A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Kids Health
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Rising Obesity in Children Prompts Call to Action



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 29th 03, 06:19 AM
PF Riley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rising Obesity in Children Prompts Call to Action

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 07:33:49 -0700, "D. C. Sessions"
wrote:

In , Tsu Dho Nimh wrote:

Adult formula:
BMI = ( Weight in Pounds /(Height in inches squared) x 703


This implies that for constant BMI, you get proportionately
skinnier as you get taller. That's a good formula for joint
health, but constant proportion would be height cubed.


Actually, that would be based on the assumption that as one gets
taller, one should also get wider, which isn't necessarily true. And a
more appropriate rough approximation of the humanoid shape is a
cylinder, not a cube. In that case, there is height L and radius R, so
that body mass is proportional to (L*R^2)/2, instead of a cube of
length X where body mass is proportional to X^3. In other words, there
is not just one variable with an exponent of 3.

Even taking this further, biological scaling is rather complex and
does not typically follow simple Euclidean geometry anyway. For
example, many physiologic functions scale to the 3/4 power of body
mass across the spectrum of living things.

PF
  #2  
Old August 30th 03, 04:58 AM
D. C. Sessions
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rising Obesity in Children Prompts Call to Action

In , PF Riley wrote:

Actually, that would be based on the assumption that as one gets
taller, one should also get wider, which isn't necessarily true. And a
more appropriate rough approximation of the humanoid shape is a
cylinder, not a cube. In that case, there is height L and radius R, so
that body mass is proportional to (L*R^2)/2, instead of a cube of
length X where body mass is proportional to X^3. In other words, there
is not just one variable with an exponent of 3.


Shape doesn't matter as long as the proportions don't change.

Even taking this further, biological scaling is rather complex and
does not typically follow simple Euclidean geometry anyway. For
example, many physiologic functions scale to the 3/4 power of body
mass across the spectrum of living things.


Yup -- that's thermodynamics. Because of the need to get rid of
heat, metabolic functions go up with surface area (x**2) instead
of mass (x**3) so that even with constant proportion, you get
(m**0.67).

Add the fact that hydrostatic pressure drives added mass towards
horizontal rather than vertical growth, and the mechanics of
joint strength [1] drives bone and joint size to go up faster
than height.

The net result is that an optimized body tends towards a mass
of greater than h**3.

[1] Joint load (second moment) goes up at about h**4, while
joint strength goes up at most as r**3, so joints get
wider somewhat faster than limbs get longer.

--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
end
  #3  
Old September 3rd 03, 12:25 AM
al gu
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rising Obesity in Children Prompts Call to Action

microsoft children
micro activities making soft kids.


PF Riley wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 07:33:49 -0700, "D. C. Sessions"
wrote:

In , Tsu Dho Nimh wrote:

Adult formula:
BMI = ( Weight in Pounds /(Height in inches squared) x 703


This implies that for constant BMI, you get proportionately
skinnier as you get taller. That's a good formula for joint
health, but constant proportion would be height cubed.


Actually, that would be based on the assumption that as one gets
taller, one should also get wider, which isn't necessarily true. And a
more appropriate rough approximation of the humanoid shape is a
cylinder, not a cube. In that case, there is height L and radius R, so
that body mass is proportional to (L*R^2)/2, instead of a cube of
length X where body mass is proportional to X^3. In other words, there
is not just one variable with an exponent of 3.

Even taking this further, biological scaling is rather complex and
does not typically follow simple Euclidean geometry anyway. For
example, many physiologic functions scale to the 3/4 power of body
mass across the spectrum of living things.

PF



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
HALF OF KIDS IN FOSTER CARE NEEDLESSLY Malev General 0 December 12th 03 04:53 PM
| | Kids should work... Kane General 13 December 10th 03 03:30 AM
Kids should work. LaVonne Carlson General 22 December 7th 03 05:27 AM
Helping Your Child Be Healthy and Fit sX3#;WA@'U John Smith Kids Health 0 July 20th 03 04:50 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.