Again Danger, nothing you present in those stats separates teenagers from early 20-somethings entering their prime. Until you can find more specific stats that show a difference, than youre not backing up your stance of teens vs 20 somethings. And then the other study doesnt separate 18 to 29 year olds at all....so I dont understand how you think that refutes my position and backs up yours.
If they dont split up groups properly, how can you magically pinpoint the differences between more specific ages? Especially when you consider the fact that men are still maturing as they enter their early 20s. For example, I could show you a chart that says our testosterone is lower in our teens, rises within our early to mid 20s, and then taper a little in our late 20s, and then really drops off in our 30s.
But if I used charts like the ones you provided, which lumped late teens in with people up to 23 years of age, that grouping would make it so one is unable to see the difference between late teens and early 20-somethings. Which means we wouldnt be able to tell if the late teenagers or the early 20-somethings had higher or lower rates of testosterone, or in the case of your provided information, obesity. If I didnt have a chart or data table that specifically told you what difference there was between an 18 and 23 year old, I cannot make a factual conclusion about results which arent presented (which is what youre trying to do)
And we cannot simply make assumptions based on older age groups either. Especially considering that a human beings abilities grow in their teenage years, hit peaks somewhere in the 20s, and fall off after that. If you cannot show when the decrease or increase begins, (as is the case with your links), then making assumptions is simply foolish.
Thats all I have to say about it until you learn how to find relevant data to back up your claims. I couldnt imagine how you'd do with a college research paper if you cannot find accurate information that directly ties into points you make. Your data draws the conclusion that 18 to 23 year olds and 24 to 27 yr olds are more fit than everyone else. Your data does not say 18 year olds are more fit (in shape) than 23 year olds. It doesnt even compare teens against early 20 somethings. So I cannot see how such information would go against what Ive presented about men reaching their physical apex in their 20s.
PS - Anyone whos looking at pictures of Zimmerman from the time of the shooting can clearly see that this man was not fat. He may be now, but he wasnt at the time of the shooting last year. He was pretty average size and a healthy weight.
This is not fat George.
THIS is fat George!
CLEAR DIFFERENCE. The most staunch Zimmerman supporters were whining at the first photos of a chubby Zimmerman in the news when the story broke last year. They wanted the thinner, more in shape Zimmerman to be shown. And Im sure more people who look at those photos I linked will agree the guy wasnt fat when all this happened last year.
If they dont split up groups properly, how can you magically pinpoint the differences between more specific ages? Especially when you consider the fact that men are still maturing as they enter their early 20s. For example, I could show you a chart that says our testosterone is lower in our teens, rises within our early to mid 20s, and then taper a little in our late 20s, and then really drops off in our 30s.
But if I used charts like the ones you provided, which lumped late teens in with people up to 23 years of age, that grouping would make it so one is unable to see the difference between late teens and early 20-somethings. Which means we wouldnt be able to tell if the late teenagers or the early 20-somethings had higher or lower rates of testosterone, or in the case of your provided information, obesity. If I didnt have a chart or data table that specifically told you what difference there was between an 18 and 23 year old, I cannot make a factual conclusion about results which arent presented (which is what youre trying to do)
And we cannot simply make assumptions based on older age groups either. Especially considering that a human beings abilities grow in their teenage years, hit peaks somewhere in the 20s, and fall off after that. If you cannot show when the decrease or increase begins, (as is the case with your links), then making assumptions is simply foolish.
Thats all I have to say about it until you learn how to find relevant data to back up your claims. I couldnt imagine how you'd do with a college research paper if you cannot find accurate information that directly ties into points you make. Your data draws the conclusion that 18 to 23 year olds and 24 to 27 yr olds are more fit than everyone else. Your data does not say 18 year olds are more fit (in shape) than 23 year olds. It doesnt even compare teens against early 20 somethings. So I cannot see how such information would go against what Ive presented about men reaching their physical apex in their 20s.
PS - Anyone whos looking at pictures of Zimmerman from the time of the shooting can clearly see that this man was not fat. He may be now, but he wasnt at the time of the shooting last year. He was pretty average size and a healthy weight.
This is not fat George.
THIS is fat George!
CLEAR DIFFERENCE. The most staunch Zimmerman supporters were whining at the first photos of a chubby Zimmerman in the news when the story broke last year. They wanted the thinner, more in shape Zimmerman to be shown. And Im sure more people who look at those photos I linked will agree the guy wasnt fat when all this happened last year.
