Hi folks. Haven't had time to read or post much lately, but here's a couple quick items.
(1) Regarding the BMI discussion, and Pat Naughtin's Metrication Matters 59: As a rule of thumb, dropping the 1 and the decimal to give your ideal body weight might work, but BMI itself is, in my opinion, a very crude measure at best. For myself, 1.70 meters tall and a mass of 90 kg, my BMI works out to be 31.1, which says I am obese (I am not). Pat's rule of thumb says I should weight 70 kg. Here's the problem: I have a much lower inseam-to-height ratio than most people; my inseam is 70 cm, giving me a 41% ratio; typical is 45% to 48%. So, shopping for pants in the USA I need a 34" waist (hardly obese) and a 28" inseam. Nearly impossible to find. Since torso obviously has a much greater cross-sectional area than legs, short legs means greater ideal body mass, and throws off the BMI. Even my doctor wonders at my weight when I step on the scale -- he expects to see 180 to 185 lbs (yes, he uses colloquial units) and I weigh in near 200. A far better measure of obesity is simply percentage body fat. This can be measured reasonably accurately on modern electronic scales. I come in around 18%, which is a tad high, but a long ways from obese. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_fat_percentage) FWIW, my ideal weight is around 78 kg. (2) Was in CostCo the other day, and noticed a bathroom scale with a glass platform. LARGE sign reads: Fully 10 mm Thick Platform! No colloquial units anywhere. I remain convinced that the USA is slowly undergoing a "stealth" metrication. Slow but sure. Jim Elwell
