[Sca-cooks] sugar problems

grizly grizly at mindspring.com
Sun Aug 6 15:37:14 PDT 2006

-----Original Message-----
<<<SNIP>>>"Normal", in reference to BMI, means neither over-weight nor
under-weight.  It doesn't equate to "Average".

Duriel > > > > >

"Normal" is a definition that has been quite "fluid" over generations,
though.  As scientists who ge tot decide such things learn more and more
about human body functioning and differences, the "fat part of the bell
curve" gets changed more and more.  OVer-weight and under-weight in raltion
to "what"?  The "what" is not an absolute, and does vary.  Sure, 260# US is
pretty much universally considered overweight for a 5'10" man or woman, but
this is not where the rubber meets the road in defining norms.  The norm
gets challenged when you get tothe 1st ot 2nd standard deviation in the
distribution . . . closer and closer to what may be "normal" or the
"statistical mean".

BMI, while it may be widely used today by many types of professionals, was
created for a specific purpose that I believe was not to describe what is
the funtional range of health for humans in general.  I believe it is not
unlike many other devises throughout history in that it had a specific
sponsor and need to be used for.

niccolo difrancesco

More information about the Sca-cooks mailing list