Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Profesh)
    Go to AOL.
    why?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lisac)
    why?
    Sorry. I warranted, from the constructive and recondite nature of your prior observation, that you might profit by it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    MI 'obesity' simply is not a sufficiently pertinent factor to warrant its seeming ubiquity as an anthropometric observation; it adduces but does not deduce: a scientific determination of body fat percentage would prove to be more reliable for the purpose as well as safeguarding from persecution.
    *Sends in to the Private Eye's Pseuds Corner*
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Profesh)
    Sorry. I warranted, from the constructive and recondite nature of your prior observation, that you might profit by it.
    ohhh please :rolleyes:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lessthanthree)
    it can't differentiate between muscle and fat, and it can't be relied upon if you're <18 / growing, elderly, menstruating, a sportsperson [ie if you exercise regularly],pregnant, bodybuilding or basically breathing. pile of poo.
    Thankyou.

    (Original post by syntax)
    *Sends in to the Private Eye's Pseuds Corner*
    And thankyou. :rolleyes:

    (Original post by lilac)
    ohhh please :rolleyes:
    ...and thankyou?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Whats with all the dictionnary chat
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lisac)
    Whats with all the dictionnary chat
    Is it?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Profesh)
    Is it?
    errm yes!
    whats with AOL?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    It should be 'thank you'. Two seperate words.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lisac)
    errm yes!
    whats with AOL?
    It's crap.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nima)
    It should be 'thank you'. Two seperate words.
    *separate

    Why? I'm not ordering anyone. 'Thankyou' is a colloquialism, anyway.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Profesh)
    The irony of the statement is that it is itself fallacious: fallacy does neither entail nor is it tantamount to falsity. A common misconception, but nonetheless false.
    You used the term 'fallacy' (you can see it there in your post, though reading it may be tricky), of which answers.com (via google) says the following:

    1. A false notion.
    2. A statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference.
    3. Incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness.
    4. The quality of being deceptive.

    BMI, the output of a ratio of figures (in metric, height [m] squared over weight [kg]) cannot be a false notion, is not a statement or argument, does not involve itself in reasoning or belief (it is a ratio!), is not deceptive (it only becomes such if interpreted in a way that gives it more weight than deserves). I did not make the incorrect leap you purport me to have done – that of fallacy to falsity.

    We can all play with dictionaries, but I generally try to avoid malapropism (it’s a bugger when you get caught out) and do not feel the need to use language in an attempt to add weight to otherwise weak arguments or use convoluted language more generally in order to belittle others with pomposity without that complexity serving any apparent purpose.

    (Original post by Profesh)
    Anyone can simply multiply weight by height; BMI however, taken in the context of what it accords, is fallacious: the consequent variable has often been employed to stipulate 'obesity' (and thus mischaracterise) where, in fact, muscle mass was not normative. BMI 'obesity' simply is not a sufficiently pertinent factor to warrant its seeming ubiquity as an anthropometric observation; it adduces but does not deduce: a scientific determination of body fat percentage would prove to be more reliable for the purpose as well as safeguarding from persecution.
    As I mentioned, BMI is a touch more than a simple multiplication, but remains at heart a ratio. That is all it is – it is only through its misinterpretation that it might mischaracterise. It’s use as a determinant of obesity is limited and should always be taken in the context of the subject’s build. Anyone with sense referring to BMI recognises this. BMI can be of considerable use when comparing a person’s BMI over a length of time, especially when their height is changing – but this is always within the context of their build – for example using body fat callipers as you mention. To dismiss BMI entirely is foolish, as is to take it as the sole gospel to one’s health, as is to attempt to make any indicator of health into such. One’s health is far too complex to be determined by a pair of callipers alone. Both can be useful tests.
    Offline

    1
    (Original post by lessthanthree)
    Put simply, BMI is ONLY useful if you are monitoring a programme of weight gain and loss. It is entirely USELESS if you want to look at it and say "oh, hey, I'm underweight"

    it can't differentiate between muscle and fat, and it can't be relied upon if you're <18 / growing, elderly, menstruating, a sportsperson [ie if you exercise regularly],pregnant, bodybuilding or basically breathing. pile of poo.
    oh good,then its pretty useless to me then
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nige)
    You used the term 'fallacy' (you can see it there in your post, though reading it may be tricky), of which answers.com (via google) says the following:

    1. A false notion.
    2. A statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference.
    3. Incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness.
    4. The quality of being deceptive.

