What's your Allometric Index?

[toh6wy]

75.3 kg and 1.79 m --> about 13.1

 

[Ayatollah So]

I'm physically phat!

I could stand to lose a few kg of fat. 89 kg and 1.8 m, index 15.1.

 

[schmiddi]

13,71 (10)

 

[cgannon64]

10 .

 

[colony]

About 16 (roughly 6' 3" and 105kg, yep I'm one of those annoying big people who's always standing in front of you somewhere )

 

[Yom]

About 12.5 here.

 

[Atlas14]

Im lost...

 

[sanabas]

BMI ~36, BMI/height ~19. 1.90m, 130kg (6'3", 288 for USians). According to BMI I'm way up in the obese range, to actually get my mass to the upper bound of BMI's 'healthy' range I'd have to get super fit and then waste 20+kg of muscle mass away. Not a healthy way to get 'healthy'

 

[JohnRM]

The Radioactive Monkey steals my food.

 

[la cosa nostra]

13.3

74 kilos @ 1.77m

 

[Syterion]

13 flat. I'm 67 kilos and 1.72 m. I still don't know how this solves the problem. Doesn't BMI take height into consideration? Is taking the cube that much better than the square? I thought the real problem is that BMI doesn't differentiate between muscle mass and fat mass. And TLC, I never thought of you as a muscular guy.

 

[The Last Conformist]

13 flat. I'm 67 kilos and 1.72 m. I still don't know how this solves the problem. Doesn't BMI take height into consideration? Is taking the cube that much better than the square? I thought the real problem is that BMI doesn't differentiate between muscle mass and fat mass. And TLC, I never thought of you as a muscular guy.

As already said, this isn't meant to tell you anything about your body fat percentage of whether you should slim. The neat thing with this measure is that it is invariant under linear scaling.

However, the perverse scaling properties of BMI as described in the OP simply has to be part of the "big strong men" problem with the BMI scale. A taller person needs to have proportionally more muscle mass to move herself around, but to maintain her BMI should have less.

 

[cgannon64]

Why did you use the female pronoun there?

 

[farting bob]

After checking my weight i can confirm what i always knew. Im underweight for my height.
i scored 11.8 in your thing TLC

 

[The Last Conformist]

Why did you use the female pronoun there?

Because persona is feminine in Latin.

 

[luiz]

I'm too lazy to figure this out, you're gonna have to design an online allometric calculator.

To the benefit of people who don't know how to use a calculator, I made a program that calculates your allometric index. I made it with 8 lines on Pascal so it is very very simple, but nonetheless should help the severely mathematically-challenged CFC posters.

 

[classical_hero]

I am overwieght. I am 15.5

 

[Syterion]

As already said, this isn't meant to tell you anything about your body fat percentage of whether you should slim. The neat thing with this measure is that it is invariant under linear scaling.

However, the perverse scaling properties of BMI as described in the OP simply has to be part of the "big strong men" problem with the BMI scale. A taller person needs to have proportionally more muscle mass to move herself around, but to maintain her BMI should have less.

Could you describe the advantage of being invariant under linear scaling and what that means?

 

[Chairman Meow]

3.48x10^17



... if I'm a neutron star with mass 1.4 times the mass of the sun (1.98892 × 10^30 kilograms, according to Google) and a diameter of 20 km.

(My actual result was 16.8)

 

[The Last Conformist]

Could you describe the advantage of being invariant under linear scaling and what that means?

What it means: That it remains the same if you're scaled up. Imagine that you suddenly were twice as tall, but kept your shape. You're BMI would explode, but your allometric index would remain the same.

The advantage: It behaves as one'd would naively expect a measure of the height-weight relationship would. One would, after all, not expect that two people with equal fat and muscle body mass percentages would have different BMI just because the one is taller than the other. Their allometric indices would be the same.