That formula doesn't take into account my massive leg muscles which pushes my mass up to the 95-100 kg area.
---------- Original Message ----------- From: Pat Naughtin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 09:33:12 +1000 Subject: [USMA:26585] Re: using metric in a land that does not compute > 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 > -- > > on 2003-08-14 06.28, Paul Trusten at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > 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. > > ------- End of Original Message -------
