Comments on: BMI is not perfect

By: Tom Welsh

Tom Welsh — Mon, 15 May 2006 09:22:35 +0000

An even better example of the way animals get more thickset with size was shown on one of David Attenborough’s superb wildlife programs on BBC TV. He used computer graphics to morph a gazelle into a rhino – the justification being that, apparently, the rhino is descended from a type of small deer. The ultimate example, I suppose, would be to morph a deer or pig into a blue whale!

By: dekay

dekay — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 19:38:02 +0000

Peter, you do seem to have time for this: why not make a better and bigger study out of it:

Do not care about any of these indices. Collect data for top models, pop stars, hollywood actors/actresses, sports stars, etc. Plot, draw conclusions, write a paper. (and as anonymous posted on the other post: write an app, market the details and be rich and happy ever after )

By: Peter

Peter — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 08:19:54 +0000

One explanation I do have for the BMI using the square of L, is the following:
while the EW (equivalent width) of a person is dependent mainly on the posture and less variable during life, the ED (equivalent depth) can be so heavily influenced by a fat belly that it is not in relation to the length of the person.
So, while it makes sense to split up EW in [α x SW x L], this is maybe less the case for ED. ED might just be an indicator of ‘fatness’.
So dividing by the square of the length would thus compensate for length and width, but not for ‘depth’. The formula for BMI:
(α x SW) x (ED) x (λ x DF + (1-λ) x DM)
makes more sense then.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 08:07:43 +0000

Body mass index (height-weight) calculators can incorrectly suggest fatness in athletic or muscular people. Keeping this in mind, there is a standard ideal percentage of body fat, which differs between males and females.
The ideal percentage range of fat for males is 10 to 20 percent.
The ideal range for females is 15 to 25 percent.