improved BMI?

jbuch said:

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.

Your 7-footer with a 34-inch waist would be proportional to a 6-footer
with a 29-inch waist. Now, most of us don't know a whole lot of
7-foot-tall people, but we do know 6-footers, and a 29" waist is fairly
thin, but not anorexic. A proportional 5-footer would have that 24"
waist, also just fairly thin, for a 5-foot person. I think your
assumption that a "fit" 7-foot person should have a 34-inch waist is an
underestimate.

Quoted message said:

And if you go into a clothing store that deals in short people's
clothes, you would find a range of waist sizes that you could use to
better calibrate the scaling law that actually fits the body
configurations that humans have.

But, BMI scales "show" that well over half of Americans are "overweight",
so knowing what size people _are_ would not be a measure of what they
shyould be.

The scaling used in BMI was obtained from data of 20-30 year-olds, and
that data is used as the standard to which 50-year olds are told to aspire
to.

Quoted message said:

person of "nominal physique" ( with a 7 foot 34 inch waist as "nominal
physique for reference)

Your assumption that a 7-foot tall person with a 34-inch waist is the
proper reference is absurd. How about a 6-foot tall person with a 32-inch
waist? That is still a rather thin build.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored
_`\(,_ | by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." --Ralph Waldo
(_)/ (_) | Emerson

Jasper Janssen said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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 said:

It also says, and I quote:

Quoted message said:

"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."

Quoted message said:

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 said:

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 said:

jbuch said:

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>

Chalo said:

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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 10:21:12 GMT, Dan Connelly

d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g said:

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 <[email hidden]>,

David L. Johnson said:

jbuch said:

You can find some information on scaling laws for animals here....
1) http://smccd.net/accounts/goth/other/Life_On_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 [email hidden] 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

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

David L. Johnson said:

jbuch said:

You can find some information on scaling laws for animals here....
1) http://smccd.net/accounts/goth/other/Life_On_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 said:

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 said:

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."

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Phil Holman said:

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."

Oh yeh, Ilan's Grande Boucle "You are one fit son of a [censored]. Not one
once of fat"

Phil H

In article <[email hidden]>,

David L. Johnson said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

David L. Johnson said:

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/Life_On_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.

No, you just remember the exceptions. For every parrot, there's a few
thousand bird species with lifespans shorter than the average boy band's
popularity. But as with boy bands, there are outliers in the bird world,
too.

The PDF has some details about how body temperature is another key
factor: it seems to be a straight proxy for metabolic rate, more or less.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] 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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

No, you just remember the exceptions. For every parrot, there's a few
thousand bird species with lifespans shorter than the average boy band's
popularity. But as with boy bands, there are outliers in the bird world,
too.

The PDF has some details about how body temperature is another key
factor: it seems to be a straight proxy for metabolic rate, more or less.

It is basically poor science to throw out as "bad data" anything that does
not conform to your theory, and that is what I see in that article.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Let's not escape into mathematics. Let's stay with reality. --
_`\(,_ | Michael Crichton
(_)/ (_) |

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 06:29:23 +0100, "Robert Chung" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Jasper Janssen said:

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?

Not quite, but fairly close.

Jasper

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 19:19:05 -0600, jbuch <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

When I was fat enough, I floated nicely.

Be safe: be fat.

Jasper

David L. Johnson wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

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.

The exceptions prove the rule when the intended meaning of the word
"prove" is used: Merriam-Webster, "to test the truth, validity or
genuineness of". In this case, the many exceptions may prove the rule
and find it lacking. This adage is commonly misunderstood to mean that
somehow an exception to a rule causes the rule to be valid, which makes
little sense.

Also, I have it on good authority that dead parrots can be nailed to
their perches by unscrupulous pet shops, extending their salable lives.

Dave Lehnen

David L. Johnson said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Only some of 'em though.

We had an African Gray for a couple years (the bird flew into our back
yard, and we were never able to find the owner). When we discovered
that a bird that looks like a pigeon with a parrot mask can live 55
years, and that ours was "only" 4-7 years old, we decided that we
would find a new home for it.. ;-)

Actually we did so because the thing was TOO smart for our own good -
it took a huge amount of time to keep it intellectually stimulated.
I've never seen a parrot learn SO much language SO fast - he'd put
together sentences we didn't teach it... scary. We ended up giving
it to a doctor who had converted half his house into an aviary, and
who had another Gray without a buddy. Worked out great.

Other parrots (generally the larger ones) can live 80 or more years.
Unless you have cats. ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame