I replied to Pat privately, but it's no secret. My ideal mass is 70 kg, but I'm 1.73 m tall. It's close! My current BMI is 23.4.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael-O" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 4:05 AM Subject: [USMA:26605] Re: using metric in a land that does not compute > I *know* this rule of thumb > > but just like I said and Brian emphasized this is out of date. > > Bill Potts wrote: > > Michael: > > > > You might want to think before you reply in the future, rather than > > criticizing someone for something that's not at issue anyway. > > > > Pat's quick rule of thumb was based on an assumption about BMI. As > > BMI is derived from height and mass, then height can be derived from > > BMI and mass. > > > > His actual guess as to Paul's height assumes that Paul's BMI is close > > to the "ideal." > > > > Because it's just a rule of thumb, it is, in any case, only a > > best-case approximation. > > > > Bill Potts, CMS > > Roseville, CA > > http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Behalf Of Michael-O > >> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 16:51 > >> To: U.S. Metric Association > >> Cc: Lorelle Young > >> Subject: [USMA:26587] Re: using metric in a land that does not > >> compute > >> > >> > >> this system is out of date today -> use BMI > >> > >> BMI = mass/hight in m² > >> > >> e.g. 90/1,85² = 26,3 > >> > >> Slightly overweighted > >> > >> bye > >> > >> Pat Naughtin wrote: > >>> Dear paul, > >>> > >>> Have you heard of a 'Rule of thumb' that says that your ideal body > >>> mass is equal to your height minus a metre. Say thast you are 1.85 > >>> metres tall > >>> take away one metre and the remaining number, 85, should be your > >>> ideal body mass. > >>> > >>> In your case, as you are 70 kilograms, does this equate to a height > >>> of 1.70 metres. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> Pat Naughtin LCAMS > >>> Geelong, Australia > >>> > >>>> A few days ago, I bought a food scale so I can more closely monitor > >>>> the size of my meals to maintain my 70 kg (grin) of mass. It has a > >>>> WOMBAT/metric switch on it, and from the start, I decided to use > >>>> only grams in weighing my food. It is a pleasure to weigh in grams > >>>> on a regular basis; there are no distractions of fractions of an > >>>> ounce, and I utilize the metric information on the Nutrition Facts > >>>> label panel to follow the nutrient content. > >>>> > >>>> Also, my produce guide reveals something interesting: US serving > >>>> sizes are often quoted in units of produce, e.g., 1 medium red > >>>> delicious apple, while the Canadian data are quoted in grams of > >>>> that particular produce, e.g., 56 grams of red delicious apple. > >>>> Shock and awe---metric provides accuracy. It seems that we > >>>> Americans don't compute. We tend towards the innumerate. >
