I *know* this rule of thumb but just like I said and Brian emphasized this is out of date.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 this system is out of date today -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.
