D
David Damerell
Guest
Quoting 41 <[email protected]>:
>David Damerell wrote:
>>Quoting 41 <[email protected]>:
>>>The point is that a simple cube law isn't either.
>>Indeed - but it's a damn sight closer.
>This is a very active research field and I'm sure the professional
>community would love to hear this exciting news.
I'm sure, in fact, the professional community are perfectly aware that a
cube law works better for people of unusual height. They're not idiots.
>But the BMI is preferred over it on the basis of a much larger sample,
>where extremes are relatively rare.
That it works well for a population most of whom are *not* of unusual
height is not really a counterargument to the idea that it does not work
well for people of unusual height.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is Gaiman, July - a public holiday.
>David Damerell wrote:
>>Quoting 41 <[email protected]>:
>>>The point is that a simple cube law isn't either.
>>Indeed - but it's a damn sight closer.
>This is a very active research field and I'm sure the professional
>community would love to hear this exciting news.
I'm sure, in fact, the professional community are perfectly aware that a
cube law works better for people of unusual height. They're not idiots.
>But the BMI is preferred over it on the basis of a much larger sample,
>where extremes are relatively rare.
That it works well for a population most of whom are *not* of unusual
height is not really a counterargument to the idea that it does not work
well for people of unusual height.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is Gaiman, July - a public holiday.