maximum weight on a Bianchi Eros frame.



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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
On 22 Jul 2005 13:29:58 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>That sounds like the expected 17% error, yes.


When I was reading this post, that statement seemed to be a reply to
|More importantly, there was just a study that linked large skull size to
|high intelligence. This pleases me because I can never find a hat big
|enough either.
which was highly amusing, so I thought I'd share.


Jasper
 
On 22 Jul 2005 13:29:58 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>That sounds like the expected 17% error, yes.


When I was reading this post, that statement seemed to be a reply to
|More importantly, there was just a study that linked large skull size to
|high intelligence. This pleases me because I can never find a hat big
|enough either.
which was highly amusing, so I thought I'd share.


Jasper
 
On 22 Jul 2005 13:29:58 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>That sounds like the expected 17% error, yes.


When I was reading this post, that statement seemed to be a reply to
|More importantly, there was just a study that linked large skull size to
|high intelligence. This pleases me because I can never find a hat big
|enough either.
which was highly amusing, so I thought I'd share.


Jasper
 

Similar threads