Why does BMI have units of kg/m^2 when we are three dimensional? Wouldn’t kg/m^3 or g/cm^3 be more accurate?
In: 100
No. Healthy humans of a similar height should have roughly similar weights. We are all mostly water and all water weighs the same. There is some genetic variation in fat distribution and muscle development, but we should all be fairly average.
A male human can only increase his lean mass by about 10% through weight training without using steroids. So the whole “I carry a lot of muscle” argument is self denial.
No. Healthy humans of a similar height should have roughly similar weights. We are all mostly water and all water weighs the same. There is some genetic variation in fat distribution and muscle development, but we should all be fairly average.
A male human can only increase his lean mass by about 10% through weight training without using steroids. So the whole “I carry a lot of muscle” argument is self denial.
Density isn’t really a good measure of how overweight you are, since being heavier doesn’t necessarily mean you are denser.
Others have pointed out that it’s a consequence of an arbitrary formula which has been shown to work. But it’s also worth asking _why_ it works.
From dimensional analysis, it’s a loose proxy for (the inverse of) your surface area to volume ratio by taking a proxy for your volume (your mass) against a proxy for your surface area (the square of your “characteristic length”). A shape that approximates a sphere will tend to have very low surface area to volume, and more convoluted / “branchy” shapes will have higher surface area to volume. It follows that the more volume you have for a given surface area, the rounder you are!
Density isn’t really a good measure of how overweight you are, since being heavier doesn’t necessarily mean you are denser.
Others have pointed out that it’s a consequence of an arbitrary formula which has been shown to work. But it’s also worth asking _why_ it works.
From dimensional analysis, it’s a loose proxy for (the inverse of) your surface area to volume ratio by taking a proxy for your volume (your mass) against a proxy for your surface area (the square of your “characteristic length”). A shape that approximates a sphere will tend to have very low surface area to volume, and more convoluted / “branchy” shapes will have higher surface area to volume. It follows that the more volume you have for a given surface area, the rounder you are!
You‘re thinking about it the wrong way. The thought doesn‘t go „kg/m^2 makes so much sense, lets build a system around it.“ Instead it goes „we have this system that takes into account several factors that we know have an impact on health and are linked together. If we do the maths, the final unit is kg/m^2 , whatever that may mean.“
You‘re thinking about it the wrong way. The thought doesn‘t go „kg/m^2 makes so much sense, lets build a system around it.“ Instead it goes „we have this system that takes into account several factors that we know have an impact on health and are linked together. If we do the maths, the final unit is kg/m^2 , whatever that may mean.“
You‘re thinking about it the wrong way. The thought doesn‘t go „kg/m^2 makes so much sense, lets build a system around it.“ Instead it goes „we have this system that takes into account several factors that we know have an impact on health and are linked together. If we do the maths, the final unit is kg/m^2 , whatever that may mean.“
Latest Answers