Tweet
Dear subscribers,
I would appreciate to have your opinion and expert
advice about what I defined "Normalized body mass".
Unfortunately, I found that in the past two similar indexes
have been used, which in my opinion do not give correct
or really useful information:
Body mass index: M / h^2
Ponderal Index: h / M^-3 (cubic root of M)
Normalized body mass (as I defined it) is: M / h^3,
where W is body mass (Kg), and h is stature (m).
Notice that the word "ponderal" comes from Latin,
and means "concerning, regarding WEIGHT" (or
"WEIGHTAL"). On the contrary the so called ponderal
index is a normalized STATURE. Perhaps it would be
better to call it "STATURAL index".
Normalized body mass was defined as the ratio
between body mass (Kg) and the cube of stature (m). It is
an index of the relative mass of the body, and allows the
comparison between the masses of subjects having
different stature.
Body mass depends not only on the percent
muscle mass, percent fat, bone density, bone diameters,
ingested food and water, etc.. It is also largely affected by
stature.
If we could reduce a subject's stature to 1 m, using
a "miniaturizer" such as that imagined by Isaac Asimov in
a famous science fiction book, reducing by the same
proportion the dimensions of all the segments as well, the
subject's volume and mass would both shrink
proportionally to the cube of stature. So, I have no idea
why they used the square stature to define the so called
"body mass index", which is being frequently used since a
long time ago. Do you happen to know why?
After such treatment, this 1m tall subject would
have a mass exactly equal to his normalized body mass
(e.g. 13.3 Kg for the average female diver).
By mathematically shrinking all my subjects to a
stature of 1 m, I can more efectively compare their mass.
The larger the normalized body mass, the larger the
percent muscle mass, fat mass, etc..
Do you agree?
Thanks for your attention.
With the warmest regards,
__________ _________ ___________~___ ________ _________________~___
/ ~ ~ ~ ~ \
/______________~______~__________ _______~_____~______________~_____~_____\
| Paolo de Leva ~ \ Tel.+ FAX: (39-6) 575.40.81 |
| Istituto Superiore di Educazione Fisica > other FAX: (39-6) 361.30.65 |
| Biomechanics Lab / |
| Via di Villa Pepoli, 4 < INTERNET e-mail address: |
| 00153 ROME - ITALY \ deLEVA@RISCcics.Ing.UniRoma1.IT |
|_____________________~________~__________________ __________________ _____|
challenging entropy :-)
I would appreciate to have your opinion and expert
advice about what I defined "Normalized body mass".
Unfortunately, I found that in the past two similar indexes
have been used, which in my opinion do not give correct
or really useful information:
Body mass index: M / h^2
Ponderal Index: h / M^-3 (cubic root of M)
Normalized body mass (as I defined it) is: M / h^3,
where W is body mass (Kg), and h is stature (m).
Notice that the word "ponderal" comes from Latin,
and means "concerning, regarding WEIGHT" (or
"WEIGHTAL"). On the contrary the so called ponderal
index is a normalized STATURE. Perhaps it would be
better to call it "STATURAL index".
Normalized body mass was defined as the ratio
between body mass (Kg) and the cube of stature (m). It is
an index of the relative mass of the body, and allows the
comparison between the masses of subjects having
different stature.
Body mass depends not only on the percent
muscle mass, percent fat, bone density, bone diameters,
ingested food and water, etc.. It is also largely affected by
stature.
If we could reduce a subject's stature to 1 m, using
a "miniaturizer" such as that imagined by Isaac Asimov in
a famous science fiction book, reducing by the same
proportion the dimensions of all the segments as well, the
subject's volume and mass would both shrink
proportionally to the cube of stature. So, I have no idea
why they used the square stature to define the so called
"body mass index", which is being frequently used since a
long time ago. Do you happen to know why?
After such treatment, this 1m tall subject would
have a mass exactly equal to his normalized body mass
(e.g. 13.3 Kg for the average female diver).
By mathematically shrinking all my subjects to a
stature of 1 m, I can more efectively compare their mass.
The larger the normalized body mass, the larger the
percent muscle mass, fat mass, etc..
Do you agree?
Thanks for your attention.
With the warmest regards,
__________ _________ ___________~___ ________ _________________~___
/ ~ ~ ~ ~ \
/______________~______~__________ _______~_____~______________~_____~_____\
| Paolo de Leva ~ \ Tel.+ FAX: (39-6) 575.40.81 |
| Istituto Superiore di Educazione Fisica > other FAX: (39-6) 361.30.65 |
| Biomechanics Lab / |
| Via di Villa Pepoli, 4 < INTERNET e-mail address: |
| 00153 ROME - ITALY \ deLEVA@RISCcics.Ing.UniRoma1.IT |
|_____________________~________~__________________ __________________ _____|
challenging entropy :-)