Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
Keep it beefy
New member
explanation:
the problem with the concept in the other thread is that height is LBM/height is a square function.
for illustrative purposes, we'll say height is our characteristic dimension
.
cross-sectional area is proportional to y^2 (i.e. pi*r^2 in circles).
volume is proportional to y^3 (i.e. 4/3*pi*r^3 in spheres).
and weight is proportional to volume via a constant, density.
so, if you look at someone who is tall, and consider their LBM/height, you are considering the parameters y^3/y.
what does that mean? it means that the ratio, LBM/height, is proportional to y^2, which means that people who are taller have a distinctive advantage. in other words, they'll weigh more per unit height, but they won't look bigger per unit height. so short guys get jipped.
if you want to make the calculation more fair, divide your LBM by height cubed, or LBM/(height)^3. that way, you get a dimensionless quantity that isn't biased. i.e. LBM/height would no longer dimensionalize to y^2, but rather, a constant. which is what we're looking for.
i can already see the pseudo-scholars complaining,''you're wrong...you can't just use the dimension of height for you're characteristic variable. shutup. " in actuality, you can. whether we chose to use width, depth or height, it doesn't matter. what you'd find is that the taller someone gets, on average, the wider they get, and the deeper they get. and volume will always be cubically related, regardless of shape. so whichever variable we choose, it will work out to a ratio of y^2, or x^2 (say, nominally for width), or z^2 (say nominally for depth).
so, in conclusion, let's use 10000*LBM/(height^3).
LBM is lean body mass in pounds (weight * (1-bf%) bodyfat should be a decimal, i.e. 12% = 0.12), height in inches. the 10000 is to make the answer a single digit, as opposed to #*10^-4.
i'm 240, my bf is 8-9%, height 71.5.
10000 * 240 (1-0.08)/(71.5^3) = 6.04
-beef
the problem with the concept in the other thread is that height is LBM/height is a square function.
for illustrative purposes, we'll say height is our characteristic dimension
. cross-sectional area is proportional to y^2 (i.e. pi*r^2 in circles).
volume is proportional to y^3 (i.e. 4/3*pi*r^3 in spheres).
and weight is proportional to volume via a constant, density.
so, if you look at someone who is tall, and consider their LBM/height, you are considering the parameters y^3/y.
what does that mean? it means that the ratio, LBM/height, is proportional to y^2, which means that people who are taller have a distinctive advantage. in other words, they'll weigh more per unit height, but they won't look bigger per unit height. so short guys get jipped.
if you want to make the calculation more fair, divide your LBM by height cubed, or LBM/(height)^3. that way, you get a dimensionless quantity that isn't biased. i.e. LBM/height would no longer dimensionalize to y^2, but rather, a constant. which is what we're looking for.
i can already see the pseudo-scholars complaining,''you're wrong...you can't just use the dimension of height for you're characteristic variable. shutup. " in actuality, you can. whether we chose to use width, depth or height, it doesn't matter. what you'd find is that the taller someone gets, on average, the wider they get, and the deeper they get. and volume will always be cubically related, regardless of shape. so whichever variable we choose, it will work out to a ratio of y^2, or x^2 (say, nominally for width), or z^2 (say nominally for depth).
so, in conclusion, let's use 10000*LBM/(height^3).
LBM is lean body mass in pounds (weight * (1-bf%) bodyfat should be a decimal, i.e. 12% = 0.12), height in inches. the 10000 is to make the answer a single digit, as opposed to #*10^-4.
i'm 240, my bf is 8-9%, height 71.5.
10000 * 240 (1-0.08)/(71.5^3) = 6.04
-beef
......j/k ofcourse.....good luck getting these bros to calc that formula!! A bunch couldn't even get mine!!......
