Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

BMI. The idea that weight for a population is perfectly proportional to height squared. Either it isn't in which case a more modern system should be used or it is which is really remarkable.

It's probably a reasonable match for most people. But nobody is most people. I would imagine the number of people in the population who 'have too much muscle' are too few to undermine the correlation for populations.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

BMI. The idea that weight for a population is perfectly proportional to height squared. Either it isn't in which case a more modern system should be used or it is which is really remarkable.

It's probably a reasonable match for most people. But nobody is most people. I would imagine the number of people in the population who 'have too much muscle' are too few to undermine the correlation for populations.

It appears to be a poor metric for the healthiest people. Which rather defeats the object for a health metric.

focuszing723

NEW YORK -- Last week it was obese football players. Now it's ... overweight basketball players?

Yep. If you apply a widely used criterion to the published heights and weights of NBA players, nearly half qualify as overweight.

Only four players assessed using the body-mass index (BMI) by The Associated Press made it all the way to the "obese" range, most notably -- you guessed it -- Miami Heat star Shaquille O'Neal.

But the notion that 200 other NBA players out of 426 are even within a 3-point shot of tubby might make one wonder: Just how good is the BMI at telling if somebody is too fat?

https://www.espn.co.uk/nba/news/story?id=2008024

And for those who persist in thinking Shaquille O'Neal is obese, he has a simple message: "You think that, stick to science. Top 50, three rings, lot of money, two mansions."

I like this quote from O'Neal about it.

focuszing723

Take for example, basketball player Michael Jordan: ''When he was in his prime, his BMI was 27-29, classifying him as overweight, yet his waist size was less than 30,'' says Michael Roizen, MD. That's one reason some experts think waist circumference can be a better overall health measurement than BMI.

https://www.webmd.com/diet/features/how-accurate-body-mass-index-bmi#:~:text=Take for example, basketball player,overall health measurement than BMI.

rick_chasey

Ah yes, a couple of the world’s best basketballs players, a sport well know for body shapes that are bang smack in the middle of the distribution curve.

Next you lot will be telling me Michael Rasmussen was a bit on the skinny side.

pinno

pblakeney said:

focuszing723 said:

Just how really? Gas leak?

Initial thoughts.
1. Insurance job.
2. Suspected links to Russian and arson.

Beans beans; are good for your heart
the more you eat, the more you fart,
the more you fart, the better you feel,
so eat your beans with every meal.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

BMI. The idea that weight for a population is perfectly proportional to height squared. Either it isn't in which case a more modern system should be used or it is which is really remarkable.

It's probably a reasonable match for most people. But nobody is most people. I would imagine the number of people in the population who 'have too much muscle' are too few to undermine the correlation for populations.

It appears to be a poor metric for the healthiest people. Which rather defeats the object for a health metric.

Not if it is aimed at the unhealthiest people. The healthiest people know they are healthy and why, and don't need a measure to persuade them to lay off the beers and ready meals.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

BMI. The idea that weight for a population is perfectly proportional to height squared. Either it isn't in which case a more modern system should be used or it is which is really remarkable.

It's probably a reasonable match for most people. But nobody is most people. I would imagine the number of people in the population who 'have too much muscle' are too few to undermine the correlation for populations.

It appears to be a poor metric for the healthiest people. Which rather defeats the object for a health metric.

Not if it is aimed at the unhealthiest people. The healthiest people know they are healthy and why, and don't need a measure to persuade them to lay off the beers and ready meals.

How do you know when the unhealthy people get healthy, if the measurement you are using tells you they are getting less healthy the healthier they get?

Bmi has always struck me as about as useful as looking someone up and down and saying, yes, you are a fat bustard.

I think the idea is that even Rab C Nesbit will probably have the required measurement apparatus at home to calculate it. A mirror would also work.

One of us should write to Tim Harford and ask if BMI is any good. He'd know.

pblakeney

pinno said:

pblakeney said:

focuszing723 said:

Just how really? Gas leak?

Initial thoughts.
1. Insurance job.
2. Suspected links to Russian and arson.

Beans beans; are good for your heart
the more you eat, the more you fart,
the more you fart, the better you feel,
so eat your beans with every meal.

I'm sure there is a joke in there but, woosh!

focuszing723

pblakeney said:

pinno said:

pblakeney said:

focuszing723 said:

Just how really? Gas leak?

Initial thoughts.
1. Insurance job.
2. Suspected links to Russian and arson.

Beans beans; are good for your heart
the more you eat, the more you fart,
the more you fart, the better you feel,
so eat your beans with every meal.

I'm sure there is a joke in there but, woosh!

He's more partial to the gas explosion theory?

morstar

Just seen Rugby League cup highlights on the news.

