Pat reminded us of an excellent "rule of thumb" concerning the duo mass/height. However, it actually should be more like the following:
The *max* for men should roughly be the centimeter figure in your height. Ex.: 1.75 m, mass = 75 kg 1.95 m, mass = 95 kg For women take 5 out of it. Ex.: 1.70 m, mass = 65 kg Evidently the above does not factor in the influence of bone structure and all, but at least errs on the conservative side. Marcus On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 09:33:12 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 >-- > > > >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. >> > > ____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
