Monday, November 05, 2007

BMI Update

Okay so having whinged enough about how rubbish BMI is, I decided to come up with a better version.

The trouble with BMI is that it only takes your mass and your height. Mass is determined by volume & density, not length.

So making a few assumptions, I've come up with a new index. It can be calculated as follows (Using inches and lbs):

1. Take your hat size (Circumferance of your skull at your forehead) and divide it by pi (3.14).
2. Multiply it by your shoulder width (Try to measure along the top of your shoulders).
3. Multiply this by your height.

You now have a crude measurement of your skelatal volume. Although your actual volume will fluctuate as you lose or gain weight, this is based on fairly static measurements so it should stay the same - the shoulder width may vary slightly.
It isn't accurate to your real volume obviously as your width and depth vary across your body and different people have different shapes.
If you have an disproportionate head for example then this won't give you a fair reflection of your total volume. But it's better than just using height alone.

To obtain my body mass index (I call it a BMV) do the following:

4. Measure your mass in lbs.
5. Divide it by your crude skelatal volume.
6. Multiply it by 1000.

I've no idea what scores are good/bad as it has only been done on myself and my wife - and we're both on a diet at the moment. I figure if more people do it combined with accurate body fat analysis so that we know if they are fat/skinny/ok, then some benchmarking might be possible.

It will never be as reliable as good old fashioned body fat analysis but surely it has to be better than BMI?

1 Comments:

At 4:45 pm, Blogger Sasha Novacesta said...

I must agree. BMI does not at all take into account that some folks are just naturally bigger or smaller than others in terms other than height. Two persons of same gender, height and percentage of body fat may have considerable differences in their weights based on the sizes of their frames, as well as musculature. BMI is far too simplified to be truly meaningful.

Your method seems like it might be better, but I'm not sure why hat size is part of it. I would guess that shoulder width and some form of measuring the rib cage would be a better method. In any case, you are right in that skeletal volume seems like the key metric that should be compared to weight.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home