Re: Waist-to-Height Ratio - WC/H

[Guest guest]

I think the BMI was just a way to quantify the insurance table into a math formula.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Rodney

Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 8:54 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Waist-to-Height Ratio - WC/H

Hi Eri:As a practical matter (notwithstanding that the weight of a cube or sphere is proportional to the cube of its side/radius) weight in humans is nowhere near proportional to the cube of height. It isn't precisely proportional to the square of height either. But it is closer to the square than to the cube. (I don't believe it. Am I sort of defending the BMI here? !!!)From the numbers I have crunched on this over the years I have come to the conclusion that the BMI formula was the closest relatively SIMPLE calculation that could be derived from the Metropolitan Life weight-for-height tables - in a single number format.This simplified things because it substituted essentially one scale - 20, 25, 30 BMIs for everyone, rather than having to have a different set of numbers for every conceivable increment in height, for males and for females, separately - as in the old weight-for-height tables. But BMI doesn't exactly fit those old tabulated data either because the relation is not linear, especially at the higher end of the height scale.The PRINCIPAL problem with BMI, in my view, is that it has the same faults as the weight-for-height tables. They take no account of higher or lower than average amounts of muscle and bone. So the 'acceptable range' has to be hopelessly wide in order to accomodate the most and least muscular and bony people. The result is that the high end of the range has to be between 30% and 40% above the low end of the range - BMIs from 18 - 25, or in the case of my height, using the old tables, an acceptable weight range of 135 - 175 pounds. Data like that, clearly, tell one next to nothing about what one's appropriate is, that one couldn't have figured out just by looking in a mirror, naked. Of course another problem with BMI and height-for-weight tables is that the recommendation was hopelessly skewed to the upside - as all of those with a little knowledge of CR understand.I am sure the WC/H ratio is not perfect either. But I can well believe it may be less bad than the others.Rodney.

[Guest guest]

-----Original Message-----From: jwwright [mailto:jwwright@...]Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 8:23 AM Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Waist-to-Height Ratio - WC/H

So I have to have a set of metrics that fit me. I can't out run JR, but I can pick him up. That has to suffice.

Regards.

But first you have to catch me...........

While these days I can bench press about 20 lbs more than I weigh, I've lost both weight and strength. I suspect I might still be able to dead lift you as my recollection is that I could dead lift quite a bit more than I could bench. Note: you don't have to be dead :-)

JR

________________________________________________________

This email has been scanned by Internet Pathway's Email

Gateway scanning system for potentially harmful content,

such as viruses or spam. Nothing out of the ordinary was

detected in this email. For more information, call

601-776-3355 or email support@...

________________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

I bit on that once already. I said I'd catch him and sit on him and he said OK and took of course took off in a flash.

I do sit-ups and lift 55# over my head 10 reps. Nothing hard.

Actually I'd like to know how to quantify things like sit-ups,

Like 1 min of sit-ups might be 1/20 of a mile walk? (30 sit-ups) 5 kcals per minute?

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: john roberts

Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 11:20 AM

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Waist-to-Height Ratio - WC/H

But first you have to catch me...........

While these days I can bench press about 20 lbs more than I weigh, I've lost both weight and strength. I suspect I might still be able to dead lift you as my recollection is that I could dead lift quite a bit more than I could bench. Note: you don't have to be dead :-)

JR

[Guest guest]

Hi JW:

Try this:

http://www.americanrunning.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1 & subarticlenbr=50

http://snipurl.com/7f3j

Rodney.

--- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...>

wrote:

> Actually I'd like to know how to quantify things like sit-ups,

> Like 1 min of sit-ups might be 1/20 of a mile walk? (30 sit-ups) 5

kcals per minute?

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Rodney,

Wow. They guessed 23 mins per mile, I guessed 20 mins per mile.

I guess also 6 kcals is not worth worrying about (20 sit-ups). But you know 100 sit-ups should be worth a jelly donut or something.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Rodney

Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 6:15 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Waist-to-Height Ratio - WC/H

Hi JW:Try this:http://www.americanrunning.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1 & subarticlenbr=50http://snipurl.com/7f3jRodney.