Who allowed the teams to play in such similar kits? Both hooped kits with red being one colour and the other hoop yellow for one and white for the other. Hardly distinctive.

mrb123

For those who have lost their father, is receiving endless emails asking if you'd rather not receive the Father's Day emails easier to bear than just receiving the Father's Day emails?

focuszing723

morstar said:

Just seen Rugby League cup highlights on the news.

Who allowed the teams to play in such similar kits? Both hooped kits with red being one colour and the other hoop yellow for one and white for the other. Hardly distinctive.

Also, rugby players BMI's?

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

BMI. The idea that weight for a population is perfectly proportional to height squared. Either it isn't in which case a more modern system should be used or it is which is really remarkable.

It's probably a reasonable match for most people. But nobody is most people. I would imagine the number of people in the population who 'have too much muscle' are too few to undermine the correlation for populations.

It appears to be a poor metric for the healthiest people. Which rather defeats the object for a health metric.

Not if it is aimed at the unhealthiest people. The healthiest people know they are healthy and why, and don't need a measure to persuade them to lay off the beers and ready meals.

How do you know when the unhealthy people get healthy, if the measurement you are using tells you they are getting less healthy the healthier they get?

Bmi has always struck me as about as useful as looking someone up and down and saying, yes, you are a fat bustard.

I think the idea is that even Rab C Nesbit will probably have the required measurement apparatus at home to calculate it. A mirror would also work.

One of us should write to Tim Harford and ask if BMI is any good. He'd know.

It doesn't. It's a quick check for whether someone's overweight. It's not intended to offer a full assessment. It has limitations, which are often glossed over.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

BMI. The idea that weight for a population is perfectly proportional to height squared. Either it isn't in which case a more modern system should be used or it is which is really remarkable.

It's probably a reasonable match for most people. But nobody is most people. I would imagine the number of people in the population who 'have too much muscle' are too few to undermine the correlation for populations.

It appears to be a poor metric for the healthiest people. Which rather defeats the object for a health metric.

Not if it is aimed at the unhealthiest people. The healthiest people know they are healthy and why, and don't need a measure to persuade them to lay off the beers and ready meals.

How do you know when the unhealthy people get healthy, if the measurement you are using tells you they are getting less healthy the healthier they get?

Bmi has always struck me as about as useful as looking someone up and down and saying, yes, you are a fat bustard.

I think the idea is that even Rab C Nesbit will probably have the required measurement apparatus at home to calculate it. A mirror would also work.

One of us should write to Tim Harford and ask if BMI is any good. He'd know.

It doesn't. It's a quick check for whether someone's overweight. It's not intended to offer a full assessment. It has limitations, which are often glossed over.

A quick check could now be done with a power other than 2 which was my point. If 2 is still the best, then that's quite intriguing.

mully79

As the average bill on the current price cap (£1971 ) has forced most families to turn their heating off will the average bill end up being much lower than this ?

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

BMI. The idea that weight for a population is perfectly proportional to height squared. Either it isn't in which case a more modern system should be used or it is which is really remarkable.

It's probably a reasonable match for most people. But nobody is most people. I would imagine the number of people in the population who 'have too much muscle' are too few to undermine the correlation for populations.

It appears to be a poor metric for the healthiest people. Which rather defeats the object for a health metric.

Not if it is aimed at the unhealthiest people. The healthiest people know they are healthy and why, and don't need a measure to persuade them to lay off the beers and ready meals.

How do you know when the unhealthy people get healthy, if the measurement you are using tells you they are getting less healthy the healthier they get?

Bmi has always struck me as about as useful as looking someone up and down and saying, yes, you are a fat bustard.

I think the idea is that even Rab C Nesbit will probably have the required measurement apparatus at home to calculate it. A mirror would also work.

One of us should write to Tim Harford and ask if BMI is any good. He'd know.

It doesn't. It's a quick check for whether someone's overweight. It's not intended to offer a full assessment. It has limitations, which are often glossed over.

A quick check could now be done with a power other than 2 which was my point. If 2 is still the best, then that's quite intriguing.

Trying to think if it applies to other objects - if you simplify a person down to a sphere of uniform density, does that still work radius^2 ∝ mass?

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

BMI. The idea that weight for a population is perfectly proportional to height squared. Either it isn't in which case a more modern system should be used or it is which is really remarkable.

It's probably a reasonable match for most people. But nobody is most people. I would imagine the number of people in the population who 'have too much muscle' are too few to undermine the correlation for populations.

It appears to be a poor metric for the healthiest people. Which rather defeats the object for a health metric.

Not if it is aimed at the unhealthiest people. The healthiest people know they are healthy and why, and don't need a measure to persuade them to lay off the beers and ready meals.

How do you know when the unhealthy people get healthy, if the measurement you are using tells you they are getting less healthy the healthier they get?

