# Why dont i get fat?Watch

#81
(Original post by Angry cucumber)
I don't think you quite get stats.

No-one uses the mode past GCSE, certainly not in scientific circles.

So for all we know, it's off someones head.
No, I don't think you even understand what mode is in Statistics. You're delusional, I studied statistics. What do you mean off the top of someone's head? I'm curious to what meaning you both have associated with this phrase. Enlighten us all.
0
quote
3 years ago
#82
(Original post by Zenarthra)
No, I don't think you even understand what mode is in Statistics. You're delusional, I studied statistics. What do you mean off the top of someone's head? I'm curious to what meaning you both have associated with this phrase. Enlighten us all.
Yeah S1 at AS maybe

Mode is the most common

At all....

An educated at best, guess. Which it is if it's not from a scientific journal
0
quote
#83
(Original post by Angry cucumber)
Yeah S1 at AS maybe

Mode is the most common

At all....

An educated at best, guess. Which it is if it's not from a scientific journal
Sigh... If I told you the average shoulder width was x cm from a sample size of 20000 data, would you then manufacture a shirt of shoulder width x cm?

Ofcourse not this would be stupid, for all we know this data could have been from people of all heights and data peaks at x+d cm and X-d cm but the actual concentration of data points around x cm is minimal. The average could still be x cm.

But if we know that the mode, occurs within a range using the average we can conclude that there must be equal spread about this point. If the mode lies near this average and the deviation about this point is small, we can make shirts for this average size. Because this will fit the majority of the population.
0
quote
3 years ago
#84
(Original post by Zenarthra)
Sigh... If I told you the average shoulder width was x cm from a sample size of 20000 data, would you then manufacture a shirt of shoulder width x cm?

Ofcourse not this would be stupid, for all we know this data could have been from people of all heights and data peaks at x+d cm and X-d cm but the actual concentration of data points around x cm is minimal. The average could still be x cm.

But if we know that the mode, occurs within a range using the average we can conclude that there must be equal spread about this point. If the mode lies near this average and the deviation about this point is small, we can make shirts for this average size. Because this will fit the majority of the population.
I think they'd be more likely to fit it around a standard bell curve using standard deviation and mean, more than using mode.
0
quote
3 years ago
#85
(Original post by Zenarthra)
Are you that stupid lol honestly?
Top of someone's head, oh let's just give them average head sizes of 18inches cos we feel like it.
Taking shoulder widths for data from 5'10 men, the average is worked out to be roughly 18 inchs.
Assuming data is from healthy men with no diseases.
The standard deviation of these data points will definitely be no more than 2 inches.
There will be equal spread above 18inches, some people more some less.
Using an educated guess we can insist that the mode lies in the range 17-19, this is the highest concentration of data plots.
Yeah you guessed it Einstein, so when they design shoulder pads or whatever, they will make them around 18 inches so it fits the majority of 5'10 people.
What Cucumber said, off the top of someone's head for all we know and you're not coming across as someone who's particularly well educated yourself since you don't know how to critically evaluate a source.

I suspect furniture design may well be based on some small scale research done many, many years ago on average size but continues to be used because being exact doesn't matter all that much to them. I suspect this based on lack of peer review or need on their part to be highly accurate. Which for you means your source is inappropriate for the purpose.

I also suspect that you've not factored in that it's adults and we can assume women are on average smaller so the average for men will be bigger. There's no point in you claiming to be broader than average if the average you are using includes women. Inappropriate comparator= inappropriate use of source, even if said source were appropriate in the first place.
0
quote
3 years ago
#86
(Original post by BKS)
There's no point in you claiming to be broader than average if the average you are using includes women. Inappropriate comparator= inappropriate use of source, even if said source were appropriate in the first place.
He also didn't measure properly to start with, which gives an inflated figure that is still pretty much average.
0
quote
3 years ago
#87
This thread is gold. This kid's ego has taken up too much space it's pushed his brain out.

