10-28-2005, 01:47 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-28-2005, 01:51 PM by Jeunemaitre.)
Walkiry,Oct 28 2005, 07:12 AM Wrote:Funny how the BMI starts from <25, I had expected the <25 to actually be the majority.
[right][snapback]93401[/snapback][/right]
I think the BMI calculation is a ridiculous way to relate mass and size as a measure of health. I'm scrawny enough that you can count my ribs if I lift my shirt (that is if you're not blinded by the horror), and my stomache might not be as flat as a board, but it comes close, and my BMI is 24 (5'5" - 150) - right on the border to overweight. I'm firmly convinced, however, that I am not overweight: I am underheight! Many of my acquaintances are quasi-"gym-nuts" and are built to carry a lot of muscle mass, and they take advantage of that (one is a former NFL player). They have ridiculously high BMI numbers because they carry so much muscle weight, not because they have stomach's that go on forever.
Enough ranting: Normal mode has me kicking on Wednesday, September 25, 2052; my wife will go on for four years longer (Four more years! Four more years!). Pessimistic says Wednesday, July 3, 2030 for me. Blargh. At least 25 more years to spend working for The Man.
edit: it occurred to me that I never made the point I wanted to. The BMI starting at 25 makes perfect sense: the risk factor associated with overweight/obese starts at the cut-off for overweight. If you're under that, it doesn't matter if you're way under or just under.
ah bah-bah-bah-bah-bah-bah-bob
dyah ah dah-dah-dah-dah-dah-dah-dah-dth
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
dyah ah dah-dah-dah-dah-dah-dah-dah-dth
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee