improved BMI?

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:16:44 +0000, Jasper Janssen wrote:

Because height^3 leads to massive aberrancies even within the normal human
healthy range of between a bit under 5 feet and 6.5 feet, more so than
than ^2 does. Empirically determined.

Determined by a single study 20+ years ago of people between 20 and 30
years old.

Basically it's because smaller or
taller doesn't mean everything on your body scales in depth and width
equally. Look at genetic dwarves, or the vertically challenged, or
whatever the current PC term is: they're still very nearly as wide and
deep as the average human, just shorter (which makes them look wildly
out of proportion).

Actually, the reason they look "wildly out of proportion" is that their
limbs _are_ out of proportion to their trunk and head sizes, not simply
because they are smaller.

Similarly, NBA players aren't wider or deeper in
proportion to their excessive height, which also makes them look wildly
out of proportion.

Depends on who you are looking at. Shaquille O'Neill, scaled down to
6-feet tall, would look pretty normal, though Michael Jordan would look
thin.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | The lottery is a tax on those who fail to understand
_`\(,_ | mathematics.
(_)/ (_) |

"David L. Johnson" writes:

It also says, and I quote:

"If one animal is, say, twice as big as another animal in each linear
dimension, then its total volume, or mass, is 23 times as large, but its
skin surface is only 22 times as large."

Umm, no. If one animal is proportionally twice as big as another in each
linear dimension (presuming 3-dimensional animals, here), it would have 8
times the volume, and 4 times the skin surface.

"23" should clearly be 2^3 and "22" 2^2.

jbuch wrote:

Taking the 34 inch waist for the 7 foot person as "fit physique"

At 7'1" and 13% bodyfat, Shaq has a 54 inch waist.

David L. Johnson wrote:
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 18:12:31 -0600, jbuch wrote:


Take a 7 foot person and a 5 foot person.

Would you expect the 5 foot person of "normal build" to have a waist
which is 5/7 of that for a 7 foot tall person?

This linear relationship is what happens if the height^3 (cubed) scaling
law is assumed..... But, if you understood the topic, you would have
known that.

Taking the 34 inch waist for the 7 foot person as "fit physique", would
you expect the waist of the 6 foot person to be 24.3 inches (5/7 of 34
is 24.3 inches) for a "fit physique"?


Oops. Here you said a 6-foot person, but used the ratio between a 5 and
7 foot person.

Mistyped a 6 for a 5 in discussing the 5 foot man.

I am sure it was too hard for you to figure that one oout, because of
your intense negativity.

Bye.

snip

On 4 Dec 2005 16:02:43 -0800, "Chalo" wrote:


The statistically flawed nature of BMI is in common with height/weight
tables and other such contrivances, but its geometrical flaw insures
that the further you deviate from the statistical mean, the more
inaccurate it becomes as an indicator of health or body composition.

If it were only the province of the quacks who created it, then it
would not be a problem. The trouble comes when insurers and medical
professionals treat as if it had any scientific value.

I certainly am not claiming that h^2 has any magical properties, all I'm
saying is that it's better than h^3. I don't particularly like either
variant, because of all the reasons you mention.

Jasper

"Jasper Janssen" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 10:21:12 GMT, Dan Connelly
wrote:

However, I suspect people have enough trouble grasping units of
"kg/m^2",
trying to get them to swallow "kg/m^2.2" may perhaps be a bit much.
But
there seems a strong case to be made that the BMI index is "unfair" to
tall
people (assuming lower is better, usually the case among those with
enough
income to read this message).

Personally, I don't need a fricking calculator to tell me I'm
overweight.
I'd be much better off at two thirds or a bit oover half my current
weight, but according to Quetelet/BMI I'd still be overweight then,
which
would clearly not be the case.

I don't need no steeeeenkin formula to tell me if I'm overweight. All I
need is a big mirror. Yes, thats the ticket, BMI = big mirror index.

Phil H

In article ,
"David L. Johnson" wrote:

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 18:12:31 -0600, jbuch wrote:

You can find some information on scaling laws for animals here....
1) http://smccd.net/accounts/goth/other...The_Scales.pdf
2) http://www.primidi.com/2005/02/21.html
and it is a tad technical.

"Technical" is an interesting term, here. From the first site, it
suggests that all animals have basically the same number of heartbeats in
a lifetime; that metabolic rate is proportional to mass. But humans live
longer than elephants. Oops.

No, that's a well-known quirk. Humans live unusually long; among the
longest of all animals, and considerably longer than anything about the
same size as ourselves (deer, some big cats, certain primates: pick your
favorite).

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 04:09:02 +0000, Ryan Cousineau wrote:

In article ,
"David L. Johnson" wrote:

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 18:12:31 -0600, jbuch wrote:

You can find some information on scaling laws for animals here....
1) http://smccd.net/accounts/goth/other...The_Scales.pdf
2) http://www.primidi.com/2005/02/21.html
and it is a tad technical.

"Technical" is an interesting term, here. From the first site, it
suggests that all animals have basically the same number of heartbeats in
a lifetime; that metabolic rate is proportional to mass. But humans live
longer than elephants. Oops.

No, that's a well-known quirk. Humans live unusually long; among the
longest of all animals, and considerably longer than anything about the
same size as ourselves (deer, some big cats, certain primates: pick your
favorite).

Parrots are considerably smaller, but tend to live longer than humans.
people who own parrots often make arrangement for their care in their
wills. I think there are so many "exceptions that prove the rule" that
the exceptions, rather than proving the rule, make it seem inaccurate.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Accept risk. Accept responsibility. Put a lawyer out of
_`\(,_ | business.
(_)/ (_) |

Jasper Janssen wrote:

Personally, I don't need a fricking calculator to tell me I'm
overweight. I'd be much better off at two thirds or a bit oover half my
current weight, but according to Quetelet/BMI I'd still be overweight
then, which would clearly not be the case.

Your current BMI is up around 40?

Phil Holman wrote:
I don't need no steeeeenkin formula to tell me if I'm overweight. All I
need is a big mirror. Yes, thats the ticket, BMI = big mirror index.

"T'es affute, toi, mon salopard. Pas un pet de graisse."