4 ms·
A simple quadratic model would suggest a 60% weight increase of the 38" over the 30". That's enormous.
by snovv_crash 4y ago
A simple quadratic model would suggest a 60% weight increase of the 38" over the 30". That's enormous.
- yellowapple 4y agoA "simple quadratic model" is about as appropriate for extrapolating human weight from human dimensions as a microwave is appropriate for cooking steak.
- snovv_crash 4y agoDefinitely not optimal but it gets the job done? /s Do you have any better model to recommend?
- yellowapple 4y agoNot really; indeed, my point is that body metrics are surprisingly difficult to model given the wide variances. You could probably get closer to an accurate model by identifying the fixed weight of an adult's skin/bones/organs. Going from critically emaciated to fit would mostly entail adding muscle, which is denser than fat. From there, the proportion of added muscle v. added fat when increasing waist circumference would be the deciding factor in accurately estimating weight; that proportion is highly dependent on the individual and one's level of daily activity.
- porknubbins 4y agoFrom the bodybuilding literature I’ve seen weight and body part circumference changes are a little more linear than what you’re suggesting. Though there may be some people who you can model as spheres.
- snovv_crash 4y agoSpheres would be cubic, we're just talking about cylinders here. And the difference between the 30" and 38" waist will be mostly by better approximating a cylinder at the waistline, the underlying skeletal structure isn't changing much.