past a certain point which I claim is HTN, its all just subjective looks and nichemaxxes.