Posted from TSR Mobile
2
quote
3 years ago
#88
(Original post by Zenarthra)
My neck is 15.5 inch, 19.5 inch is broad pal, we're talking length not circumference.
Can you even curl 30kg though.
Is it? **** me what category do my 25 inch shoulders come under then

P.S. Curling 30KG dumbbells for reps here too. I've always had good strength on pulls tbf, wish I could brag about my strength on pushing movements though
0
quote
#89
(Original post by BKS)
What Cucumber said, off the top of someone's head for all we know and you're not coming across as someone who's particularly well educated yourself since you don't know how to critically evaluate a source.

I suspect furniture design may well be based on some small scale research done many, many years ago on average size but continues to be used because being exact doesn't matter all that much to them. I suspect this based on lack of peer review or need on their part to be highly accurate. Which for you means your source is inappropriate for the purpose.

I also suspect that you've not factored in that it's adults and we can assume women are on average smaller so the average for men will be bigger. There's no point in you claiming to be broader than average if the average you are using includes women. Inappropriate comparator= inappropriate use of source, even if said source were appropriate in the first place.
Cucumber failed to understand the 2 situations I was comparing and I proves to him how the mode is useful, in statistics all information is good information.

I know how to critically analyze a source it's not hard, all I'd have to do is make up as many possible reasons in why this information is not reliable.

Ok let's say this information was used for shirt design for companies for 5'10 men of similar weight, would they want a sample size of 20 men and then make shirts using an average for this data for the whole population of 5'10 men?
0
quote
#90
(Original post by WoodyMKC)
Is it? **** me what category do my 25 inch shoulders come under then

P.S. Curling 30KG dumbbells for reps here too. I've always had good strength on pulls tbf, wish I could brag about my strength on pushing movements though
Nice dude what are your measurements?
0
quote
3 years ago
#91
(Original post by Zenarthra)
Nice dude what are your measurements?
Only part of me that I've measured is my arms, 17" (bicep flex but cold/no pump). Stats are 6'2'', 102KG, 18%bf, 2 1/4 years training.
0
quote
3 years ago
#92
OP is full of absolute ****. There's no way (from the pic he posted) he's curling 30kg dumbbells. He looks like a stick!
0
quote
#93
(Original post by 0range)
OP is full of absolute ****. There's no way (from the pic he posted) he's curling 30kg dumbbells. He looks like a stick!
Not talking oranges....
Only 4 rep sets though.
From my picture how much would you say i could curl then?

Bruce lee could curl 56kg on 1 arm.
0
quote
3 years ago
#94
(Original post by Zenarthra)
Not talking sht....
Only 4 rep sets though.
From my picture how much would you say i could curl then?

Bruce lee could curl 56kg on 1 arm.
Hahah are you comparing yourself to Bruce Lee? Is that really how you see yourself?
0
quote
#95
(Original post by 0range)
Hahah are you comparing yourself to Bruce Lee? Is that really how you see yourself?
SIGH...
You have a big body but a small azz brain.
I was giving you an example, to prove to you that it can be done.
In which part of my reply, did i mention a comparison to Bruce Lee.
0
quote
3 years ago
#96
(Original post by Zenarthra)
Cucumber failed to understand the 2 situations I was comparing and I proves to him how the mode is useful, in statistics all information is good information.

I know how to critically analyze a source it's not hard, all I'd have to do is make up as many possible reasons in why this information is not reliable.

Ok let's say this information was used for shirt design for companies for 5'10 men of similar weight, would they want a sample size of 20 men and then make shirts using an average for this data for the whole population of 5'10 men?
You must be trolling or have severe teenage delusions of grandeur. Half of this post doesn't even make sense.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
quote
X

new posts

Latest
My Feed

### Oops, nobody has postedin the last few hours.

Why not re-start the conversation?

see more

### See more of what you like onThe Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

### Poll

Join the discussion

Yes (199)
27.6%
No (522)
72.4%