Bmi has always struck me as about as useful as looking someone up and down and saying, yes, you are a fat bustard.

I think the idea is that even Rab C Nesbit will probably have the required measurement apparatus at home to calculate it. A mirror would also work.

One of us should write to Tim Harford and ask if BMI is any good. He'd know.

It doesn't. It's a quick check for whether someone's overweight. It's not intended to offer a full assessment. It has limitations, which are often glossed over.

A quick check could now be done with a power other than 2 which was my point. If 2 is still the best, then that's quite intriguing.

Trying to think if it applies to other objects - if you simplify a person down to a sphere of uniform density, does that still work radius^2 ∝ mass?

People grow in three dimensions, but cubing would be too much as they don't grow equally in all directions. Equally a linear relationship would be mean only growing taller and not wider. So, it seems remarkable to me that 2 is the exactly right figure. Of course, 150 years ago, it was a good simplification.

First.Aspect

This reminds me of the joke about the physicist and the spherical horse.

Cant remember the joke though.

focuszing723

Visceral fat can only really be checked by fancy kit, and it's this fat around the vital organs which isn't good for our health.

I read that somewhere at some point, it's probably a bit wrong.

pinno

focuszing723 said:

pblakeney said:

pinno said:

pblakeney said:

focuszing723 said:

Just how really? Gas leak?

Initial thoughts.
1. Insurance job.
2. Suspected links to Russian and arson.

Beans beans; are good for your heart
the more you eat, the more you fart,
the more you fart, the better you feel,
so eat your beans with every meal.

I'm sure there is a joke in there but, woosh!

He's more partial to the gas explosion theory?

This ^.

masjer

Every time a deck of cards is shuffled, the outcome is almost guaranteed to be unique.
Copy/paste.
Say that there exists 10 Billion people on every planet, 1 Billion planets in every solar system, 200 Billion solar systems in every galaxy, and 500 Billion galaxies in the universe. If every single person on every planet has been shuffling decks of cards completely at random at 1 Million shuffles per second since the BEGINNING OF TIME, every possible deck combination would still yet to have been “shuffled”.

shirley_basso

52! = 8 x10^67

focuszing723

masjer said:

Every time a deck of cards is shuffled, the outcome is almost guaranteed to be unique.
Copy/paste.
Say that there exists 10 Billion people on every planet, 1 Billion planets in every solar system, 200 Billion solar systems in every galaxy, and 500 Billion galaxies in the universe. If every single person on every planet has been shuffling decks of cards completely at random at 1 Million shuffles per second since the BEGINNING OF TIME, every possible deck combination would still yet to have been “shuffled”.

What if the beings on the other planets have four arms/hands?

pblakeney

masjer said:

Every time a deck of cards is shuffled, the outcome is almost guaranteed to be unique.
...

Wanna run that by the many card trickster out there?

masjer

focuszing723 said:

masjer said:

Every time a deck of cards is shuffled, the outcome is almost guaranteed to be unique.
Copy/paste.
Say that there exists 10 Billion people on every planet, 1 Billion planets in every solar system, 200 Billion solar systems in every galaxy, and 500 Billion galaxies in the universe. If every single person on every planet has been shuffling decks of cards completely at random at 1 Million shuffles per second since the BEGINNING OF TIME, every possible deck combination would still yet to have been “shuffled”.

What if the beings on the other planets have four arms/hands?

Some of those alien fools have 104 cards in their decks.

focuszing723

masjer said:

focuszing723 said:

masjer said:

Every time a deck of cards is shuffled, the outcome is almost guaranteed to be unique.
Copy/paste.
Say that there exists 10 Billion people on every planet, 1 Billion planets in every solar system, 200 Billion solar systems in every galaxy, and 500 Billion galaxies in the universe. If every single person on every planet has been shuffling decks of cards completely at random at 1 Million shuffles per second since the BEGINNING OF TIME, every possible deck combination would still yet to have been “shuffled”.

What if the beings on the other planets have four arms/hands?

Some of those alien fools have 104 cards in their decks.

Ah, probably a fair point.

monkimark

If I buy a can of red bull in Tesco, it needs age approval but if I buy an iced coffee (with more caffeine in it) it doesn't need age approval.

focuszing723

Sales of energy drinks to children under 16 will be banned by most major UK supermarkets from Monday, following concerns about their high levels of sugar and caffeine and impact on health and behaviour.

The extra sugar? Plus, adults have the right to be stupid.

I wonder if kids ran the country, it would be better?

monkimark

Zero sugar red bull/chocomocha iced coffee thing.

If I were a 10 year old trying to get a caffeine buzz, I'd definitely be going for the highly caffeinated milkshake rather than the weird tasting sugar free energy drink.