    BMI, the output of a ratio of figures (in metric, height [m] squared over weight [kg]) cannot be a false notion, is not a statement or argument, does not involve itself in reasoning or belief (it is a ratio!), is not deceptive (it only becomes such if interpreted in a way that gives it more weight than deserves). I did not make the incorrect leap you purport me to have done – that of fallacy to falsity.
    I view the connotations of 'BMI' differently to yourself; as outlined in my post above: it may profit you to read it again. The index and its appendages have always been to my mind inextricable; so much so that I characterise 'BMI' after an aggregate fashion as more than simply the sum of its literal constituents (themselves denoting, simply, an 'index of mass', as you have correctly inferred). Clearly, in any case, our semantics are out of synch.

    We can all play with dictionaries, but I generally try to avoid malapropism (it’s a bugger when you get caught out) and do not feel the need to use language in an attempt to add weight to otherwise weak arguments or use convoluted language more generally in order to belittle others with pomposity without that complexity serving any apparent purpose.
    Obnoxious, much?

    As I mentioned, BMI is a touch more than a simple multiplication, but remains at heart a ratio. That is all it is – it is only through its misinterpretation that it might mischaracterise. It’s use as a determinant of obesity is limited and should always be taken in the context of the subject’s build. Anyone with sense referring to BMI recognises this. BMI can be of considerable use when comparing a person’s BMI over a length of time, especially when their height is changing – but this is always within the context of their build – for example using body fat callipers as you mention. To dismiss BMI entirely is foolish, as is to take it as the sole gospel to one’s health, as is to attempt to make any indicator of health into such. One’s health is far too complex to be determined by a pair of callipers alone. Both can be useful tests.
    Obviously. Thankyou for this informative, yet insightful, passage.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Profesh)
    I view the connotations of 'BMI' differently to yourself; as outlined in my post above: it may profit you to read it again. The index and its appendages have always been to my mind inextricable; so much so that I characterise 'BMI' after an aggregate fashion as more than simply the sum of its literal constituents (themselves denoting, simply, an 'index of mass', as you have correctly inferred). Clearly, in any case, our semantics are out of synch.
    In my mind they have always been wholly extricable; clearly we disagree on this (fairly minor) point. Broadly though, the idea that BMI without consideration of build is fairly useless is not one I take issue with.

    (Original post by Profesh)
    Obnoxious, much?
    It's all fairly facetious.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nige)
    In my mind they have always been wholly extricable; clearly we disagree on this (fairly minor) point. Broadly though, the idea that BMI without consideration of build is fairly useless is not one I take issue with.
    Then, in effect, we concur.

    It's all fairly facetious.
    This being TSR, I wouldn't have it any other way.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by flyboy123)
    I just went to get weighed/measured at the local gym and found out that im 12st 3lbs (77.8kg)!!!!

    Is this really *****. I think its alot cos last time i was weighed i was 11st 13 so ive put on 4lbs. Im baisically 6ft (well 5ft 11.5") and am fairly strong but am really worried that ive become overweight. Any ideas if this is too heavy?
    77.8 does sound a bit much, just be sure you don't put on any more and do a bit more sport. I can really sympathise though. I looked in the mirror this morning... I've always liked my bum, it was in good shape... but now... . There's this horrible lump of fat under my bum on my thigh. I'm going to see if I can work out which excercises I can do, because it's depressing me now :bawling: .
    Don't become to obsessed with your weight though.
    Good luck! :hugs:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adarah)
    77.8 does sound a bit much
    You think? Be thankful it's not your BMI.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Profesh)
    You think? Be thankful it's not your BMI.
    You must get sick of all the anti-vocabulary comments! I found your AOL comment very amusing...keep up the good work
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Profesh)
    You think? Be thankful it's not your BMI.
    well, I might be wrong... for a woman it would be, for a guy, not sure. I think guys in general weigh more, but I don't know how much more. I wouldn't have thought it would be that much more though...
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 26, 2005
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.