Dear Marcus,

What you sqy makes sense to me. I also have in my collection this idea:

Body mass: � Anyone, man or woman, who is 1.5 m tall has an average mass of
50 kilograms. For women who are taller than this add 8 kilograms for each
0.1 m height increase, or subtract 8 kilograms if you are shorter. For men
add or subtract 10 kilograms. Examples are: a woman 1.5 m tall = 50 kg and a
man 1.5 m tall = 50 kg; a woman 1.6 tall = 58 kg and a man 1.6 m tall = 60
kg; and finally a woman 1.75 tall = 70 kg and a man 1.75 tall = 75 kg.

It's a bit more complex than subtracting a metre from your height but it may
be a little more accurate for women � it's the same for men.

Cheers,

Pat Naughtin LCAMS
Geelong, Australia
-- 

on 2003-08-16 03.33, Ma Be at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> 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
> 

Reply via email to