[Sca-cooks] sugar problems
Tom.Vincent at yahoo.com
Sun Aug 6 16:11:26 PDT 2006
Are you talking about statistics or medicine? There appear to be very
few absolutes in medicine and I don't see the relevancy of how they
would effect ranges of normal, under-weight, over-weight and obese
BMIs. Let's drop the irrelevancy of uber-athletes that others have
mentioned. Everyone knows that's not what we're talking about here.
> -----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
> Sca-cooks mailing list
> Sca-cooks at lists.ansteorra.org
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying the cross" - Sinclair Lewis
More information about the Sca-cooks